Very busy with the seminar, but there\'s always time for a little fun.
Last year, Lion Tamer ran second by 3 lengths to Mass Media in the Sport Page. In his next start, he won the GI Cigar Mile despite racing 4 wide. On Ragozin:
a) he ran 3 points faster winning the NYRA Mile,
b) ran the same figure in both races,
c) bounced 3 points from a losing effort in the Sport Page, but won the NYRA Mile.
Hint-- it\'s C. Ragozin gave him 3 points faster losing the Sport Page than winning the NYRA Mile.
For the record, we had him going forward about a point to win the NYRA mile.
Jerry,
Do you give horses faster figures because they win?
No, Michael. But if there is not some correlation between winning and running fast you are all wasting a lot of money, and I\'m wasting a lot of time.
Do you think he ran better in the Sport Page than the NYRA Mile?
Let\'s put it this way-- I suspect that if you saw all the Ragozin sheets for the Mile, you would see that they gave an awful lot of horses really bad numbers. Like in the Folklore race, and many others.
Jerry,
Most Grade 1 winners run fast, and I am sure most Grade 1 winners perform better next out than the average horse, but doesn\'t everybody know that? Where\'s the edge? A hidden SLOW number on a Grade 1 winner must be as valuable as a hidden fast number. No?
No issue with the figs you brough up though. I\'m going with them (yours that is).
Michael-- it\'s chaos around here, but briefly--
I\'m not saying that all GIs are faster than all GIIIs, or anything like that. I make part of my living finding the anamolies, like Super Frolic, Santana Strings, etc.-- I look for where performance and accomplishment have not gone hand in hand, and try and turn the former into the latter.
What I am talking about is something else. I am talking about figures not making sense-- for example, the Adirondack. I agree that a graded stake for fillies at Saratoga can go in an 18 in theory-- but not with those horses running in it. That\'s the point about the Jockey Club Gold Cup, and some of the other examples as well-- the only way to give them those figures is to ignore the past histories of the very horses whose performance you are measuring-- AND IT IS ONLY BY USING THOSE FIGURE HISTORIES THAT ANYONE IS ABLE TO MAKE FIGURES AT ALL. That\'s what projection figure making is all about.
The difference is that Ragozin combines a lot of apples with a lot of oranges, and uses averages to do it. He combined the races before they sealed the track at Saratoga with those afterward, and the early (and one turn) races on the Belmont card with the Gold Cup. It is a dogmatic, fundamentalist approach that ignores both the physical realities (sealing the track, etc) and THE SPECIFIC DATA ITSELF-- the histories of the horses in the race itself. It bases figures on a series of assumptions, relationships, and conclusions that have no basis in science or logic, and lumps all kinds of things together to come up with an average. Averages are fine for large population studies, like coming up with the average winning number for a 25 claimer-- but they don\'t help you come up with the winning number for THIS 25 claimer.
If you saw all the Ragozin sheets for the horses that ran in those late dirt races on 7/27 at Saratoga-- or the Gold Cup, or the two Lion Tamer races-- you would see immediately what I am talking about.
Which is why you won\'t.
Thanks Jerry..... I sent you an email - did you get it?
Yes, thanks Michael. I\'ll be sitting in the dining room with Super Frolic\'s people, but if I run into someone I think deserves it I\'ll put them in touch with you.
These are fun. How about a happy T-Graph customer pop quiz?
Superfly ran second in a MSW at the Spa by 3 1/2 (118lbs, 2w) and came back to win a listed stake at Delaware by 1 1/2 (115lbs 1w1w). On T-Graph Superfly ran:
A. 6 points (about 3 1/2 lengths adjusted for lbs & wide) better winning the listed stake by 1 1/2.
B. The same in both races
C. 6 points (about 3 1/2 lengths adjusted for lbs & wide) better in losing the MSW by 3 1/2.
There is a small \"g\" next to Lion Tamer\'s 0\" Ragozin number for the Sport Page race. That denotes a heavy gusting wind. LT also had a slow start in that race as denoted by the \"s\" listed after his #. He was wide in both races so we will call that one even. He also carried three more pounds in the Sport Page which equates to a 1/2 point. With those three factors listed above, I do not have a problem with the Sport Page # being faster by 2 and 3/4 points.
apples and oranges
How about one more little bit of info before we can answer this question;
how much did the Sheikh pay for the winner of that MSW (who made no other starts)?
Jake-- the gusting wind was there for all the horses in the race, not just Lion Tamer. And the slow start and wide trip are both taken into account in the number.
Elk-- that maiden LOSS (where he beat the rest of them by 11 lengths-- 9 points), to a horse that was then sold for $2 million (despite having a sprinter\'s pedigree), combined with the weakness of the Del 5 horse stake field, caused the bettors to send Superfly off at 50 cents to the dollar, as a maiden. Think maybe he laid over the field?
Again-- the point is not just what Superfly and LT ran. It\'s what it means the OTHER horses in those races ran, as well. If you saw all the Ragozin sheets for those races you would see what I am talking about instantly.
I know the gusting wind was for all horses in the Sport Page, but I was replying to your pop quiz - see quiz below:
Last year, Lion Tamer ran second by 3 lengths to Mass Media in the Sport Page. In his next start, he won the GI Cigar Mile despite racing 4 wide. On Ragozin:
a) he ran 3 points faster winning the NYRA Mile,
b) ran the same figure in both races,
c) bounced 3 points from a losing effort in the Sport Page, but won the NYRA Mile.
Hint-- it\'s C. Ragozin gave him 3 points faster losing the Sport Page than winning the NYRA Mile.
For the record, we had him going forward about a point to win the NYRA mile.
There are instances where a horse can lose a race and run a 0\" and then win one and have a worse number next out (in LT\'s instance a 3+). The wind and slow start made LT\'s Sport Page effort rate better on Rags than the NYRA mile effort.
You can\'t just think he ran faster just because he won the race.
Am I missing something??
Yes, you are missing something. And no, I do not think he ran faster just because he won.
The figures of ALL the horses in the Cigar were affected by the gusting wind.
If you see the Ragozin sheets for ALL the horses in the race, you will see that it looks better if you take off a few points. They created those figures by tying the race to the other races on the day-- it\'s the only way you could give them (meaning all of them, not just the winner) figures that slow.
My guess is that something caused that race to (in effect) be run at a different variant. It could have been something with the wind itself, it could have been the wind drying out the track (see \"Changing Track Speeds\" in the archives section of this site), it could have been something else. But there is no basis to give THOSE horses-- the ones that ran in that race-- that slow a figure based on their OWN figure histories. You can only do it if you make a variant for other races, and tie it to that.
Which is particularly crazy on gusty days, where wind picking up or slacking off during the running of a race can make a diference of a couple of points.
TGJB I understand the Spa race was getting a big number and I\'m sure the Delaware stake was weak. I guess that was my point. It\'s not always as simple as the pop quizzes make it out to be. The last one more so then the first couple. For the record I\'m quite happy with the product and have never used the other guy. Just playing a little devils advocate.
Having seen what you have since the MSW would you be happy to have paid 2M Discreet Cat?
Elk-- I wouldn\'t have paid it for Discreet Cat. I was a whole lot more interested in Superfly, and I had someone talk to them, but they figured out it was a big race, especially when the winner sold for so much with no pedigree. We\'ll see how both do next year.
I\'m not saying winning automatically gets you a better number. If you think I am, you should catch up on about 200 posts of mine on this board explaining what I do. A good start would be the reply I gave Michael last night about this on this string.
I must be dense.
The gusting wind race was the Sport Page, not the Cigar Mile. No?
Yes, a gusting wind makes a difference of a couple of points..that\'s why
Lion Tamer\'s number in the Sports Page is better than his number in the Cigar Mile.
Jake-- You are correct, I read you as saying it was in the Cigar. But it plays the same either way-- it is affecting the numbers of all the horses in the race, or none of them. Wind and any number of other things can affect the raw time of the race, but you factor them into the numbers you end up assigning the horses. If that were not true, there would be no point in using wind corrections at all. We are in theory adjusting for all these things.
In simplest terms-- if you end up with a race (or a couple of them, as happened 7/27 at Saratoga) where all the horses would get numbers much worse or much better than they have been running if you tie it to other races, something is wrong. And it doesn\'t make a difference whether there is wind or not.
By only looking at Lion Tamer you can\'t see that-- you would have to see sheets on the other horses. Or, you could just realize that it would be silly to think that if LT ran back to his Sport Page-- where he lost to Mass Media by 3 1/2 lengths-- he would have beat Badge of Silver, Pico Central etc.in the Cigar by 6 lengths. That sound reasonable to you? Think Mass Media could have beat that field by 10?
You are Unfinished Symph from the other board, no?
so what you are saying is that it is impossible for all or most of the horses in a race to run slower than they are projected to run?
gato,
Think about it - if there are six horses in a race and each has a 50% chance to run worse (not slower, time is relative to the track condition) then the probability of all of them running worse is .5*.5*.5*.5*.5*.5 is .016 or 1.6%.
True, that\'s not impossible but it is extremely unlikely - and that\'s just with six horses. And 50% is a high figure for the likelihood of a bad run, especially for good-class horses. If that figure were the norm there\'d be no point in handicapping would there? You\'d do just as well with a pin!
George
I think the probability of 2-3 contenders getting impacted significantly by a very fast pace, a couple that raced just off it being somewhat impacted, and another couple going off form is not that low once you islolate the races with extreme paces properly. Breaking races like that out has the effect of building the impact of pace into the track variant.