i was up at the recent saratoga meet and it seemed we were outnumbered by the sheet seminar sometimes they had 70-80 people and sometimes we had 10-20 people at carolina bbq, maybe we should wheel out our big guns like jerry?
Johnathan Schwartz (RAGS) has a loyal following up in Saratoga for many years even though he is nothing more than a \"stabber\".Many horsemen, bettors have trouble with the \"pairing\" assembly line of TG,(I.E.races that are obviously not pairs that come up pairs on TG). The other big issue is the awarding of too many negative figures by TG to a point where a negative fig is commonplace and does not signify a \"special\" performance.
For the entire Saratoga meet a few sheet players(TG and Rags) are comparing the two products along with Brisnet and Beyers. So far, TG is faster on all comparative scales for figs in general and have many more pairs, especially against Rags and Beyer(after adjusting for weight and ground)
Miff-- Damn right we have more pairs. Talk to anyone who makes serious figures about what that signifies. What matters when comparing sets of figures is how they do compared to results, and whether the theories and practices used to make them make sense.
Wood day (and all days)-- you know whether you got it right by how ALL the horses who come out of that race (and day, sometimes) run going forward, in FIGURE terms, not just one runaway winner with one isolated top that runs back once. Your expert variant makers probably can tell you that, if they know anything at all about making variants. Do they use wind, by the way?
I think the answer to your question is easy! Rags sells more product, because they provides more accurate numbers.
TGJB,
These guys are big time variant computer geeks working for a very, very wealthy So Cal \"monster\" bettor. They use digital aneomometer\'s(sp) and measure pocket, head and tail winds at all points,feed it to a computer overlay program etc, etc in determining the variant. What do you use??
P.S. They told me recently that the posted track cushion(you inquired about it recently) is MEANINGLESS in their calculations.
Miff-- Of course the posted cushion depth is meaningless in trying to FIGURE OUT how fast the track speed is-- you can only do that by looking at how fast the horses run over it. It certainly DOES matter in DETERMINING how fast the track is, but that\'s another question.
Interesting about the wind. They have guys at all those points measuring wind speed DURING every race? If so, at how many tracks? Or have NYRA and other tracks have let them set up something permanent?
As for the variant program, I\'d have to see what it\'s doing to know whether it\'s any good, and no, the results of one bettor wouldn\'t mean anything to me. I would need to see what it\'s trying to measure, and how.
They will not say anything more than I\'ve posted.They do NOT have people posted all over the track and the little I know, I had to pry out of them over a few of lunches(I always pay). There are only two guys, Ian and Warren (two POMMES, George) and I don\'t know if they have been given an OK by Track management, so I prefer nothing is said. They are not doing anything wrong.
I know the So Cal Whale and I hear he\'s a loser with an overall small positive return from rebates.Staying on point,you can bet your eyeballs that no-one has a system/equipment as extensive as they do in making variants.
On your statement that the posted cushion certainly matters in determining how fast the track is, you are not even close. The geeks told me that on 5 consecutive race days at Belmont Park in July, the posted cushion was 4in. During those 5 days the speed of the track varied from plus 40 to plus 160( from 2 to 8 lengths faster than par/norm) despite the posted cushion being the same each day.They know all about wind, maintenance etc.
The conclusion from people with far more expertise on variants than you or any other figure maker is that a posted cushion of 4in produced wild fluctuations in how fast horses run over the same 4in posted cushion on different days(same caliber runners) probably due to wind, moisture, maintenance.They did not feel their sampling days were an abberation as to what is the norm.
Miff-- I really like the part about those with far more expertise than me \"on variants\". You know that the same way you know horses are not getting faster-- you just KNOW it.
You need to read more carefully. Several things determine track speed. One of them is cushion depth. If you read my posts about changing track speeds carefully-- or looked carefully at the presentation in the archives-- you would know that there are endless combinations of variables that affect track speed. You can\'t use a formula for it, or measure it any better way than the way we do it. Which was also said by one of the scientists who have studied racing surfaces.
Again, I would love to know what those guys are doing. Can\'t show you what\'s wrong with it if I don\'t know what it is, and/or always interested in learning.
Variants are important, but assuming these guys are ultra variant oriented, they are still in the same ballpark as the rest of us when they try to identify a variant for the sole two turn race on a card. Its almost impossible. In that case you have to look at the sprint results and try to extrapolate and thats the problem.
I don\'t think anyone that maintains that deep cushions are a modern handicapping factor would deny that there is still wide variance with surface speed on particular days (April 9th for instance) and that its generally moisture related.
Anyway, the handicapping ranks are severely culled. So many big horses have dropped recently. A good three year old is going to have a chance this year in the fall races. Who\'s left?
Rock Hard Ten (is he fast enough)
Commentator (can he steal off far enough and slow it down sufficiently?)
St. Liam
Funny Cide (does he even want to run any longer?)
Perfect Dread
Limehouse
Pollard\'s Vision
Suave
looks like St. Liam is the horse to beat, maybe Perfect Dread can clunk up for second and with a little luck who knows?
TGJB,
I am fairly confident that I know and understand all facets of \"racing\" as well as you if not better(not figure making).Your horses are getting faster theory should earn you an Honorary Diploma from the University of the World Is Flat.
I mentioned to several knowledgeable racing people that you stated that Smarty Jones would have beaten Secretariat by quite a bit(your words)They laughed and asked if you did stand-up comedy on the side.
Excellent example with the world being flat. Kinda have it backward, though-- think about it.
Don\'t know what you are thinking about. They believe the world is flat and you believe horses are getting faster, equally far fetched.
Yep, equally far fetched. And both have equal logic and science behind them.
You say: \"you stated that Smarty Jones would have beaten Secretariat by quite a bit\" Well how do you know that he wouldn\'t have?? Just because he was the great SEC. and no one would have ever beat him in this era??
Kev,
Maybe Ghost Zapper on his best day, but Smarty Jones is a joke.
Smarty was a dandy. It would have been interesting with Big Red. I think you\'d have to favor the old guy at the Belmont distance though, but that flies right in the face of other fast time, big margin win positions.
They began running negative 5 and 6 around Smarty\'s time and he never achieved that, but I tend to think he would have hammered out those numbers easily at 9 marks and done so with a \"whoosh\".
Fans of the game lost out when he retired prematurely. Chronic foot bruises my butt. Sure he was nicked, but he was just too valuable to keep running. TGraph knows something about breeding value.
TGJB,
Careful now, logic is one thing, you have ZERO science.
Thing is Big Red soon as he started to race against the older\'s he wasn\'t the monster. Still a damn fine horse but he ran 3 times vs olders on dirt and only won 1 and the next two wins came on turf, which is a very great thing he did there winning G1\'s on dirt and truf. Just like S.Jones would have love to see him run at 4.
You need to read that whole thing over again, carefully. Especially the part about the British guy, and the Time-Form ratings.
By the way, the Earth IS flat. Just look out your window, or stand on it. Everybody knows it-- or KNEW it, anyway, just look at the maps they used to make. How could they all be wrong? Just like \"everybody\" knows how great Secretariat is.
The figure makers who don\'t think horses are getting faster are those using pars based on the ASSUMPTION that the world is flat-- whoops, I mean that horses aren\'t getting faster. The ones who say it without using figures are the same guys who looked out their window and said the world was flat, just look.
I really don\'t know why I\'m wasting time on this with you again, except maybe because the flat world thing was so perfect for this.
KEV,
The discussion really centered around 3yr old Smarty vs 3yr Sec. If you can, take a look at Smarty\'s Belmont and then Sec\'s Belmont and let me know if you agree with Jerry that Smarty would have beaten SEC \"by quite a bit\". A truly brilliant and informed opinion by Jerry with the entire racing world in agreement.
TGJB,
Nice try!!! Where is the Science? Your opinion is worthless as is mine and all others.
That\'s where your worng on that one, it\'s not the BEL. race it\'s the derby race that was the best for S. JONES.
Well sorry, it was two races before the derby that was the fastest for S. Jones, but the derby he got a neg.1.3 something like that......thing is TG wasn\'t making figs. for the early 70\'s when Big Red was around, only Rag\'s was then. They had Big Red running a 1- in the derby and a 1- in the Bel. and S.Jones ran a 0+ in the derby and a 2- in the Bel. I don\'t know if JB was working with Rag\'s then, but maybe he heard something from them over the years about Big Red and the Bel. win or the fast derby score, like the track speed that day.
Kev, I couldn\'t remember Big Red losing two of three dirt starts to olders as you stated, so i looked it up. You are correct.
The first he lost was the Whitney to Onion (yestersdays version of Commentator if I don\'t miss my guess)
http://www.secretariat.com/races/race17.htm
He then rematched Onion at Belmont and set a track record.
http://www.secretariat.com/races/marlborocup.htm
Lastly he went in a 12 mark Woodward (Isn\'t it 9 marks now?...dang racing has receded.) and on a sloppy track he ran what on the numbers looks to be his worst race. Not a very superhorseish finish on dirt, maybe thats why Smarty got out early.
http://www.secretariat.com/races/race19.htm
heres the main link http://www.secretariat.com/past_performance.htm
still a very impressive record. That kind of record today would earn about 12 million on the track i expect. Thats just a guess factoring in five million bonus.
This was the first year TG has presented Toga Seminars, while Ragozin has been doing them here for years... The 20-30 attendees we\'ve had on a typical Saturday, (and 40+ on Travers), is a strong initial showing. There has also been a terrific comraderie generated by the gatherings as TG players met each other and consistently re-connected throughout the week(s) at the \'Cue.
Hope some of you will be around for the Finale Weekend...
Steve
I\'ll be in Saratoga on Friday - Sunday.
Which days will there be a seminar and at what time?
I would like to attend.
I just dont get all the bickering about figures, who is faster then who from one era to the next, what in reality does it matter, figures are only a part of the equation to reach a common goal. I just dont understand why the figure dominates this board when it should be how the figures relate to the race at hand. Look at Travers, looks to me like the figures held up well and it came down to the other limitless handicapping factors....yet hardly even think those are a factor using this methodology.
Sounds to me like these figures are a replacement for hard work. No offense, but read the threads, its hard to not think other wise.
Alan will be leading the discussion groups. (For everyone else they are a discussion group. For you, think of it as a movie. Especially since they only will have about 5 minutes per race). He\'ll be in later today, I think we\'ll be doing them all 3 days, starting at 11:00, if there is any change we\'ll post.
Why are you so sure that Class doesn\'t talk back to the movie screen?
\"(For everyone else they are a discussion group. For you, think of it as a movie. Especially since they only will have about 5 minutes per race). \"
Now that was funny. :)
What makes you think I would identify myself and give you guys a chance to call security and have me thrown out. :)
Seriously, I don\'t intend to do or say anything other than enjoy the day and listen to what\'s said.
OK, that\'s the last time I print out a thread and take it with me to read during a staff meeting!
What\'s the penalty for \"out loud\" laughter in lieu of a smile or hiccup? And do you think the real tears might have covered up the initial faux pas?
Kaspept,
I will be there this weekend. Hope to see the \"ANTI RAGGERS\" there.
One little favor..since I\'m doing the non Carb diet thing anychance to just get the cue?
NC Tony
You couldn\'t have said it any better, the sheets players don\'t figure in anything but the number.The most obvious factor with the sheets is when a horse moves up in class, after running a big number, i feel most horses bounce when thet face this. Horses that run big numbers and are dropped down tend to run better.
Tony..
No problem going \"roll-less\" with the \'cue...
Plus on Sundays, my pal Don Tessitore and I put on a little \'special\' lunch for friends that frequent the vicinity, and there\'s lots of options for the carb concerned. I\'ll leave it to Jerry, Bill and/or Julian to add any additional insight to the Sunday goings-on. (I left Alan off that list as he seems to have been the least \"cuisine-interested\" of the TG braintrust).
Look forward to meet CH, you and everyone else who visits... Weekend weather should be dandy.
Steve
can someone explain bounce to me, my interpretation is a performance that does not meet the typical effort a horse could give because the animal was not given the proper time to recover from his last race.
I mean if a horse ran a 1 on dirt then goes to the same distance on turf and runs a 5, did the horse bounce? My inclination is that he did not like the surface.
Did a horse go 22 and 45 and fly home to run a 0, then three weeks later runs in the breeders cup sprint and goes 21 and 44 and runs a 4, did he bounce? Maybe.
Have to accept Steve\'s judgement here since our gracious host has observed the TG stable feed habits up close and personal from day one. But that\'s not to say I didn\'t enjoy the melon and barbecue first time around and look forward to more this weekend. See ya all this Friday.
I\'ll let JB respond to Saddlecloth\'s query.
Saddle-- if you are asking what a bounce is by definition, it is a sub-par effort caused by a previous strenous one. If you are asking about when horses will bounce, it\'s complicated-- and while Andy Serling is a friend of mine, his comment on Pack\'s show, that anyone who believes in bounces is lazy, was moronic. Just using one example, Santana Strings went into the Amsterdam kicking down the barn, and ran his eyeballs out, running a new top. After which he lay down in his stall for a few days, and did not eat like he did before the big effort. He eventually perked up, and the King\'s Bishop was a GI, so we ran and hoped for the best. But sure enough, he didn\'t fire-- he bounced.
It\'s very complicated, and the Thoro-Patterns you can find on each sheet are an attempt to help figure it out. It\'s not simply a question of a horse reacting to his top, or to a new one-- other factors come into play, like age, pattern going into the big race, history off previous tops, severity of top, who the trainer is, time between races, etc.. Andy-- anyone who doesn\'t investigate bounce theory enough to understand it is lazy.
TGJB,
You forgot to include sickness and infirmities that happen during a race which are unforseen going in.Bouncing is used too liberally by sheet players as an excuse for a poor performance. As you said, there are many reasons a horse regresses but a few of them have nothing to do with their previous big effort.
TGJB,
Has anyone actually studied the ROI of bounce candidates - like older experienced horses that ran a sigificant new top last time out? Naturally you could always refine these kinds of studies a lot, but I\'d like to get a basic idea if they are generally overbet.
I think simple \"mean reversion\" and of course trip are both factors.
Class I\'m the one who was doing the study of bounces on Ragozin sheets, I couldn\'t do ROI cause I don\'t have the results of the races just the next number\'s. Thing is people have to look at is, unless it\'s a 3yo early on, a horse will bounce a large % of the time, now it\'s up to the sheet users to bet or not to bet on many factors, like odds, number power, other horses lines in the race. When I do a study and I\'m going to be doing another one maybe on patteren\'s next time, I don\'t really care right now for ROI\'s I just want to see if a certain factor is good or bad. Just like the top 3 fav\'s in a race will win 67% of the time, but you can\'t make any money off those, but you have to deal with those horses almost in every race, cause of their high % to win a race. They will run 1st or 2nd something like 90 something %.
Excellent point on the different generations of race horse\'s , perhaps there is some vanity appeal associated that question . Specially now I don\'t get it with so many races and so little time to bet these days it becomes much too time consuming ... Also , an estute observation on the use of figures , too many people use them only to take into account the horse\'s last race or two or three with out considering the overall pattern along w/ other numorous factors . Many become ego involved - taking the I can crack this nut approach when the race is a pass or otherwise untenable . While additionally careless can be those functioning on auto-pilot - while viewing a sheet for a horse and thinking forget a number here , forget a number there , disregard that one , ignore the other and the horse dosn\'t look too bad etc . Alot of folks just want to have fun and I can relate to that . Cahing tickets if I\'m not mistaken , is a direct result of a very serious work-like approach to handicapping while taking everything into account and considering all the angle\'s as though one is in business for themselfs and investing thier own money .
Thanks. I\'d appreciate anything you come up with. CH
I did not say that anyone that believes in bounce is lazy ( I looked it up ). What I said, basically, is that it is a convenient excuse used by people who are often too lazy to figure out exactly why a horse ran well one day and poorly the next.
By the way, did you say anything important or interesting on the message you left me, as it went on way too long and I deleted it after 12 seconds or so.