Threads · published · SYS-jumping-error-that-cost-nothing
System: Jumping error in the remark that cost no ground (expected to disappoint)
- Hypotheses
- 1 (1 alive)
- Depth
- 0
- Best rung
- Shadow
- Open questions
- 0
- Last activity
- 16 Oct, 23:51
Where it stands: forward A/E 0.0 on 0 bets, SP ROI None%, BSP ROI None% (p None)
The notebook
In order: what the lab saw, what it asked, what it proposed and why, what the tests said, and what an investigator concluded. Numbers are aggregates on the discovery data unless a step says otherwise.
Hypothesised15 Oct, 23:10
System: Jumping error in the remark that cost no ground (expected to disappoint) SHADOW
because A NEGATIVE flag, not a bet. A chaser beaten last time with a jumping error in its remark, yet in the better half of its field for ground gained at the fences. The remark gives it an excuse the figures do not support, and such horses won less often than their prices implied (0.90 on 862 runs in the year it was looked at). NOT PUBLISHED: followed forward to see whether the story is over-forgiven.
race_type = 'Chase' AND last_race_type = 'Chase' AND last_position > 1 AND last_jumping_error = 1 AND last_ground_gained_pct >= 0.5
made by import
Promoted15 Oct, 23:10
System: Jumping error in the remark that cost no ground (expected to disappoint) Falsification → FROZENimport: frozen
Promoted15 Oct, 23:10
System: Jumping error in the remark that cost no ground (expected to disappoint) Frozen → SHADOWimport: followed forward from 2026-10-15, not shown on the site
Tested15 Oct, 23:21
forward check refused. error
Zone: forward. On System: Jumping error in the remark that cost no ground (expected to disappoint)
Tested16 Oct, 23:51
forward vs bar {'min_bets': 100, 'min_ae': 1.0, 'max_p': 0.2} on 0 bets. info
Zone: forward. On System: Jumping error in the remark that cost no ground (expected to disappoint)
Where it started
A NEGATIVE flag, not a bet. A chaser beaten last time with a jumping error in its remark, yet in the better half of its field for ground gained at the fences. The remark gives it an excuse the figures do not support, and such horses won less often than their prices implied (0.90 on 862 runs in the year it was looked at). NOT PUBLISHED: followed forward to see whether the story is over-forgiven.