Okay, I only get to do this a couple of times of year, when everyone is focused on the same horses, so I\'ll make time. What follows has nothing to do with any opinions I might or might not have for the BC.
According to Ragozin--
Society Solection won the Test, a GI at Saratoga, by 6 1/4 lengths, racing wide-- no matter whose figures you use, she ran 5 points better than the second filly, and 9 better than the third filly. He gave her only a 6, not even a lifetime top for her to that point. In fact, he gave her 3 points WORSE than he gave Stellar Jayne for running third in the Indiana Oaks at Hoosier.
Anyone believe that?
We gave her a negative number for the Test, and miraculously she basically paired it to win the Alabama. Ragozin had her jumping forward off the non-effort.
Ragozin has Balletto going forward 5 points from the Matron to the Frizette (we have her basically pairing, going back slightly). In other words, according to Ragozin, if Baletto had run that race (which was only good enough to win a close race against Ready\'s Gal and Sis City) one race earlier, she would have beaten Sense Of Style by 8 lengths in the Matron.
Anyone believe that? That those 3 fillies all ran races good enough to slaughter Sense Of Style in the Matron?
Ragozin has Mr. O\'Brien winning the Kelso last time with a race almost six points off his top (we have it close to his top). That race went in 1:32:3. In other words, if he had run his top, he would have gone a mile in 1:31 flat, and beat those horses by 10 lengths.
That seem likely?
Nothing To Lose ran a lot of good races over the summer, trading close decisions with Silver Tree, among others. In the Shadwell Mile, he raced very wide both turns, and despite that blew out a good field (that included Silver Tree) by 4 1/2 lengths. Beyer gave him a 110 despite not factoring in the 126 he carried or the enormous ground loss. He earned a figure 3 points better than the second horse, 5 points better than Silver Tree, no matter whether you used TG or Ragozin, and we gave him a 3 point lifetime top, a negative number. Ragozin gave him the same figure as in 2 LOSING efforts earlier this year, one in an optional claimer.
That seem right?
Ragozin had Soaring Free winning the Atto Mile while going back 4 points from his two previous starts. In other words, those efforts in small Canadian stakes would have been good enough to win the big race by 7 lengths.
Yeah, that\'s probably right.
And finally, as I pointed out in another post, there is Roses In May. According to Ragozin, his Whitney is 4 lengths worse than his Turfway effort, and 8 LENGTHS WORSE THAN HE RAN AT PRAIRIE MEADOWS. If he had run his best race, he would have won the Whitney by 8 lengths.
Absolutely.
Anyway, everyone go back to your handicapping. As I said I only get to do this a couple of times a year, so I couldn\'t let it pass.
So I finally got the time to look at Ragozin\'s BC numbers, and decided not to do a complete point-by-point-- there are a few things I could pick on, but in general they got it about right, and I don\'t think anyone cares anyway. But there is one thing I would like to draw everyone\'s attention to, since it concerns a horse I mentioned in my \"Common Sense\" post before the BC. And again, it has nothing to do with how users of either product would have viewed the horse going in-- I\'m sure we were all betting someone else in the race.
According to Ragozin, Nothing To Lose\'s eleventh (11th) place finish in the Mile earned him a big lifetime top. Yep, a much better figure than he earned when he blew the field out in the Shadwell Mile the time before. He got a very wide trip at the BC-- as he did at Keenland, when he beat a very strong field by 4 1/2 lengths, earning a figure 3 1/4 points better than the second horse, 5 or more better than anyone else in the race.
To put it another way-- according to Ragozin, in order for NTL to win the BC Mile, he would have had to run a 5 point new top. That\'s 8 lengths BETTER than when he blew out that field at Keenland, on Ragozin figures.
Anyone believe that?
I don\'t believe in fairies. Obviously, RIM ran a big Whitney. (Big for him) If you rely upon the science, without tweaking it for the odd race that doesn\'t belong with the day\'s sample, you get efforts out of whack like that. Sounds like the Prairie Meadows race was the only one at two turns or something of that nature. I know T-Graph uses an educated mix of strict discipline and anamoly reconciliation. Its the only way you can get closer to the truth. The floating grid is a big truth determinate. It takes some time, experience and ability to think outside the box though.
The Jockey insurance thing is a strange issue. Jockey\'s are considered independant contractors in some respects, employees in others. How else can the track decide that jockeys that take days off over the insurance issue are barred for the remainder of the meet? The track controls the jockey\'s workplace or they dont control it. If they do control it, its pretty clear to me that 100,000 in insurance coverage is slighting the average jockey. How far will that go if a jockey is rendered a Shoe or a Chris Reeve? I\'m not as brave as those two men, if I didn\'t have the medical resources I\'d be even less brave. Sure Bailey can afford it, but there should be greater leverage through a group plan than making the average bread and butter jockey shop insurance himself. Churchill Downs just blackballed these guys. They control the workplace.
CtC
Post Edited (11-10-04 00:12)
TGJB---
My buddy Dave exclusively uses Ragozin....now works 2 jobs.
I use your product (along with other tools)....I\'m thinking of retiring at 48.
any other questions???
Good Luck,
Joe B.
>I use your product (along with other tools)....I\'m thinking of retiring at 48.<
LOL!
Actually, I reviewed some of those races and a few of the ones I was familiar with were races where the pace was either very slow or fast.
I don\'t know for certain, but I\'d be willing to bet that Ragozin\'s numbers were the pure earned speed figures and TG\'s incorporated the impact of the extreme pace into the figures.
That\'s why Rogozin\'s figures don\'t make any sense based on prior and subsequent performances.
I have a problem with evaluating horses using either method.
As far as I am concerned, Ragonzin\'s figures are probably reasonably accurate in terms measuring how fast the horses ran, but by excluding the impact of pace on the final time they give a woefully innacurate picture of how well the horses actually ran. You have to do a pace analysis seperately to understand how well the horses ran.
I think TG often captures the impact of pace on the figure by creating a seperate variant for the race. That\'s why his figures make much more sense. Pace is baked in.
However, if you are using TG and doing a pace analysis seperately you might be double counting its impact because it is already cooked into the TG number. Second, by adjusting the whole race equally for the pace you might be giving some horses too much credit and that would lead to figures that are too fast for some horses (as explained in the past).
I wish all the top speed figure makers would spend a few years revisting pace because it\'s so obvious to me that many of the disagreements about individual figures are related to a combination of methodology, consistency of methodology, and pace.
On second thought, keep doing what you are doing because most of my best plays are based on these issues. :-)
Would find it hard to believe that Jerry incorporated the \"extreme pace\" into his figures, considering he has been very consistent in his postings that pace is NOT part of the figure and he has debated on this board with many people that pace does not impact results. \"Fast horses run fast fractions\" was I believe the quote with regards to Roses in May and his Whitney race, a race in which many on this board gave RIM extra credit because of the pace scenario that developed.
Jerry, can you confirm that this difference in figures is NOT because of pace (or if it is pace, then let us know).
Jim
The Great Debate in Handicapping....how to incorporate pace.
Fast horses do not always run fast fractions, but they can if necessary.
Which would have been the better #, assuming a similar path was taken by GZ.
The Classic pace: :23 2/5 :47 1:11 1/5 1:35 2/5 1:59
or Hypotethical Pace:
22:4 :46 1:09 4/5 1:34 2/5 2:00 2/5.
In the second situation, GZ will obviously have stronger pace #\'s, but not as strong a final #.
GZ did not have to run the second pace scenario, but could have if required. That\'s part of the definition of class---the ability to call on extra when needed.
Would GZ have held off PP and or PD is another question. Their class and ability is what enables them to stay closer to a faster pace and still take advantage of the slower final quarter.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Very well stated Joe.
The pace your theorized is closer to the one I anticipated. Especially on that track.
CtC
I\'ve been using TG sheets since they were chicken scratch numbers on graph paper. Since when is \"Pace Baked In\"?
I have to agree with CH, pace is sort of \"baked in.\"
When Jerry calculates a variant based on all the horse\'s in the race previous figures, he invites this to happen. Its a good thing actually, not a knock.
If, for example, a race is run with a very fast pace, ALL the horses will have slower final time numbers than expected. Therefore, when looking at what the horses were expected to run, I would imagine it is much more likely to break the race free from the other races. The same exact thing happens if a race has a very slow pace, all the horses will again run slower final times.
Make sense?
To keep it as simple as possible-- pace is one of a number of things that may affect final time, and in the case of an extremely slow pace definitely does. We do a race as a whole, and when I see one that looks much better adding or subtracting a little to the whole race I do so. The change in final time could be due to pace, a wind gust, a slight change in track speed, or God knows what-- I don\'t have to figure out why, I have to get it right, and the right way to do that is to go by the horses, as I\'ve discussed at great length here.
I don\'t give extra credit to a race or individual horses in it because of pace. There are those who do so themselves, and some of them are succesful handicappers. There are also many succesful handicappers who don\'t. And then there are those of us who only look at it in extreme cases...
>If, for example, a race is run with a very fast pace, ALL the horses will have slower final time numbers than expected.<
I agree with you except for the above on occasion. I will use my typical example:
Assume there are the 5 horses in a race. To keep it simple these are their typical and expected figures:
a = 0
b = +2
c = +2
d = +4
e = +5
Now let\'s assume b, c, and d get into a 3 way duel in 44 flat in a 7F race with a final time of 123+. Obviously a smoking pace.
Assume \'a\' was 8 lengths off the early pace and won by 5 lengths.
\'b\' and \'c\' finshed half length apart in 2nd and 3rd.
\'d\' finished 3 1/4 lengths behind \'b\' and \'c\'
\'e\' never got into contention and finished well beaten by 9 lengths.
One could easily interpret this race as \'a\' improving sharply and the rest of the field more or less running close to their typical figures.
IMO, it is more likely that:
\'a\' ran his typical figure.
\'b\' and \'c\' ran a few lengths slower than usual because of the duel (an equal performance but slower).
\'d\' was impacted even more by the duel than \'b\' and \'c\' because he\'s not as good as them, thus the pace was even more extreme for him and effected him more.
\'e\' ran slightly subpar.
Now, if you break this race out from the rest of the day because you assume the pace didn\'t have an impact on \'b\', \'c\', and \'d\' (the duelers), you will be overrating \'a\' and \'e\' and probably underrating \'d\' a little.
Futhermore, if you then adjust their performances for pace at a later date, you will be double counting the impact.
The problem is that when the pace (and other unknowns) are baked in, it solves a lot problems, but it ceates new ones because when it comes to pace, not all the horses are impacted equally in the same race. The impact is dependent on position, ability, and other attributes of the individual horse.
I do not have a perfect solution for this problem. I just know it exists because I\'ve seen it and exploited it for many years. No figure maker I know of has a perfect solution for these complexities because there is no perfect formula for pace/time.
However, \"you have to know\" whether the pace was fast or slow enough to impact the time in a measureable way. In those instances, depending on who made the speed figure, there will different kinds of errors.
These are my current beliefs:
1. The Rags rarely break races out so they will sometimes give out speed figures that won\'t make sense based on the prior and subsequent performances of the horses, but they will make sense in light of the pace if you are aware of it and adjust accordingly.
2. Beyer is very inconsistent. Sometimes he bumps races up and/or down when they come up unusually fast or slow and sometimes he doesn\'t regardless of the the pace. Without going back to the DRF and seeing what track variant he used, you can be really lost in the races where the pace had an impact.
3. TG is giving out figures that \"BEST\" represent the abilities of the horses, but IMHO, he occasionally overrates horses that won big because of pace related issues (example above) and underrates others (like RIM in his Belmont race).
Naturally, if I had only one choice I would go with TG and sort of ignore the pace. However, for myself, I try to understand what does into each figure makers\' numbers because I am certain that some of the high profile differences are related to methodology and pace issues.
Not that I\'m going to get drawn into this yet again, but what Belmont race for RIM-- the only time he ran there was as a 3yo. If you mean the Whitney at Sar, we gave him a big figure-- it was Ragozin who had him winning while running poorly.
>Not that I\'m going to get drawn into this yet again, but what Belmont race for RIM-- the only time he ran there was as a 3yo. If you mean the Whitney at Sar,>
My mistake. It was the Saratoga race. I know you gave him a fairly big figure, but I said at the time (and several other people agreed) that that was one of the best performances by an older horse at a route this year. That was a brutal pace and he hung very gamely. I think his Breeder\'s Cup race was simply a pairing of that effort. It was that Saratoga effort that made me so interested in him for the BC. I knew he was better than he looked on \"everyone\'s\" speed figures. He just wasn\'t as good as Ghostzapper. I think that was a very easy exacta. (even though I didn\'t play any exactas - just had the Ghost to win)
Rag\'s figure was ridiculous.
Post Edited (11-14-04 11:08)