Michael-- you say that most or all Ragozin guys know and understand the differences in methodology between Ragozin and TG. Just for the hell of it-- why don\'t you (and any Ragozin guys that want to jump in) tell me 1) what the primary differences are in methodology, 2) what the reasoning is behind each approach, and 3) in general terms, what the evidence is that backs up that reasoning.
This ought to be entertaining.
This is a moment when I wish for the old days on this board when I was able to put on a costume like \"Ragboard Bob\" and launch into a tirade upon how I loved my sheets even though I didn\'t understand them.
lol
CtC
the last post got to you ehh? (despite your \"rest your case\" line, i thought it just might, especially the part about northern dancer). evidence comes from my observations using your product for about three years, and the other guy\'s for a shortly lesser period. the main difference in methodology involves using changing variants throughout the day. from my observations, you are more willing to change a variant if you think most of the horses in a race ran contrary to what their current form and pattern would suggest, while ragozin is less likely to change the variant unless he can point to a specific change in the track. i do not save old sheets, and would not dig them up if i did, it\'s just not important enough for me to prove anything here. when the good racing starts up again, however, i will gladly pop in an give the evidence i see (aqu inner is not my thing, and the good crc racing has ended). in all due respect, the ragozin people i know have no interest in posting on your BB. you can trust me, or go on assuming \"most\" of them are idiots (assuming your competitors customers are idiots, and questioning their IQ?? hmmm, an odd business practice). i\'m sure you will go with the ladder, but i really don\'t care.
and for full disclosure sake, i use both products. more so ragozin now, but overall more experience with TG.
although, i must admit, i am worried that i could just be wasting my time..... you basically refer to \"most\" ragozin customers as idiots, and make jokes about their IQ, i come back and call that stupid, and i get the ban threat. if i make a point that you don\'t like, will i get the same?
Yeah JB - take the ladder.
and TGJB,
i don\'t like stating this without giving the evidence, but my final retort will most likely be that there are times when ragozin misses variants, and there are times when you go too far in tying races together. i think in both cases the mistakes are rare, and i think that both products are excellent (that is why i continue to give my hard earned money to each operation).
Michael-- the ladder thing is great. And no question, you hone in like a lazer.
So I asked 6 questions-- 3 each for both TG and Ragozin. You answered the first one for each, and got them both half right-- I don\'t look at patterns, and Ragozin\'s position is a lot weirder than that-- in his book he limits the things that can change track speed during the day to rain, freezes and thaws, eliminating man made things like track maintenance. But you knew that. And you knew that Friedman, on his site, said in regard to Wood day (when FP won) that the track being sealed and unsealed during the card made no difference-- it was right to tie the races together.
The second and third questions for each are a lot more interesting and informative, and if you could focus well enough to really think them through you might see why. And you know what? You probably did better on the questions than most guys who buy Ragozin would.
Meanwhile, I wonder if you have noticed that no one has asked on the Rag site about the BC ground or the Derby lengths. Including you. Now, why is that?
By the way, I rested my case about focus and reading through the points because you proved it for me. Which everyone who reads this board except for you got.
Look, we appreciate your business. But I was pretty precise about my choice of words, as you will see if you go back and look, and I don\'t want you characterizing me or anyone else or calling people names unless they really have it coming. In fact, I don\'t think most Ragozin guys are stupid. But I think they are very lax in their thinking about some very important issues, and let Friedman get away with murder. Because, after you get past all this nonsense you have posted, which has served (unintentionally) as a diversion, the issues with the BC and Derby remain, and remain unanswered.
after reading thousands of posts on this board, i have noticed that the guy who says \"i rest my case\", then comes back after just one post, has most likely not proven his case.
Michael-- I was resting a very specific case, about your not focusing and reading through the point, because your replies bore me out. As I have said before, you respond to general subject matter, not specific points. Go back to my original comment about Ragozin customers again, and read it carefully this time.
Which brings us AGAIN to (drum roll)... where we started. Not ONE Ragozin guy, including Michael, who uses both, has asked Friedman where those horses were on the turn, or what beaten lengths they used in the Derby. Fellas, you are PAYING THEM for that data. They owe you an explanation, and if I were paying them I would be screaming for it. We get called on that kind of stuff all the time (remember that this conversation started with such a query, to us), and we don\'t take it as an insult.
\"Stupid\" we do take as an insult.
you inferred that they did not have the ability to grasp your methodologies, and you made a ridiculous joke about their IQ\'s. and by the way, nice move there in shifting this whole thing to a different string, so some would not see your remarks. also, the guy who writes \"i rest my case\", then comes back with TWO more posts, most definitely has not proven his case.
If anyone really cares (unlikely), they can see what I actually said in the \"Derby Figures and Evidence\" string, 12/8 at 17:46.
I\'ll let my words and your reading speak for themselves.
Ok but what if those who are using Rag\'s and winning you think they care if they blew the ground loss?? I\'ve used both products in the past and done well and not done so well with both.
Kev wrote:
> \"but what if those who are using Rag\'s and winning you think they care if they blew the ground loss?? I\'ve used both products in the past and done well and not done so well with both.\"
Well, consider that a minute. I knew a mentally disadvantaged couple that loved to bet the races on weekends at Calder. They loved it. They had a technique and it was flawless. I never saw them have a bad day when I was there with them. If I tell their technique here, I should contract for some kind of compensation for them, but I\'m not sure where they are any longer so I\'ll just let it out. This is their secret....
They bet greys. Thats right. Grey pays. I\'m not kidding. They utilized that scientific formula and won consistently. I never copied them because even if it is statistically true, I\'m not betting like that, but I couldn\'t argue with their success.
My point being, theres different ways to have success, but does that success hold up in the long run? Suppose Rags got the ground loss wrong and handicappers which use their product still won on races problem figure horses were reentered in. Can anyone explain that anomoly away? Theres about a million ways to explain it isn\'t there? As a matter of fact, if someone is making bad figures theres a certain \"built in\" insulation for error in figure making isn\'t there? Form, Track, Trouble, Path, Injury, Bounce, Jockey Decisions, Juice...I could go on and on. But there is a constant. Its simple really and its this...
\"You can\'t even begin to analyze past efforts if you can\'t ascertain what is readily ascertainable in them\" and that of course is path and distance.
TGJB talked about pattern reads. Assuming Rags puts more stock in determining a figure irrespective of past efforts, how can you do a pattern read when efforts within it are points off? You may be able to, but is starting with error the way to beat this game?
CtC
Jerry Wrote:
-- Yes, most of the differences in figures have to do with differing methodologies, although I don\'t think it\'s simply a matter of opinion. I have gone to great effort to point those out and explain them, but they still go over the head of most of those who have not made figures. So I try to find examples where anyone with eyes and a minimal IQ can see that those guys have screwed up-- which would not be that big an issue except that a) they won\'t admit it and fix the errors, because b) they make claims for super accuracy, and pattern reads based on it, claims that would be blown to bits if people actually understood what we\'re really talking about here.
2-- Which means, yes, they have made business decisions, of the most cynical kind. The vast majority of their customers still buys hard copy and never hears about this stuff (not true of us-- 2/3rds of our business is now on-line), and it would cause the Ragozin office more of a problem with them to admit a mistake and change a figure than to look bad here. Aside from which, they cynically (and unfortunately correctly) calculate that their on-line customers won\'t call them on it on their board-- there has not been a whisper about any of this over there in the last couple of days. The most extreme example of this cynicism came when they blew the ground for Touch Of The Blues in the Mile a couple of years back, I pointed out that he was wide (not inside), and Friedman came back and posted that he had checked the tape himself and the horse was inside. Much later, when everything had quieted down, they made the correction.
And obviously, a similar situation exists with this year\'s Derby, and the bad BC figures. In one case they flatly denied without explanation, in the other they will just wait for it to blow over without commenting.
TGJB
CtC,
the biggest waste of energy ever put into a BB post. why? if you were really interested in grey horses and crc racing, you would have posted a pre-race opinion on the big crc races last w/e. why would you waste so much time on a post that said so little? refer to my pre-race crc posts from last week, you might learn something. if you continue to make wiseass comments on circuits that you don\'t have the balls to make pre-race predictions on, you will surely lose any credibility you had on any BB. you are better than that, what made you drop so low??
i would like to \"focus\" on your theory about today\'s horses running 10f and 12f dirt races ten to twenty lengths faster than they did just ten or fifteen years ago. the CD super says the surface has not gotten much slower, and now the maryland JC has responded to an inquiry of mine, and they say that their surfaces have not gotten that much slower, but that less horses have been pointing towards the long distance races, and therefore they are not running much faster than they were years ago. your customers must have a ton of faith in you, because there is not a single pro in the biz who thinks your theory about longer route races makes any snse. you will attack me personally of course, everyone who knows you knows that is coming, but before you do that, could you shed a bit of light on northern dancer\'s 2:00 and cvhange derby run about 40 years ago. based on your theory, you must think that today\'s allowance horses could beat that little guy by 20 or 30 lengths. hahaha. you kill me TGJB. focus??? hahah, now go ahead, attack me.
Michael,
\"i would like to \"focus\" on your theory about today\'s horses running 10f and 12f dirt races ten to twenty lengths faster than they did just ten or fifteen years ago.\"
Not to nitpick, but it would probably be more accurate to say that on TG, the fastest horses have gotten about SIX lengths faster over the past ten-fifteen years. With Ghostzapper being the best (-6), there were definitely horses running around zero circa 1989. It\'s not 10-20 lengths.
As \"evidence\", I vaguely remember someone on this board recently citing a star of yesteryear who ran a \"zero\" on Rags and it may have been more than 15 years ago. Since Rags\' scale is slower than TG (by common acknoledgement) I think what is really being debated is more like five lengths (among the very fastest horses) over __ years (depending on who that Rag zero was) rather than 10-20 lengths over the past 10-15 years.
Even among the past Derby winners over the past 15 years, I think the figure is more like six lengths.
HP
I\'m not sure how many lengths it is, but I believe you can\'t compare the figures earned on the Rag scale (back in time) to the figures earned on TG scale because the relationship between the two has also been changing.
I believe JB stated someplace that horse are 5-10 lengths (1-2 seconds) faster today than years past.I personally believe, from using TG figs for more than 15 years, that JB has added this unproven theory to his thinking when making the figs(intentionally or unintentionally). I further believe that this accounts for the much lower figs being awarded to present day runners, some of whom are \'COMMON\" in comparision to some of the games great ones of past times.
I have posted before that I and other loyal long time TG users are having serious problems with the much faster figs being awarded.The RAW evidence on the tracks, every day do not support the theory that horses are 1-2 seconds faster. The FIGURES are definitely faster and faster.
TG may have reasonably hung it\'s hat on generational improvements of all beings as part of it\'s theory that horses are bigger, stronger and logically faster from a commom sense standpoint but not from a scientific study.
Here are some informal common sense points. There are very few horses of high calibre who were physically more imposing than Dr. Fager and Secretariat. I asked JB to specifically name the horses he felt were bigger, stronger and faster than just these two, as an example.I was rather summarily dismissed as unclear and unfocused and unable to comprehend what was being espoused. Incidendally, that\'s after 40 years in the game and having watched over 100k races.
The opinions(admittedly unscientific) of many prominent horsemen in NY that I posed this question to within the last month or so ranged from:
Horses are not as fast as years ago
Horses are just as fast as years ago
Horses MAY be faster today but not 5-10 lenghts
VERY Inconclusive even from an opinion point of view.
My problem is simple, I run a business and do not have many hours to spend on handicapping.I must have absolute faith in the integrity of the figs(I\"m betting serious money) and I have done very well in the past with TG. Right now, I am unsure that the methodology is as sound as it used to be.
I think this is very clear and deserves a clear unsarcastic reply.
Miff,
To put your mind at rest, even if there is a bias in the TG figs that is the making figures get faster faster than the horses are improving (assumimg they are improving at all and there is any bias), that bias is moving at such a slow rate it will have no effect on your handicapping at all. Fortunately, handicappers aren\'t required to compare horses that ran years ago with horses that ran a few days ago. In most cases all the relevant information comes from the last 12 months (usually less). That\'s not long enough for any small bias to have an impact. This is more an issue of intellectual curiosity about the abilities of horses now vs. past generations than it is about handicapping.
Post Edited (12-10-04 10:09)
Class,
What you say is true, however I use TG in conjunction with other tools /products.Since I\'m giving heavy weight to the TG figs, I\'m concerned that any preconceived notion that horses are faster may be creeping into the figure makers head instead of viewing the race on its raw merit.If that were the case then the TG figs could be \'OUT OF LINE\'when comparing TG figs to other products.
Some of my pals use Rags, Equiform et al and we compare notes.In a fair percentage of the cases, the TG figs have been getting faster and the normal comparative scale seems to have drifted wider. (eg TG figs normally run 3-4 points faster than Rags) That is my concern.
Miff,
I don\'t know what all your methods are, but I also use various sets of figures (TG, Beyer, Logic Dictates, Pacefigures, and on rare occasions Rags).
It doesn\'t bother me that TG figures seem to be getting faster relative to the Beyers and others. What concerns me more is when they disagree about who is actually faster.
When that happens, 9 out of 10 times it\'s because of wide trips being incorporated into the TG figures and not into Beyers or other methodolgy issues. That\'s no big deal because I can account for it.
On the rare times I can\'t account for it, I go back to the race and day and try to make an educated guess as to who has it right. In my opinion a lot of those instances are races where the pace was very fast or slow and they dealt with it a different way or someone split the variant and someone else didn\'t.
TG is not my business, but I don\'t think quality should concern you at all. Jerry seems almost obsessive about quality (which is a good thing for us). As long as we understand what\'s going into the figures (which we do), I think we will be fine.
Class,
With all due respect, I have been a TG user almost since it\'s inception, I thoroughly understand the methodology and it\'s comparitives to Beyer(sans weight and ground) et al.
As you may or may not know,if TG is consistently too fast and you ONLY use TG, it does not matter because you are comparing apples to apples all the time.On the other hand,if you are using TG as a comparative,I have noted a widening of the scale(ie TG is getting faster figs relative to other products using my normal comparative criterium.
There\'s no ego here, but after 15 plus years I could generally quess very closely to what fig TG would award a runner and most of the time be close.That exercise has been much more difficult over the past 2-3 years with no changes to my thinking and I\'m 57 and not getting senile.I am not the only TG user who believes that there has been a change to the \"Gas Pedal\" Jerry is now using to make the figs.
Incidentally, this has nothing to do with my personal perceptions/opinions and I am not alone in my observations.
Miff,
I know you do. That\'s why I don\'t see the problem.
If Beyer has Grade I horses running 115 in 2000 and running 115 in 2005 what does it matter if TG has them running -2 in 2000 and -6 in 2005. (regardless of who is right)
The races from 2000 are irrelevant in 2005 99.9999% of the time.
As long as you know that \"A\" is faster than \"B\" in 2005 the scale is totally meaningless. If Beyer adjusts all his figures up 10 points tomorrow it will be a totally meangingless act. If Jerry lowers all of his it doesn\'t matter either.
I think you shouldn\'t try to convert the Beyers into TGs or vice versa by a steady formula. If you are doing that \"YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM\" because if anyone has a bias anywhere it will screw you up. (no matter who it is)
I think you should just look at who is faster than who on their respective scales, note the differences, and try to understand why.
Post Edited (12-10-04 15:31)
Michael, you sound a little acerbic today. Its Friday, don\'t worry, be happy. :)
Michael Wrote:
>CtC,
the biggest waste of energy ever put into a BB post. why?
It was a form of \"socratic method\".
>if you were really interested in grey horses and crc racing, you would have posted a pre-race opinion on the big crc races last w/e.
Why did greys win there again?
>why would you waste so much time on a post that said so little?
I generally think fast and write faster, unless I\'m handicapping.
>refer to my pre-race crc posts from last week, you might learn something.
I\'m an old dog, but I\'m always ready to learn a new trick. Refer specifically to the post and if I missed it I\'ll read it.
>if you continue to make wiseass comments on circuits that you don\'t have the balls to make pre-race predictions on, you will surely lose any credibility you had on any BB.
I didn\'t say \"circuits\". I said \"Turf Races at Calder\". Theres a difference. I had an opinion on Leona\'s Knight and Better than Bonds. I don\'t always share them.
>you are better than that, what made you drop so low??
Actually, the Calder story was an anecdote that I thought had application to the fact that one can win with rotten figures and lose with the very best numbers available. But results won\'t trend for good figures vis a vie bad figures like that.
CtC
Post Edited (12-10-04 15:10)
HP,
what am i missing here? i see \"5\'s\" and \"6\'s\" back there for the derby. they run in negative territory now. am i reading it wrong?
I believe there has been an improvement in the Derby on the TG sheets from the 5-6 range in the early 80s to this year\'s peak.
I don\'t know the exact formula, but that\'s probably in the range of 10-12 lengths at 10 furlongs (Jerry can tell us exactly).
There was some discussion about pre 1982 horses like Seattle Slew, Bid etc... on another thread where faster figures were mentioned, but those were \"RAG\" figures.
There has been a slow change in the relationship between Rags and TG over time. So not only are those fast figures not on the same scale at TG, the scale itself has been changing. TG figures used to be slower than Rags. Now they are faster.
I think it is best if we refrain from comparing figures from different figure makers (pre TG) when we discuss if horses are getting faster. Otherwise the conversation will deteriorate into a mush of misunderstanding. :-)
I could\'ve sworn someone ran a 3 in the Derby way back when but I could be wrong. I know TGulch did it in \'95, and that\'s about ten years. Spend A Buck? Did he win the Derby? It\'s been a long day...
Even so, from the 5-6 you cite up to Smarty is about 8 lengths (and from TGulch in \'95 it\'s about 6). I guess I\'m just reacting to you saying \"10-20 lengths.\" It\'s more like 10, tops.
I disagree with Class on the comparison between the Rag and TG scales. The variant making technique has changed and evolved but I think some elements of this type of figure making formula (wind, ground, etc.) are pretty stable. I would accept a Rag \"zero\" for argument\'s sake as a historical frame of reference. I can accept it as \"in the ballpark\" without getting into a whole Rags v. TG debate.
Can\'t we all just get along? I\'m getting old reading this already. How can I win some money tmw.? Maybe Superman will show up and agree to spin the Earth backwards to Secretariat\'s Derby so we can start the TG scale there and really figure it out once and for all.
HP
HP,
When TG started the very best horses were earning figures several points higher than the same horses on Rags. Now they are several points lower (negative). Even though both figure makers are doing a lot of things the same, the entire scale has shifted. So obviously someone has a heavy bias in their figures. There is no escaping that. It\'s a matter of who you believe it is (maybe both to different degrees). IN any event, between the different scale and the fact that the scale itself is moving, it is possible to compare, but not without a discussion that I am 100% certain would put the message board into a tizzy of confusion. :-)
Post Edited (12-10-04 15:33)
As I mentioned in my reponse to Mike, Friedman made it clear in a post on his board about 4 (?) years ago that they were using pars, and that was why you could compare horse of different eras. I had a discussion with him under an alias, and pointed out that was ass-backwards-- if the breed as a whole improved you wouldn\'t be able to tell. He said he saw my point. Whether that caused the change I can\'t tell you, but even though horses have continued to get faster on our figures they no longer have gotten FASTER relative to Ragozin, and Friedman said at the DRF Expo that they no longer use pars.
JB,
Not sure I completely understand. Do you mean that the difference between TG and Rags should be fairly consistent at 3-4 point spread now?
With all due respect, I can\'t seriously understand why anyone would want to compare TGraph figures to \"Rags\". Why would you want to do that? Its like putting a German made BMW (They make them in the Carolinas now) next to a Hyundai and lauding how the Hyundai is almost as fine an automobile because it has four tires, a steering wheel and a seat for the driver. (Michael\'s gonna hate this...lol) Sure it can drive the same route from New York to Miami along Interstate 95, but is that the measure of its quality?
If someone was watching the \"Rags boys\" on a race by race basis they\'d have serious problems in my estimation. Its obvious to me from the \"big race day\" samples that they can\'t really get ground right. Additionally, they don\'t have a clue how racetracks can metamorphosis on certain days.
The Rags have horses running faster also, though even a Hyundai will get you to Miami.
CtC
Post Edited (12-10-04 15:49)
Mike-- All other things being equal, which covers a lot of ground-- 1/2 turn splits, circuits being done by different guys for Ragozin, etc.-- that\'s about what it seems to come out.
CTC
>With all due respect, I can\'t seriously understand why anyone would want to compare TGraph figures to \"Rags\". Why would you want to do that? <
With regards to whether horses are getting faster, it\'s not a matter of comparison. It\'s a matter of having data that precedes the lauch of TG.
>if the breed as a whole improved you wouldn\'t be able to tell. He said he saw my point. Whether that caused the change I can\'t tell you, but even though horses have continued to get faster on our figures they no longer have gotten FASTER relative to Ragozin, and Friedman said at the DRF Expo that they no longer use pars.<
Well if you have a bias in your figures related to non path related trip issues, pace, position, and/or the effect of stiffer/easier competion on final time etc... now you both have it. :-)
Post Edited (12-10-04 16:44)
HP,
how do you measure lengths vs points at 10f?
from \"5\" or \"6\" to smarty\'s figure (forget exactly, but negative i think), you get 8 lengths? why do you and TGJB have different scales? he says \"5\" to \"6\" equals 10-12 lengths.
\"My point being, theres different ways to have success, but does that success hold up in the long run?\" You don\'t think theres players that use the sheets, that have been hitting hard for years?? hell they only been in biz for over 40 years, and where JB got his idea for his great biz.
Kev,
I think that very very very few people have been \"hitting it hard for years\". There was a window in the 70\'s and maybe early 80\'s where information like speed figures was limited to a few people and there were great opportunities. But in the \"information age\" we are in now, it is very tough. I am sure some do it. But very few. And those that do \"hit it hard\" have the discipline to limit their plays to very strong opinions. They may bet 1 or 2 races a card. No more.
I did\'nt say anything about alot of players winning, I just say, don\'t you think their out there?? Don\'t you think that there is at year end, rag\'s and TG users showing a profit?? There better be for $25.00 or 30.00 a pop.
Kev,
I would take a wild stab and say that 3% of the people who bet horses regularly, show a profit. Obviously it is a wild guess, but I would be shocked if it was much higher.
My question to you is what percentage of T-Graph/Rags users that bet horses regularly show a profit. Do you think it is the same? Double? Triple? 50%?
I obviously don\'t know the answer, but I am curious as to what your perception would be of \"effective\" the 25 to 30 bucks a pop sheets add to the bottom line.
Well if either product is not working for you, you still going to but it at that cost?? It all goes back to what I said early about both products holding their own. I understand JB to a certain point, why he is going after his comp. most company\'s do it. Where do you stop?? it\'s like bud and miller lite, you really think that all that sh*t they see on TV about the other beer is going to make someone else switch??? You might have some come over to your side, but what about the people that don\'t care to hear for all of it?? I don\'t know what % is, I was asking the question. Don\'t you think there out there on both sides?? or how about above avg. players then??? Where will it all end..........
Kev,
No reason to continue the thread. I agree with you. There is a small percentage of people out there winning with Rags, a similar small percentage winning with T-Graph, and another small percentage out there winning with beyers and traditiional handicapping.
I thought you were trying to make the point that a lot of the sheets players win regularly, which I think is not true.
No I don\'t. I don\'t think theres much of an edge anymore in figures. They\'re absolutely necessary, but they don\'t put you heads and shoulders above the majority of the crowd. Its not like the seventies. Theres even less edge with BAD figures.
ctc,
my earlier post went too far, sorry about that.
Its o.k. Michael
Your opinionated and you love horseracing and that counts in your favor. :) I think its o.k. to agree to disagree as long as the debate doesnt get personal. Along those lines, I don\'t think TGJB \"attacks\" the other product. I think he points out legitimate issues that serious handicappers would want to be apprised of. (Recently, it was SoCalMan2 that pointed them out.) Thats \"substance\" oriented. The other guys, tend to go after TGraph on \"form\" and they have played some dirty tricks. In my opinion the debate from the other side needs to be elevated to the issues, not the personalities. Its not a personal issue. Its about method and practice and we post here without restriction because the host wants that debate.
Regarding method, I can\'t understand making figures without up to date \"pars\". I may be entrenched in the \"par\" era. But, to my mind pars enable some hard data reflection for what kind of effort a horse just ran. I would rotate the base pars and keep only times from the last year, (Perhaps longer in rarely run condition races), because pars become a stale reference when tracks change. Gulfstream resurfaced this summer, so what good are pars this coming meet? I just think some statistical base data source is good to have in applying the expertise. Its not a critism of either Rags or TGraph, neither use them. To my mind, its about staying on top of changing track conditions. I\'m not sure about intergenerational comparison with recalibrating pars, but thats not especially important to me, because I believe what Jerry does. That tracks change and horses have gotten to be better athletes for a host of reasons. Which is not to say I believe Ghostzapper is Dr. Fager. At least not yet.
CtC
Post Edited (12-10-04 22:39)
Jim-- it\'s really difficult to come up with a figure for what % are winning with either product, but I\'ll tell you this-- you will be very hard pressed to find someone who is winning while using neither. Virtually every pro (or winning recreational player) playing US racing, that I have heard of in the last 10 years, is using one or the other.
Jerry,
I agree, impossible to come up with a number for % of winners.
I have a question though. I am not a huge fan of \"public handicappers\" and the DRF handicappers. But there are some who I think are pretty good. Wny do you suppose it is that very few if any of them, use either T-Graph or Rags. A few that I happen to think are pretty good (which is of course debatable) are Brad Thomas, Steven Crist and Brad Free. I guess they all have worked for the DRF, so that might explain it. But even the guys on TV, you just never hear anybody reference \"sheets\".
By the way Jerry,
Why are you so hated on the Rags board? I don\'t see much Len \"venim\" on this board, but they really don\'t like you over there, it seems more personal than business almost. Is there a \"history\" that exists which we aren\'t aware of?
Actually, quite a few use sheets at least some of the time. Of the three you mentioned, one sometimes downloads, one would be in an extreme conflict of interest. A lot of public handicappers don\'t make much money and sheets are expensive, and while we do give them free to some press, we\'re not going to let someone use them to make picks and kill customer\'s odds. I\'m not going to start listing, but several TV commentators use our data.
Jim-- There is lots of history, and in some cases (Janis) that\'s completely why they take shots at me (I threw him off this site). But mostly it\'s because raising issues about the Emperor\'s clothes disturbs some of these guys at a very profound level.