My apologies if the following has already been discussed. I was just futzing about checking out the Breeders Cup numbers on the Ragozin Board as compared to the same numbers on the Thorograph Board, and I discovered some alarming differences. Maybe I just don\'t get it, but can somebody explain to me the following discrepancies --
1) According to TG, Pts Grey Eagle and Clock Stopper ran the same figure, yet, according to Ragozin, Clock Stopper ran 1 3/4 of a point faster. In relative terms, shouldn\'t the relationship between how the horse\'s did be fixed?
2) According to TG, Midas Eyes ran 1/4 of a point slower than My Cousin Matt, yet, according to Ragozin, the difference between the two horses was 1.5. Again, shouldn\'t the differences between horses in a race be fixed no matter what system you are using?
3) According to TG, Champali ran 1.5 points better than Clock Stopper, but Ragozin has them at the same speed.
These are just a few examples. Now, I understand that the scales used by Thorograph and Ragozin differ, but can the difference in the scales be so great that it makes this much of a difference? With horses at this caliber, I pay VERY close attention to small differences and these types of differences would completely alter my read of a horse\'s sheet. I realize this may all seem picayune to some, but small differences can really affect pattern reads if you use a Len Friedman-type approach.
SoCalMan,
Jerry should be the one to answer your question, but I haven\'t seen him on the board in the last week or so, so I will give you a reson for the difference, but my answer is definitely the \"unofficial\" answer!
The ground loss calculations are different. The distances apart at the finish are fixed, but the \"sheets\" figures also take into consideration ground loss and weight carried. Presumably, T-Graph and Ragozin use a similar formula for weight carried (although I don\'t know this to be true), but their ground loss adjustments can certainly vary and I guess they do.
Alydar, presumably. But either way--
We had three different guys look at the BC and do ground, as usual, because the races are important, the fields are big, and it\'s possible for someone to miss something. But I\'ll take a look at those horses myself if I get a chance at some point. Meanwhile, since you evidently use Ragozin, why did you post the question here instead of there?
And since you bring it up, did you look at the differentials between Ragozin and TG for this year\'s Derby? Did you catch the error Ragozin made in the beaten lengths that resulted in wrong figures for most of the field?
I am not Alydar. I am a customer of yours but also use Ragozin from time to time (I first used Ragozin in the 1980s but now use Tgraph more than I use Ragozin). I have no dog in the fight between the two entities. I am happy to reveal myself to you but do not want to do it on the board (I will try to email you separately). I used this board now because it is simply more user friendly than the Ragozin board (I can access your board from my office and am blocked from using Ragozin\'s by my office\'s surf block).
I did see the beaten lengths issue on the Derby (I think it involved Limehouse and the horses behind him). In general, errors give me the heebie jeebies, and I prefer for them to come to light and be corrected rather than have to live with the uncomfortable feeling that sheets (of either company) are suspect. I also appreciate the fact that you are more open to people raising these sorts of issues and honestly and openly discussing them.
Got your e-mail, okay. The combination of Southern California (\"Alydar from California\") and invoking Friedman\'s name got me.
I\'ll take a look at it when I can. Problem is that on RaceReplays.com it\'s a small screen and a big field.
SoCalMan2 wrote:
I also appreciate the fact that you are more open to
> people raising these sorts of issues and honestly and openly
> discussing them.
>
True words. I think in the end it boils down to the courage to discuss these issues due to the confidence in their convictions. By confidence, I don\'t mean arrogance. They do hundreds/thousands of races a day. Each race is analyzed with human imput. The horses don\'t have sensors on them to scientifically mark their precise location both in beaten lengths and paths wide.
CtC
Post Edited (12-06-04 16:26)
The sad thing is that the technology to put sensors sililar to GPS technology (ie see Keeneland experiment this year) is there. I would suspect the intial start up cost is prohibitive to most small tracks.
Okay, we reviewed the BC Sprint to look at the horses SoCalMan2 asked about.
1-- Pt\'s Grey Eagle got beat a head, a neck, and 3 pounds by Clockstopper. Assuming equal ground loss that would give him about 3/4 point the better figure, so the only way Clockstopper could have gotten a much better number (as Ragozin gave it) would be if he was significantly wider. But as all 3 of our guys who did the race, as well as the DRF/Equibase trackman (see the chart) found, Clockstopper got a RAIL trip-- he actually SAVED ground slightly relative to Pt\'s Grey Eagle (who started the turn 2 and dropped to the rail late). Ragozin has a gross error (about 1 1/2 points) in the figure for Clockstopper.
2-- A similar situation exists between Midas Eyes and My Cousin Matt. MCM beat ME by 3 1/4 lengths, so assuming equal trips he would get 2 1/2 points the better figure. But ME was wide (our guys had 456, 33456, and 3345, the chart says \"raced four wide on the turn, was floated six wide leaving the turn\"), while MCM got a RAIL trip according to all 4 sources. Using 4 wide for ME you get a ground loss differential of 3 lengths, slightly less than the margin, and very similar figures for the two horses. The only way Ragozin could have MCM running a much better figure is if he has ME significantly closer to the rail, or MCM well off it. In looking at the relationships within the race on Ragozin, it looks like they got ME wrong. By a lot.
3-- Champali was 3 wide according to all 3 of our guys and the Equibase chart. As seen above, the problem is that Ragozin had Clockstopper 3 wide when he was actually rail, so he ends up giving them the same number, when Champali should get a much better figure.
Look-- this is the big leagues, and you guys are paying serious money for the data, and betting serious money based on it. You have a right to a serious, professional effort. There is no way it is okay to make these kind of errors for an event the magnitude of the BC. That\'s why we had 3 guys look at it-- it is beyond unlikely that all 3 would blow the same horses the same way. Clearly the Ragozin operation did not place the same importance on getting it right, and there is no excuse for that.
And maybe more importantly-- it is clear that the Ragozin office reads this board. How they respond to the information that they got it wrong will tell a lot about what they think of their customers-- as it has with similar situations in the past.
Very methodical TGJB. I know you have to be. What does the following in regard to wide paths mean? I know what 4w, 3w means, but I don\'t have a clue about 456, 33456, 3345:
TGJB wrote:
>(our
> guys had 456, 33456, and 3345, the chart says \"raced four wide
> on the turn, was floated six wide leaving the turn
I know your big races are sterling.
CtC
456 means 4 path first third, 5 next third, 6 last third. The good ground guys (all are not created equal) break the turn up as needed-- it might be 45, 455, or 4445. They all have idiosyncracies-- the world famous Joe Monahan, who did ground for years for us and Ragozin, would have every horse something like 2232345567. That\'s overkill.
Let us know here how the Derby and Breeders Cup \"paths\" issue is reconciled over at \"The Rags\" board. They won\'t let me register over there. I think they see the I.P. coming from Chicago, don\'t have a serious Chicago clientele and they don\'t want a clown questioning their findings.
I do have to say, the only interesting things I read on that board came from those posting there using your product.
By the way, where is Silver Charm?
CtC
Post Edited (12-07-04 16:53)
I think you can pretty much count on more on this subject. And since Eric made that bold definitive statement that they got the Derby right, I think we\'ll revisit that question in the days to come as well. Those guys are in for some well deserved scrutiny of their work-- and these are the kind of errors that anyone should be able to understand, whether they have made figures or not.
TGJB,
if i watch the races in question on the NTRA site, am i getting the same view as you get on racereplays.com (i don\'t subscribe to that)? i would imagine all sources get the same view for the BC? i think it\'s worthwhile to take a look, important stuff.
I didn\'t go look at it again-- I just checked to see what 4 pros who did it indepently had, and saw they were all on the same page (and I\'m sure the Equibase coments are done by a group for the BC and checked). I would imagine NTRA, Racereplays.com etc. are all using a similar pan shot, and it shouldn\'t matter which you look at unless they don\'t show the whole field.
ok , thanks
No problem. Let me know what you find.
Equally important is the seemingly low figs given out to many B/C runners that didn\'t pick up a hoof,IMO and interestingly, none of them to run back have picked up a hoof in their subsequent start. Doesn\'t that beg questions regarding the overall figs assigned on BC day?? JB, what do you think?
Tell you what, Mike. After we get done discussing the stuff I want to discuss (BC ground, Derby beaten lengths) some time next week, if you can find a way to CLEARLY make your point, I\'ll address it. That means defining and proving several things you put as givens in that post, not making general statements. Think about it a few days and get back to me.
Apropos BC Ground, my epiphany was the Volponi BC. Since then I\'ve been a TG user and quite selfishly, I\'m very happy that there are Raggies who still haven\'t seen the light.
Anectdotal evidence: this past summer at the Spa I was sitting next to a very pleasant guy who had Rags. He told me he used to work for them 10 or so years ago. Of course I had TG, we were comparing the figs. I remember extolling the virtues of horse I think it was Philadelphia Jim (I\'m not sure)who had a great negative fig that made him a must use on TG. He poo-poohed me because his fig for the horse on Rags was something like 6 lengths slower a non contender. Anyway if I remember correctly the horse ran a big race filling out a nice exacta with a Pletcher horse. The guy was flabbergasted, and I told him that was just another example of why I made the switch from Rags to TG. You just can\' trust their figs.
hey josephus,
anybody can redboard any racing product to the point of making it look brilliant. why not a pre-race post or two to prove your point? most of us who give our opinions on TG and TheSheets post pre-race opinions. why not give it a shot?
I\'ve got the BC races on tape and on a 55\" tv so I will check it out later.
I\'ve been looking at TG,beyer and DRF+Var. figs, and have found TG and DRF alot closer than the beyers have been. I think I have the Rag\'s sheets for the derby and the DRF and I guess TG has the 2004 derby up, I might check those out later. The problem with the DRF figs is at oddball distances where there way out of line.
Hey Michael D.
I wasn\'t red-boarding. I was just conveying an experience I had where I gave my opinion BEFORE THE RACE IN QUESTION.
Josephus wrote:
I remember extolling the virtues of
> horse I think it was Philadelphia Jim (I\'m not sure)who had a
> great negative fig that made him a must use on TG. He
> poo-poohed me because his fig for the horse on Rags was
> something like 6 lengths slower a non contender.
I\'ve lost some data, but I think I know the race Josephus is talking about. Philly Jim did have some TGraph numbers shedding nice light on him.
josephus,
ok, no pre-race opinions coming from you. no prob, many others don\'t like that course either.
JB,
My point is very clear. The numbers for many runners on B/C Day (ESPECIALLY THE SPRINT) seem way to fast considering the performances. Clearly, all of the following runners raced back against much lesser horses and looked to be \"LAY OVER\'s by your figs. NONE won and only ran deceent.
Clearly I have to question the figs you awarded these runners when MANY do not come close to their previous performance. Please don\'t tell me they all bounced I\'m doing this as long or longer than you.
Check out the latest performances of KELA, OUR NEW RECRUIT, MY COUSIN MATT, CHAMPALI,MIDAS EYES, Better TALK NOW ,SILVER TREE.I may have missed a few more.
Is that clear enough, we seem to be back to this \"tieing back\"problem that I and other TG sheets users believe is causing numbers to be way to fast relative to the performance visually and adjusted for pertinents.
I can\'t imagine that BC Ground and beaten lengths in the derby are NEARLY as important as the explanation you will give for the above.
miff wrote:
> Check out the latest performances of KELA, OUR NEW RECRUIT, MY
> COUSIN MATT, CHAMPALI,MIDAS EYES, Better TALK NOW ,SILVER
> TREE.
One of the \"key\" concepts in handicapping, and I lose on it too though, is that you must try to determine \"trainer intent\". This is especially so in cheaper claiming races. (I tend to avoid them like the plague unless I have some solid insight.) In other words \"what was the objective\", \"what is the objective\". Horses are not machines. You can\'t wind them up and send them out and expect that they will always run the same effort. The best trainers point horses for specific races. The trick is to ascertain for what was the horse \"intended\". (This can be done with TFig patterns certainly) I do it a little different I think.
For example I was looking very close at A Huevo in the DeFrancis, until I realized he\'d been started in a Grade I in New York. That was Dickenson\'s \"intended\" target and A Huevo wasn\'t up to it. The DeFrancis was more of a secondary goal and so I discounted him on the New York effort. Dickenson is very much a \"target\" trainer.
The intended race for the horses in the Breeders Cup was the Breeders Cup. I wouldn\'t expect them to be at their peak with many of these trainers four weeks later.
CtC
Post Edited (12-07-04 23:23)
FYI, I just provided a few examples I easily noticed because they were so stark. I think if you compare the figures between the two sites for this year\'s breeder\'s cup, you will see additional differences of the same nature (although perhaps not of the same magnitude).
I am also still not Alydar From California.
Our Terminator dogs have been barking wildly since you first showed up.
You\'ll have a tough time convincing them.
If not then maybe Marc ??
Nobody cared about me when I first showed up. It is only since this thread that anybody cared. My other posts have simply been innocuous I guess. Sorry to disappoint, but I shall continue trying, technology willing, to remain anonymous. Also, I am not Marc.
(This message was edited to add last sentence. I did not want my seeming avoidance (in my post as orignally posted)of the question put to me by Silver Charm to cause errant speculation).
Post Edited (12-08-04 10:38)
RE; MIFF
I\'m not sure about the point Miff is making. I haven\'t seen all the results for the horses he mentioned but: CAJUN BEAT won a fast turf sprint, MIDAS EYES ran good in the Gen George, SILVER TREESjust ran a good 2nd in Fla, BETTER TALK NOW was right there and very wide for the Hol. stake ( Iwas lucky enough to use PELLIGRINO as my key because of the odds and jockey comment that they would try and save ground). The TG BC figs do not look out of line to me at all.
Miff--
Your right, it\'s clear. Some of the horses, that ran in some of the BC races, ran figures that might or might not have been better than the races that they ran on BC day, when they ran back the next time. This, of course, is independent of whether the races they ran on BC day were typical of them (My Cousin Matt?). And that therefore I should go back and add to the whole day.
I\'ll get right on it. How many points would you like? Do you want the same for dirt as grass?
Your sarcasim only confirms to me how far off your figs were in that B/C sprint.How about a more scientific/reasonable explanation when you are challanged, for a change.
When you ask a scientific/reasonable question, clearly, I\'ll give you an answer.
miff, Just to touch on a point made by chuckles. When you have all trainers pointing to a breeder\'s cup race and presumably winding up thier horses wouldn\'t you usually expect some to be over the top in thier next start? This would seem to be especially true from a large sprint field where many of these horses may be used more aggressively than usual to get position in a big field. If this is not the case why do so many trainers put thier horses on the farm after the cup?
Gowand, I totally agree if they ran an \"effort\". Many raced back, IMO, becasuse there connections felt were NOT spent in the BC.
All right, look-- I\'m not going to let you clutter up my board with this not-thought-out nonsense when I\'ve got important stuff I want people to see. The BC numbers are still up on this site-- look at them and figure out what changes you would make, keeping in mind you have to add or subtract the same amount from every horse in the race. If after you do that and think out your position you think you can express it clearly, do it in a few days when the other stuff has died down.
guys, i think we need a lot more info before we know how well any figure maker\'s BC sprint #\'s will hold up. there are times in the past when i have questioned the figs for a particular race, and then looked back in six months and realized the figs were a lot more accurate than they appeared after just three or four weeks................ these BC replays are tough. just figuring out which horse is which is a battle. i think i am making some progress though.
Post Edited (12-08-04 14:56)
Silver Charm wrote:
> Our Terminator dogs have been barking wildly since you first
> showed up.
lol
You can never fool the Terminator dogs
I\'ve been in contact with SoCalMan off board, and he is not a Raggie plant (if he was he wouldn\'t have set up Ragozin to look bad, either). I hope he posts saying where he is-- it\'s more interesting than the BC. TG goes international.
Michael D.-- yeah, those replays are a pain in the butt, that\'s why I didn\'t want to have to go check. Let me know.
I am not interested in getting in the middle of a war between the companies. I am a fan of both companies and believe they are far ahead of anything else out there. I would never bet on a race that I cannot get sheets for (either from Thorograph or Ragozin). If I can, I like to get both sets of sheets and handicap each race twice. I am not raising the discrepancies I have raised out of any sort of malice -- the problem I raised could have ended up being in the Thorograph figures. When I posted, I did not know who was right and who was wrong. I believe that healthy discourse on figure making is good for everybody and helps everybody who participates in such dialogs. I also believed, as I have seen in the past, that TGJB would take the question seriously and get to the bottom of it even if it put the spotlight on a mistake of his own (remember, TGJB did not respond terribly enthusiastically to my initial post). Also, I have seen TGJB admit on this board before when there were mistakes in his figures (I recall a northern California maiden claimer running some out of sight figure and then TGJB mea culping (if you can use that as a verb) that somebody had subtracted a variant instead of adding it). While still trying to maintain my anonymity, anybody who would like to meet me can usually find me at the bookmakerskaya in the Metellitsa Cherry Casino on the Novy Arbat on the evenings they are offering the first three races from Philadelphia Park. It will be obvious which guy is me (and if for some reason it is not, just ask the manager to point out his only American customer). FYI, this is a great place to bet on the Breeders Cup because they use English odds and allow you the option fixirovat (meaning you can bet at the odds they are offering at a particular moment and lock them in rather than accepting the post time odds). I was able to lock in 7-2 on Ashado at 5 minutes to post and 4-1 on Ghostzapper around the same point (although it was not even necessary as that was his off odds here -- Ashado did fall to 3-1 at post). Just so that I am not accused of unfairly redboarding, on the same day, I locked in a lot of other more tasty odds that I ended up not cashing (the ones that particular come to mind are the 13-2 I was able to get on Midas Eyes and, ironically enough, the 25-1 I was able to lock in on Moscow Burning).
By the way, Breeders Cup replays are available for free on www.ntra.com I do not know what the quality is and whether they are user friendly or not.