A Ragozin customer (who has earned the right not to be called a Raggie) asked Friedman why they didn’t post the last race on the Preakness card. Not surprisingly, Len danced the limbo to avoid posting it, trying to shift the focus—-and, not surprisingly, several low-expectation Raggies went right along with his lead. Point is, they CAN’T post it—-if they do, it will be instantly clear to anyone who has followed the discussion here or has any knowledge AT ALL of figure making that the Emperor has no clothes.
Despite there being no weather event (other than the drying that was going on all day), the track was RADICALLY slower for the last race than it was for the previous race. If you download our Preakness Day sheets (still available in ROTW) you will see that the figures we assigned for that race are solid—-in a field of relatively light raced horses, 2 ran small new tops, several ran right around what they were running, and a few ran a few points worse than they were running. To get to that figure I had to use a variant eight (8) points slower than the previous race, which happened to be the Preakness.
Keep in mind the following: Ragozin and I did the same thing with the Preakness (their numbers run a couple of points higher), and they have a stated position of tying the variant for one race to others on the day (and other days, but that’s another conversation). This is how they came up with the terribly slow figures they assigned the race prior to the Preakness (the Schaefer)—-they tied it to the Preakness variant. They’ve also done it on several occasions I’ve pointed out here before—-the ’01 Breeder’s Cup, and two Wood Memorials, for example.
If they post the race, here’s what happens:
1- If they are consistent with their avowed methodology, the figures will come up ridiculously slow—-see what happens if you add 8 points to the race—and it becomes instantly obvious to anyone watching that the theory (dogma) is a joke.
2- If they do what I did to get to correct figures, they know I will jump all over them as hypocrites—-pointing out that this means their reasoning in giving 3 other races that day painfully slow figures doesn’t hold up, to say nothing of the Wood Memorials, B.C., etc.
3- If they hedge and go in-between—-which is probably what they did—-they get it on both counts.
All other reasons for not posting the race are a steaming pile of horseshit (so to speak, and that doesn’t give any of you the right to curse—-it’s my site). To prove it, let any Ragozin customer post on their site asking for the race so he can shove it up my ass. They won’t post it. Additionally, I will give the Ragozin office $1,000 cash if they post the race and leave it and the rest of the Preakness card up through the Belmont.
I am all for finding out the truth, and making a point thats worth making, especially if someone is wrong or blind to it. But
you should read what you write a few times before posting. Instead of people looking at what you are saying and its validity, they are likely to read into how you are saying what you are saying and will likely dismiss the point you are trying to make. Its great to be passionate about this stuff, just don\'t let your passion turn into rage, it ain\'t healthy. Food for thought....
Nunzio
Granted my last paragraph read a little harsh, but I actually wasn\'t angry when I wrote it. That\'s pretty much the way I talk, but point taken.
I love these pissing matches.
And I have bought both T-Graf and Rags and have been more of a raggie of late, for, of all reasons, because I like the little sheets. I can take their product and view every horse\'s sheet and pattern at the same time. Handicaping fundementals are more important then ever in an era in which lots of bettors, including, I suppose, big ones, handicap on the fly.
I live near and bet the Maryland circuit, and I watch it closely. I also have, on the occasions I\'ve bought the Rags, downloaded the T-sheets on the Red Board Room. I have, seriously -- and I\'m not proud of my anal retentiveness here -- superimposed the fields sheet by sheet.
What I\'ve discovered -- on a circuit in which \"patterns\" are usually laughable given the quality of the horses -- is that often-times, both sets of sheets are relatively close. Sometimes, they are very different. My own view is that the Rags numbers are slightly better, but it\'s an uneducated one, save for the fact that this exercize has probably demonstrated that both emperors\' clothes can get pretty skimpy from time to time.
I love the arguments, mostly from TGJB, about the accuracy of the figures. I also am always sceptical when Len F. says a horse has an \"explosive\" pattern based on a half-point nuace in his pattern.
It\'s my view, moderately well educated, is that the inherent difficulties in producing figures of the quality that both shops purport to produce make pattern analysis a joke in a clear majority of cases.
Is a horse 3-wide or 4-wide? What if they enter the turn on the rail and fan out for the stretch? Charles Towns shippers? Oh please. Speed figures are meaningless there, and to the extent they are, Andy Beyer\'s are fine.
It\'s clear that both shops spend a lot of time, money and effort into producing their numbers. I assume the sheet guys with stopwatches and notebooks have been replaced by tapeheads watching the races on TVG or local replay shows available on satellite. Is either shop usually better than the other on a daily basis? I dunno. TGJB at one point said he does 10 tracks a day; obviously computers play a huge role, and that means garbage in, garbage out cannot be avoided.
Then comes the Triple Crown and Breeders Cup. Here, TGJB has done admirably. (I was at Churchill Downs for the 2000 Breeders Cup, and TGJB did very well, though he gave negative recommendations on a lot of horses who nonetheless had the \"best pattern.\"
I can\'t make a lot of money betting a lot of different tracks. The sheets (lower case) don\'t provide enough of an edge, at least to those of us who want to go to the track and have a life as well. (Almost every horse in Md. with an obvious numbers edge or great pattern is a big underlay.)
If I were to make a lot of money at the track I would concentrate on a circuit or two, watch the figures and focus on track bias and trips. Trips, I think, are a far more important factor than the sheets.
Jerry, I will buy your Kentucky Derby Analysis and sheets as well as your Breeders Cup sheets. But tell me, here, why your daily product -- Laurel in December, for example -- is better than the Rags. I\'ve looked, and I\'m not convinced.
Again, I don\'t have a dog in this fight, but for every huge battle you pick over Wood numbers or the Derby, I, as a day-to-day (potential) customer need more convincing....
TGJB:
\"I will give the Ragozin office $1,000 cash if they post the race and leave it and the rest of the Preakness card up through the Belmont.\"
will you be putting a syndicate together to raise that thousand?
Theres nothing wrong with a little passion. It makes for good service or product. In this debate relative to a track changing, especially when recuperating from mother nature with the all out aid of a track superintendant, I have no doubt who is correct in the evolution/created equal dichotomy. In the very end one of the biggest rewards come from ascertaining when the figure is wrong. It\'s easy to do with Beyer\'s. It\'s a bit harder with Rags but that last \"creationist\" race Preakness day is a very sore spot with them, though even Thorograph ocassionally gets it wrong. The speed figure is like the sword. If you try and live by em you\'ll have days where you die by em. Sure they can be made better with soil samples and studies from various tracks. In the end the edge gathered that way will be vitiated by others copying it. So what incentive is there? Observation has been the key to this game for a long time. How many readers can even pick up a change of leads? If you had to put a ratio to the question how much of handicapping is Science to Experience? 3:1?
I remember Steve Cauthen being asked to comment on Alydar or Affirmed\'s lead change while watching a videotape of a race. He couldn\'t pick it up. Maybe his experience was feeling it aboard the horse. But I got the distinct impression he had no freaking clue how to encourage a lead change or even tell if a horse had changed leads. His career was short here. He went to Europe is my recollection and won a couple nice races there. But for a short while horses ran for him cause they liked him. They liked him the way they use to like Julie Krone until she got busted up so badly they could sense her apprehension. But of all the jockeys I\'ve ever seen the one horses liked best of all was the Shoe. How much science is there in that?
Tabitha
In response to your question, see \"Figure Making Methodology\", my post of 5/2/00.
No, I\'m going to take it out of my Derby winnings.
\". But for a short while horses ran for him cause they liked him. They liked him the way they use to like Julie Krone until she got busted up so badly they could sense her apprehension. But of all the jockeys I\'ve ever seen the one horses liked best of all was the Shoe. How much science is there in that?\"
maybe somebody should try using a 100 pound bag of peppermints for a jockey.