just checked out the recently posted 13th @ The Sheets ---- are you suggesting we subtract 8 from all those final #\'s?
I don\'t understand your point --- what\'s all the fuss about?
will you really pay out that thousand?
No. I\'m pointing out that to get that number to where they did they had to use a different variant than for the previous race, which is directly contrary to their stated position.
And, yes I will.
I guess it\'s a bitch when things don\'t turn out like you expect them to.
by the way, in your previous post you mentioned that they \'almost got the race right\' --- does \'right\' mean the way you expected the horses to run....?
while I\'m on the subject, what correction would you suggest making to their #\'s to \'get it right\', and how do you determine this based on Sheet #\'s?
I mean the most likely figures taking into account all the info (not just horses\' previous numbers, by the way). The Ragozin guys took off more from that race than the Preakness--a little more would have been better (as Friedman said).
why do I get the impression that you\'d rework the ends of a bell curve to make them look more like the middle?
by the way, are you saying those #\'s would look \'better\' by subtracting a point or 2?
I almost posted this over @ Sheets (had it typed), but thought it was pointless.
On your first point, I would not, but Ragozin would, if I understand correctly some things have changed since I was there--my understanding (possibly incorrect) is that they allow more variant deviation in slow (high figure) races than faster ones. You should ask them.
Yes, the figures would look better if they took off a little more--Friedman agrees. Read his post. Only dogma keeps them from doing it.
I read his post when he posted it, and I don\'t care if he agrees or not.
like I said, I was almost going to raise this point over there, but at the last second I decided this was more pointless clutter than conversation.
maybe I\'ll see if any points come up here, and repost over there later for his comments.
I\'ll go horse by horse, w/the \'fantasy\' figure being the point and a half subtraction.
please tell me where you disagree:
BRUMMY - 4yo off break, w/fairly ugly 10 top at 3, closing out 3yo year w/cripply backwards line.
real fig = effort of 11
fantasy = new top 9\"
given that this is off a layoff, I don\'t think it has much in the way of predictive reliability, but as far as probability, I\'d personally lean towards \'real fig\' here.
winner = REAL fig
BLOCKADE RUNNER - 4yo moving backwards off big 10 tops end of 3yo line.
maybe circling back, maybe not.
real fig = intermediate 16+
fantasy = intermediate 15-
no opinion
TIPICAL PIPP - 4yo drifting back off 3pt top of 15- a couple months ago.
real fig = 19+, worst in recent pattern
fantasy = 18-, also worst (by a point) recently.
no real opinion, but considering the negative line, I\'d really lean towards real fig again.
but, I\'ll call this one a wash.
EARTODAY - don\'t see much predictive ability off 2 numbers.
real fig - fractional new top of 15-, 2nd lasix.
fantasy - nearly 2 pt new top.
w/the short pattern and lasix, I\'d call this a coin flip, w/real fig being at least as likely.
SA AD - 5yo a couple weeks off 1/2 pt new top of 11\".
nice #, but the horse hasn\'t put good #\'s together in the past, and the timing\'s short.
real fig - half pt drift back to 12
fantasy - another new top of 10\"
I\'d say the drift back is more likely on that line, although fantasy wouldn\'t surprise.
winner = REAL fig
TACTICAL - 2nd out 4yo w/some time between races.
real fig = repeat effort of 1st out (17-).
fantasy = fractional new top from out of nowhere of 15+.
winner = REAL fig
PULVERIZING - irrelevant x
YANKEE - gappy 4yo drifting back after repeating big 3 yo top of 13.
real fig = continued drift (18\" from 17) in 2nd race off big pop.
fantasy = pairing of last effort (17) off big pop.
winner = REAL fig
POWER BOOST - 4yo bouncing off top.
no opinion.
CAPTAIN - short line 3yo drifting back off big lasix pop top.
real fig = another worst # in recent line horse w/a 14- off pop 10 and drift back 12\".
fantasy = 12+, which would actually be slightly better (or pairing of) than the last effort of 12\".
winner = REAL fig in a landslide.
LONGONOT - x\'ing, no opinion.
RUN RICO - ditto
-----------------------------
as you can see, my own subjective view is that REAL fig is more likely in 5 out of 12 horses, w/the other 7 being indeterminate.
I have no idea where either one of you came up w/subtracting anything.
I can\'t speak for Len and I\'m not in love with the idea of making figures using figures I know are wrong (for reasons I have addressed ad nauseum), but simply: doing it the way they have exactly 1 (one) horse has matched his previous top (or \"effective\" top, or recent top). This is extremely unlikely, especially in this era of \"advanced\" training methods. Look at how the race comes up on ours.
What do you think of the Peter Pan figures?
you don\'t really want to know what I think about that.
let\'s just say we disagree.