TGJB---
I agreed with your assessment of SAND SPRINGS in Saturday\'s Diana.
I also thought she had a big shot from the rail, assuming she would run back to her 2 prior performance ratings.
One aspect may have been overlooked and it specifically applies to turf racing, especially at the Grade 1 or 2 level.
Perhaps just as important when evaluating a grass race are 3 critical factors:
1) late speed; 2)endurance at the distance and 3) class.
At the Grade 1 level, SAND SPRINGS did not qualify on all 3 factors.
Your thoughts on this.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I don\'t believe in class, and I don\'t think handicapping factors come into play in GI\'s that don\'t in other races, at least not the ones you mentioned. In general, stake races don\'t collapse, barring unusual circumstances (the track in this year\'s Derby, for example), but I don\'y look at pace or \"endurance\" any differently.
Speaking of the Derby, I almost forgot, because I\'ve been a little busy-- but we are of course still waiting for Friedman\'s answer to the direct question of the beaten lengths Ragozin used for that race. Seriously, I think even the diehards have figured out by now that they screwed it up, Freidman lied when he said they checked it and found no error, and they have left it uncorrected rather than admit it. But here\'s the thing, guys, especially the ones who think I\'m being a bad guy for pointing all this out:
Once I brought it up they certainly checked, so the guys in the Ragozin office know what the mistake was, and therefore know what the \"right\" figures for the horses in that race are. There are in effect two sets of Ragozin figures for the Derby-- the ones you use, and the ones they use.
TGJB---
We\'ll agree to disagree, and leave it at that. However, I respect any knowledgeable player\'s opinion.
Thanks for your response. Hopefully this gets a small discusion going.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I will add my two cents. I say up front that gambling is my hobby and not my profession, so I realize that JB has more of a foundation for his opinions. But after using the T-Graph figures on and off for 6 months, and also buying the occasional T-Graph analysis, I think JB\'s answer points out what I consider a major flaw with T-Graph. This reliance on what they perceive as infallible figures often leads them to leave out other handicapping angles, several of which you mention. I would venture that 90% of handicappers would agree that late pace in turf races and class or \"company lines\" are important factors in handicapping. I would even concede that T-graph\'s numbers may be the best. But simply betting the fastest horse on their numbers without factoring pace scenario, class, track bias, \"horse for the course\", current form, etc.etc. is a major flaw.
Being a good figure maker and a good handicapper are not the same thing. I am not saying that JB or any other T-Graph handicapper aren\'t good, but after buying the sheets and the analsysis, I can honestly say that I personally like the figures but find the analysis product one to be avoided. Granted, I have only bought it about 25 times, so my sample isn\'t great, but they are cashing 8% of the races I have bought. Whereas, using the figures have led me to include horses in my exotics and other bets that I otherwise would not have used and have helped incredibly.
Just another opinion......
Everything else aside, you clearly haven\'t been looking at the analysis since Sar and Dmr opened.
The pevious pair of figures (2) range did not seem legit from beyers, brisnet.I did not have the RAG #\'s. Not resulting,but horses with real competitive/ superior numbers rarely get away at 17-1.Were the pair of 2\'s correct?
Yes. And the price was a result of the strength of the field, the fact that those two big figures were losses in seemingly weaker races, and her stinker last out before this. She went off about what I figured she would, which is why she was value. But it turned out that last race was meaningful.
By the way, if the two good ones were 2 points slower, would this result have made any more sense? She ran a stinker, for the second time in a row-- somethings wrong.
Miff--
I think we have to assume that they are correct. I did not question the #\'s when handicapping the race.
But in response to your comment....I was with a group of 10 pretty knowledgeable handicappers and they all dismissed SS because \"she didn\'t class up.\"
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Jerry- you asked me to remind you re adding 2d time turf to the tg figures. When will you be up again. rmr
Forwarded your idea (along with another idea someone else had) to George, he\'s doing a whole lot of other stuff for us right now, we\'ll see when he gets to it. I\'m going up next Wed night.
How do you explain Mr.O\'Brien not having enough class to win a GR 2 on the Preakness undercard?? I don\'t have the file handy, but he ran a big figure in his last race (1.5??) which I think was an allowance race. My non-TG buddies dismissed this horse as not having anough class. A $24 mutuel and a $1500 Pick 4 later, they wanted to know how could I play that horse?? Same thing with Royal Assault in the previous race (although on dirt). I singled him in the P4, they thought I was nuts...again, not enough class they said.
Jerry, I\'ve learned over the years to trust your numbers. A friend of mine, a very casual player, piggybacks every pick I make when he knows I have TG for the day. Volponi made me a legend in his eyes ( I know, his standards aren\'t very high). One of the best things about using TG is that horses that have a great chance to win are often hidden to those that don\'t use TG. Think about this......when a horse wins his first graded stakes race, he did it with no success at that level previously (at least as far as wins).
Jimbo- totally agree with your view and opinion on this thread. I have requested JB let us know when he authors the analysis as I have repeatedly had \"mucho problemo\" understanding the analysis based on the product explanation of the figures...JB - despite your response, and as you always correctly point out - one week does not an expert make!
ONe more request to TG - please make the author of the analysis known prior to purchase. You really do get what you pay for , in MHO.
A couple of quick points, I\'m going home--
Volponi-- curious to know if anyone has read the new Joe McGinness (sp?) book about P.G. and Volponi that just came out. Horse racing may hit the mainstream yet.
Analysis-- we\'ll think about listing who does it, which would involve some programming, but I gotta tell you, Alan\'s been killing them, as those in California listening to Jason Levin\'s radio show know. Last week he gave out (among other things) a 3 horse box at DMR that ran 1-2-3, with the tri paying over a thousand.
Festival Express-- if you have a pulse, and like 60\'s/70\'s music, go see it. Janis, Buddy Guy, the Dead, The Band, and others, on a train and doing shows in 1970.
Yes JB, I have been buying the T-Graph analysis product for Saratoga and Delmar. Not every day, as I can\'t play the ponies every day. So I realize my selected sample could just reflect my own bad luck in choosing the wrong days to purchase. However, since you brought up Delmar and Saratoga, I would like to use yesterday\'s Delmar analysis to make my point about T-Graph not using other angles to make selections, which IMHO hurts the product (the analysis product).
Race 3: Off of some excellent figures from last year, T-Graph recommends taking Hurricane Smoke at 3-1 or better. I won\'t address the fact that looking for 3-1 or better on the 2-1 morning line favorite is a bit unrealistic. Here are the \"handicapping\" angles that the analysis ignored when making the selection (in my opinion). First, the horse was running in allowance races and 60k claimers last summer, giving FJ Pace and Mighty Beau all they could handle. Now off of the 9 month layoff, the horse is entered for 16k. Not a \"positive\" from the perspective that the connections are willing to give the horse away for that kind of money. Second, how does he win the race with the pace scenario? He figures to have to win from the lead, and Beyond our Wildest is definitely as quick and Rapidough is possibly as quick. Conventional handicapping tells me that there is a guaranteed speed duel. To conclude, how do I take 2-1 odds on a horse that the connections are giving up on and is expected to be part of a 3 horse duel for the lead.
Race 5 - T-Graph recommends taking It\'s a Perfect Day off of some good figures running sprints on the dirt. Good figures on the dirt sprinting don\'t necessarily equate to good figures on the turf going long. So here is the \"bet\". We are hoping that the horse likes the turf, hoping that he likes two turns and hoping that he likes the distance. Even if all those hopes are true, there are two more OBVIOUS problems. Anybody watching the Delmar races this year knows that not a single turf race at the 1 1/16 distance has been won by a frontrunner. The track is tremendously biased towards closers. Perfect Day figures to be a frontrunner. To make it worse, the race figures to have a contested pace. So our bet is to take a horse going long for the first time, two turns for the first time, grass for the first time, against the track bias and fighting for a contested lead. All because he had some good figures on dirt sprinting?
Race 6 - In a non-appealing five horse race, T-Graph recommends using Genie Magic with La Perfecta. Handicapping 101 tells me that loose on the lead speed is extremely dangerous. On top of that, those watching Delmar will know that speed in sprints has been playing very very well. Nichole\'s Delight is the only horse with a hint of early speed. Yes, her T-Graph figures don\'t quite match up, but as the clear speed in a 5 horse race, on a speed favoring strip, she is a must use at 7-2. La Perfecta was claimed for 32k by a good trainer and is entered for 16k. Not a positive sign. Another \"angle\" that is ignored by just using pure T-Graph numbers without any thought to other angles.
Race 7- We played the speed on the turf course again with Gene de Campaeo. Ran a good race, but couldn\'t overcome the bias.
I realize it is easy to \"redboard\" and criticize selections after the fact. But I can honestly say that I couldn\'t play any of these horses that T-Graph recommended above because the picks ignored the \"handicapping 101\" angles I mentioned. (I did play Gene de Campaeo, because I didn\'t expect him on the lead)
Obviously, I can\'t say I \"hate\" the product, because I did buy it. And it helped me hit with Touchdown USA in the 8th, a horse I would not have played on my own. I just think that the product could be better if the handicappers didn\'t blindly play the figures and did some handicapping as well.
Jimbo
I am not even sure what it means to \"...blindly play the figures...\"
Does that mean key the lowest number and play the next two or three behind?
I thought TG Sheets were just a tool to use as support for your own handicapping of each race, and to identify value you might otherwise overlook.
I did the DMR analysis myself.
Race 3-- Hurricane Smoke wasn\'t in for 16, he was in for 25-- I wouldn\'t have used him off that severe a drop. The major reason I used the horse wasn\'t simply that he was fastest-- West gets at least a paired top slightly more than half the time off extended layoffs, and wins 23% of the time, and some of those are presumably when he does NOT have the fastest horse by two points, after adjusting for weight. As for the pace \"factor\"-- the horse that battled him for the lead all the way lost the race in the last jump, so the pace didn\'t seem to hurt him too much.
Race 5-- I picked It\'s A Perfect Day not because of his numbers, which were only fair, but because In Excess\'s TGI is two points better for grass than for dirt. I generally am not in love with betting horses first time grass, but with this evenly matched group and the chance for a move up it seemed like the right play, especially as he drew inside all the other contenders. As for the \"bias\", I don\'t know whether your stat is true, and don\'t believe in an anti-speed bias in any case. The horse may not want grass and he may not want a distance, but I discount THAT PARTICULAR bias completely.
Race 6-- The play in the race was Genie Magic, for a lot of reasons, and the thinking was that IF SHE RUNS, the one to worry about was La Perfecta, hence protecting under her. It\'s not about liking her (of course I saw the drop), it\'s about making sure you cash if your price horse runs the way you think she will. Lone speed is an advantage (ground loss), but you are free to post here in advance telling me when one appears, and we\'ll see how they do if they don\'t look good on TG over a significant sampling.
Race 7-- First of all, we cashed this race, and second, we assumed Drysdale would run just the other half of the entry (why run Sarafan back for small money on short rest)? But you have to be kidding-- the 9-1 shot we picked beats everyone except the 3/5 Sarafan, and you think it was the bias that beat him?
Feel free to post the races you disagree with (and the reasons) here before the races are run. I would prefer you did it without mentioning names, and I\'ll address the reasoning after the races are run.
Hey, Im a Ragozin user, but honestly, I enjoy the insight and info on both boards so I frequent both of them. My use of Rags is not a commentary on TG, I was just exposed to Rags in my youthful days (teen years) and have been a user ever since. I have never used TG but Im sure they are effective as well. I also do not involve myself in the bickering between the two boards. It is really not my place. Im just looking for an edge, and I think both sheets probably give that edge. This is my first time posting on this board and I first want to thank members of both boards for continuing to post such refreshing and insightful stuff. Keep it coming.
As for Sand Springs, the idea of the last number being significant makes sense. As JB said \"something\'s wrong\". But is must also be noted that this race was run in a torrential rain storm on an already soaked course. The poor effort could be a sign of immediate decline, but it could also be just another case of a horse running poorly under harsh weather conditions. It could even be a little bit of both, only time will tell. My point is that if the original poster was looking for a race to bring up \"other\" handicapping factors, he probably should have used a different race, one that wasn\'t run in a monsoon. Let\'s just hope Intercontinental is still on course for the BC. My future bets in Vegas depend on her.
Overlays to all and to all a good night!!!
-Bull
http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=57921
JB, this is the bias you don\'t believe in.
BULL,(RAGS Ist TIME POSTER)
Do you recall what the last 3 #s were for Sand springs on the RAGS.Thanks
Bull--
I\'m the \"original poster\" and my feeling is that the results would have been no different had the race been run on Mars.
If something was \"wrong\" with SAND SPRINGS than how did she manage to miss second by a couple of lengths while beating half the field including your BC future horse. The answer is she probably ran her race but wasn\'t classy enough to outkick the winner, RISKAVERSE and OCEAN DRIVE.
By the way, only MIESQUE type fillies win the BC mile and INTERCONTINENTAL is no MIESQUE.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I said something was wrong with Sand Springs because she ran her second number in a row that was at least 5 points off her top, and healthy stake horses-- especially grass horses-- don\'t do that. She got beat 10 lengths (4 1/2 for sedcond), and if she had run back to her top she would have been second-- the winner ran a slight new top, and saved ground.
But I do love your logic. Other fillies ran worse, so she must have run her race. Why make figures?
I saw the article about the DMR bias. First of all, it says 2 out of 20 frontrunners won, not zero as you had said. Second, if the average number of horses in a race is 7, horses who race on the lead should win 1 out of 7 races (as a practical matter they win more often than that because the lead is an advantage). So let\'s say the right percentage is 25-- meaning 5 wins would be an average result. The deviation is nowhere near statistically significant, particularly given the small sample.
The way we check for biases-- and we do it for the dead rails-- is by looking to see not whether horses win, but what numbers they ran. And no, I\'m not going to go back and see what numbers all the frontrunners ran. If at the end of the meet the statistics are extreme, I might. But it should be pretty obvious that the one we picked who ran second to Sarafan ran very well FOR HIM, even though he lost.
Hey Joe B.
I really don\'t want to start a class discussion on here, but I was just saying that the horse could have thrown in a bad effort given the torrential thunderstorm that was going on during the race. Your analysis is that she was outclassed, TGJB\'s analysis was that something is obviously wrong with the horse. I didn\'t post to comment that either of you were right or wrong, I was just suggesting another alternative; sometimes horses that look ready to run well (by whatever methods you use) throw in an off effort during adverse weather conditions. I could be wrong too(won\'t be the first time, and won\'t be the last either), but I was just putting another spin on the race.
As far as the last 3 Rag numbers go, I didn\'t have the sheets for Saturday.... unfortunately a relative passed away and I had to attend the funeral, but I did make it home in time to catch the race on TV. And my Intercontinental future bets were for the Filly and Mare Turf, it was just a small wager. Im banking on Frankel realizing that the Mile would be too tough (like you said) and opt for the F+M Turf. Being out of Danehill, I see no reason she shouldn\'t get the distance. Frankel stretching her out to 9 furlongs shows what his intentions are to me. I was excited to see 50/1 on Seattle Fitz for the classic too. Here\'s hoping he runs well tomorrow!!!
Overlays to all and to all a good night!!!
-Bull
Bull---
I\'m not convinced something\'s wrong with the horse. TGJB has his opinions and I respect that...I just don\'t always agree with them.
I think horses run better figures when they are properly placed. When they are outclassed, they will inevitably run poorer numbers...it does not always indicate the horse has gone sour. But that\'s my opinion...shared by some but not all.
As for INTERCONTINENTAL, I think the jury is still out on if she can get a mile and an eight. Firm ground will be a better indicator. Good luck with your future wager.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Joe B.
Like I said, the class handicapping discussion is for another day. I don\'t factor in class at all basically, but that\'s my preference. I also am not POSITIVE there is something wrong with the horse either, TGJB has made a good case though. All we know is the horse ran an off race figure wise for some reason, whether that was declining form or the adverse weather or whatever. As I said, I didn\'t have Rags or TG for the race, so I can\'t comment as effectively as I could. I enjoyed the discussion however, and you\'re right, the jury is still out on Intercontinental. We\'ll have to wait and see. She is no Miesque, but thanks for the well wishes anyway. Good luck to all!!!
Overlays to all and to all a goodnight!!
-Bull
JB,
At one point, speed on the turf was 0 for 17 at 1 1/16 on the turf. Since then, there have been 2 winners.
As for the other post, I certainly don\'t want to buy your analysis to criticize your opinions and post on your board when I think you are wrong. I don\'t want to discredit T-Graph. I have never used a Ragozin sheet in my life and I do think your product adds value to a handicapper.
I was simply pointing out what I believe to be true. That the T-Graph numbers, in combination with solid handicapping, is the best chance for success. And I do believe, from my admittedly limited sample, that the Analysis product does ignore some of what I personally consider to be valid handicapping angles.
Your comments about track bias are strange to me. 17 races at the same distance is not a significant sample? I couldn\'t disagree more. Biases can change. If you wait for 100 races to have significant statistical foundation, the course will have changed many times. Sun-baked turf courses, drying out muddy tracks, sloppy speed highways like on Derby day this year, dead rails at sandy Belmont. Are you saying you believe in none of them?
And saying you don\'t believe in class either? I have a question for you, what about company lines? For example, if you had a horse who ran an inferior T-Graph figure when he pressed a quality speed horse in a 50k claimer before fading late after sharp fractions. And then the horse he pressed the lead against comes back and wins again at the next level (say 75 claimer). When the original horse comes back and runs next time against a horse who ran a better T-Graph number, getting a contested pace to close into in his last start (which was against cheaper). Are you saying you don\'t factor in that the horse \"A\" pressed strong fractions against a repeat winner (causing his fade and lousy T-Graph number).
It would be a better question if I would research an example, but I don\'t have one handy and am just looking for your general \"rule\" on this.
Thanks
Im going to be leaving soon for the weekend, so I\'m not going to get into a long discussion about this, but
1-- Assuming you are right about the 0 for 17, and the DRF is right about the 2 for 20, does the recent 2 for 3 mean we now have a speed bias? If you viewed the 17 as being significant, you would not have done well on the next three.
Again-- we check for biases not on the basis of wins (unless it is a VERY big sampling, where things will even out), but by looking at the figures the horses run.
2-- I didn\'t mention Ragozin, and didn\'t think you used his product.
3-- Your examples mix together pace and class. I don\'t have as firm an opinion about pace, but I absolutely place no credence in class. Period.
Doesn\'t Modern Class come in a syringe?
Jimbo66,
I know this is responding to a \"stale\" post but I thought I might add in my 2 cents worth.
When it comes to making a bet I like to say that \"If it\'s in the DRF, it\'s in the odds.\"
By that, I mean that if you apply \"handicapping 101\" to come up with the most likely winner (and you know what you are doing) then, guess what - you can probably come up with the most likely winner. (i.e., For the most part, the conventional wisdom is sound).
That\'s great if you want to cash tickets and you want to be \"right\" as often as possible. Unfortunatley, just about everyone else can do the same (and does) and you will lose money (long term) betting on such horses (regardless of how creatively you bet).
To make money long term you either have to be VERY selective or you have to be willing to reduce your \"hit rate\" in order to raise your ROI. You have to find a horse that might not be the most likely winner but who is undervalued by the betting public at large, which pretty much by definition means you have to find a horse that probably does not figure simply by applying Handicapping 101.
Also, keep in mind that \"Handicapping 101\" is evolving all the time - speed figures, pace analysis (early and late), trips, even the \"bounce\" all are part of \"Handicapping 101\" today but were not 30 years ago.
I am not defending the TG analysis but to find value you are almost always playing horses that have some apparent \"negative\" factor(s) in terms of \"handicapping 101.\" You are also going to be wrong much more often than you are right; however, you also have a chance at long-term profitability (assuming that you really are capable of consistently identifying value BEFORE the race, which is much easier said than done).
In pari-mutual wagering, you certainly need to take into account fundamentals and the \"accepted wisdom\" but going against it sometimes can be a very good thing.
As Albert Einstein once said, \"Common sense is nothing but a collection of misconceptions acquired by age 18.\"
Chris