David Patent wrote: \"...JB has a horse at CT running straight 5s. On Ragozin, she runs 10s-12s. As long as that horse stays at CT, she will continue, I think, to run tight numbers [on TG].\"
The other board had a contest for dumbest statement of the year. I nominate Patent\'s statement as the dumbest statement of the last 10 years, winning a photo over Tiznow\'s statement comparing Friedman to Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan, and also winning 59 photos over previous Patent idiocies.
David: If you adjust one horse\'s figure by a point for variant (or 10 points, or half a point), you adjust EVERY horse\'s figure by a point.
Forget about asking to see Patent\'s tax forms. Any idiot can get PAID 10 percent of the ticket to receive one of those. I want to see some proof that this damn joke went to Harvard.
Just so you don\'t deliberately misunderstand it, David: You adjust EVERY horse in THAT RACE by one point.
Alydar,
Did you know that you and Jerry have called various people \"idiots\" or their posts \"idiotic\" at least 13 times in the last three weeks. You seem a bit stuck in a rut, there. Tell you what, I\'ll send you a Thesaurus with some of my winnings from Saturday.
Also I find it interesting that you use the term \"we\" when referring to you and Jerry. Do you work for him?
To your point above -- Of course every horse\'s number in that race will be off. How does this affect the argument? Time for another math lesson I guess.
Assume 80% general agreement of numbers (or any percent, it does not matter for this particular example). Looking at it my way (horse by horse) and a horse with 40 races will have 8 numbers that are off by more than 1 point. Total percent of \'wrong\' numbers: 20%. Likelihood of this horse running 5 \'wrong numbers\' in a row -- 32 in 100,000. Total number of horses with 3 wrong numbers in a row in a universe of 40,000 horses -- 12.8.
Now, let\'s look at all horses in a race, say it\'s 10: Total number of races -- 400. Total number of wrong numbers -- 80. Percent of numbers that are wrong -- 20%. Likelihood of any one horse running 5 \'wrong numbers\' in a row -- 32 in 100,000. Total number of horses with 5 wrong numbers in a row in a universe of 40,000 horses -- 12.8. So the story is the same regardless.
To the larger point about the \"loosening\" of cycles and your apparent argument that a horse\'s pattern will get progressively looser over time if the numbers are occasionally wrong:
Whether you are doing it intentionally because you know I\'m right or unintentionally because you don\'t understand the argument, you keep taking my specific points on numbers accuracy and restating them in the broadest (and, as a result, wrong) terms, ascribing sweeping claims which I have never made, in order to try to win a debating point instead of engaging on a specific issue of interest.
My claim is and has been that a certain percent of TG\'s numbers -- which I have estimated in the range of 10-20% -- are probably wrong because Brown has had to do some gyrations with his variant in order to maintain his tight cycles.
There is a huge difference between the claim you are ascribing to me (\"inaccurate\" numbers) and the claim I am actually making (a few inaccurate numbers) and their ramifications for what a horse\'s sheet will look like, so you need to stop oversimplifying the argument.
My claim is that for the cycles to look too \"loose,\" (to use your terminology) it would take a more than 4-8 races in 40 where the number was not exactly in line (+ or - 1 point) with a horses pattern. The meat of the issue, which you keep ducking, is how many races and by what degree would they need to be off before you could actually say that any particular number on that sheet was wrong.
And it is also not true that being wrong in one race will cause a horse\'s sheet (or all of the horses in a particular race) to get progressively looser. Where did you come up with that? One race is one race -- unless of course, you are committed tying your numbers for the next race to the last race without regard to any of the prior races. Does Brown really do that? If so I can\'t imagine why anyone would buy TG sheets since he would be guaranteeing the invalidity of his product simply by missing the variant for one race.
An illustration of your oversimplification and how your argument collapses as a result of not addressing my points -- this quote from you:
\"Let\'s say there is NO circuit changing. If you start out with artificially tight cycles (inaccurate numbers, in other words), horses to whom you gave 5s will frequently lose to horses to whom you gave 7s. When this happens, your cycles will automatically get looser.\"
Your claim only holds up if Brown is wrong on his numbers a great deal of the time, which is a claim that nobody here has made. A horse running 7s will sometimes beat a horse running 5s, regardless of the accuracy of the numbers. It will happen occasionally, partly because horses bounce and move forward -- a horse who has been running 7s can beat a horse who ran a 5 on any given day; but it will only happen as often as your numbers are innacurate and/or as often as horses run unpredicatbly. If JB is right on 80-90% of his numbers (as I have claimed), then the 7s won\'t be beating the 5s \"frequently\" will they? At least not frequently because of inaccurate numbers. And when the 7 horse wins, how do we know it was because of an inaccurate number instead of a legitimate bounce/jump up?
Another question -- If that does occasionally happens on your sheets (7s beating 5s), who would be the wiser as to the reason? Two reasons why it would be hard to know why:
1) Horses are dynamic animals who rarely run the exact same number over time. Right? Example: The Belmont, where Sarava, running 6s and 7s on Rag. sheets, beat a number of horses who had run a 0, a 1, some 2s, a 3, a 4 some 5s, and a bunch of 6s; What do we make of that? Were both TG and Ragozin wrong on their past numbers? Of course not. It happens sometimes.
2) You would only be able to put the pieces together and and see that slower horses were \"frequently\" beating faster horses (and remember, this only would happen if you were wrong on a large percentage of your numbers) if you happened to buy the sheets for every horse running for the purpose of going back to compare how each horse did against other horses in past races. Who would do this?
When you combine general accuracy (80-90%)with the ficklness of equine performance, there is no way that all of your horses\' sheets are going to spiral out of control.
For an illustration, let\'s take that horse running 5s at CT and 10s to 12s on Ragozin. I agree that accuracy of the numbers is what counts. That\'s what I have been advocating all along -- Ragozin is more likely to be accurate than TG.
Now, I think that both Jerry and Len would agree that they have this horse running basically the same, except that Jerry would say \"Len, your variant for CT is off by about 2-3 points\" and Len would say nothing, but if he did say something, he would say \"No, Jerry, your number is off by 2-3 points\". Since this horse is running consistently the same numbers within her circuit, we do not appear to have a situation where either Friedman or Brown would claim that the other one was wrong on a particular variant for a particular race. It would be an issue of the circuit having the wrong variant, at least as far as this horse\'s numbers go.
If this horse then ran in NY, where the TG and Rag. variants appear to be closer, what would happen? Assuming that this horse ran her normal effort, she would run about a 7 or 8 on the TG sheet and a 10-12 on the Rag. Sheet. Agreed? Have we proven anything yet? I don\'t think so. It\'s just one race. Maybe the horse bounced (TG). Let\'s say she stays at a NY track. If she continued to run exactly the same effort every time, she would continue to run 7s and 8s on TG an 10s and 12s on Ragozin. And then you might, might, if you had enough examples of this, be able to say that, \'aha\' TG was wrong with their CT variant.
But reality is different. First, it is very rare for horses to switch circuits permanently. It\'s rare, except at the highest levels, that they run any appreciable number of races away from their circuit. Second, horses are not static. They run good and bad. They get better as they get older, and then worse. Sometimes they kill themselves with one big effort and never get back to it. So detecting an error in a variant becomes extremely tricky. That\'s why your 4444444, 5555555, 6666666, 7777777 example is so useless. Not only have I not suggested that Brown would be wrong on every number in those series, but it is counter-reality to assume that horses run like that. Sure, if horses ran like that every time, it would be easier to pinpoint TG\'s mistakes. But since horses don\'t run like that, it\'s harder to see which numbers might have been wrong. All one sees is an overall pattern of tighter numbers than Rag. because Jerry makes the necessary up or down adjustment in about 10-20% of his races (again, JB can tell me what percent of his races he has the variant switching degree or direction) to reflect his belief that horses are more consistent than Rag. believes.
And this is why demonstrating conclusively that Rag. or TG is right or wrong is impossible. You can point to this race or that race but there will always be a defense by the maker of the sheet for that race. I can\'t prove that the Pimlico track didn\'t suddenly reverse direction and get 8 points slower right after the Preakness, can I? And Jerry can\'t prove that it did.
But once I know why Jerry\'s horses run so consistently and I don\'t get anything out of him on why he moves his variant except that he did because that\'s the way the he knows horses run, then I\'m skeptical. And the response Jerry, you, and others on this board have given, which is essentially \'you can\'t prove it didn\'t move\' is not enough for me. I think there has been enough data over time to establish some ground rules for the effects of various maintenance, weather, etc. on the variant (see many of my previous posts) so if someone is going to make a claim that a variant moved significantly, I want to see some historcal data to support it.
And if Jerry is indeed correct that his tight cycles prove that his numbers are accurate, why hasn\'t the betting world realized this and dumped Rag. for TG??
That\'s why one needs to decide which product they trust and go with it, not worrying about whether a particular race was necessarily right or wrong. Because Friedman will blow some and so will Brown. I just think that Brown blows more of them because he is obsessed with the tight cycles.
Finally, I don\'t know why you are so obsessed with my educational background, but if you really cared you could always call the alumni office or get a copy of the yearbooks.
Jesus Crist, Patent. You think I\'m overusing \"idiot\" when describing you? Didn\'t you read James Kilpatrick? He advised that if you\'re going to refer to bananas four times, you should use the word \"bananas\" four times. You don\'t start calling them \"the yellow fruit.\"
I will deal with the rest of this BS, ALL OF IT, in a day or two--as long as my ex-girlfriend doesn\'t threaten to take my daughter away from me if I reply to you.
10 to 1 says you cannot do so without multiple ad hominem attaks.
Also, if we want to advance this discussion any, why doesn\'t JB post some sheets from the last several years and identify races where the variant was changed for anomolies. If we then look at all of the horses who ran in those races over a period of time, maybe we can have a concrete discussion instead of an abstract one, where all of us \"idiots\" who do not believe that tight lines prove accurate numbers are simply termed idiots or, the nicer way of putting, \"those who just don\'t understand what it means to make figures.\" We can start with the the Wood from a couple of years ago that JB keeps bringin up.
Jason: I saw your last name, and I think I might know who you are. If you don\'t mind, may I ask you a question? I\'ll put it in code. What are the odds that you and Patent would be arguing with me at the same time?
As for the ad hominem attacks, I\'ve been reading Patent\'s posts for a long time. Attacks against the man are valid when the man is David Patent. Please read his posts. I have not called you any names. You have not called me any names.
I\'ll get to your other post in a day or two.
Alydar,
I\'m just trying to help get you out of your rut. If insults is all you have, then I guess go with your best pitch. And I like it that for you just the fact that I am me -- rather then something wrong with my reasoning -- somehow makes your attacks valid.
It would be nice to see you deal with specifics in my post for once and maybe for Jerry to post some sheets so we can have a concrete discussion.
It would also be interesting to know, since track superintendants are apparently a strong source of your views on varients, whether you talked to the Pimlico super. about what they did or did not do that made the track shift 8 points in reverse after the Preakness. And if you didn\'t why not.
I can handle this one now because I don\'t have to look up any of your quotes.
1: Your reasoning is laughable. You are one of the least logical people I have come across in some time. And you are a terrible debater. I have spent half my life around lawyers. You, David, are absolutely incompetent and inept. You are also uncommonly dishonest. We have already kicked the hell out of your arguments. Look it up. THAT is why you refused to answer our questions and go over the strings, giving as an excuse that your wife would take your baby away. Pathetic. There are dozens of questions that you have flat-out ignored because you haven\'t a clue how to answer them. And you have changed your positions completely. You have gone from ridiculing JB\'s figures (saying they yo-yo up and down and are of no use to you because of a crazy methodology), to your present argument: TG and Rags are so close that the differences can\'t perpetuate themselves. As for name-calling, we simpletons have long memories.
2: Where is your answer as to where you got the JB quote? (See \"et tu\" string.) I asked this a few days ago. And I asked it a few hours ago. At the very least, answer THIS question.
3: What makes the attacks seem imperative is that you are a dishonest, dishonorable man who is trying to hurt a man\'s business. By the way, I don\'t work for JB. I have never met him. I have never spoken to him. We have exchanged a few emails. I believe that I broke a profanity record in one of them, and I spent half of another one trying to convince him that Kelli Williams of \"The Practice\" is the most beautiful woman on earth. (OK, she\'s tied with Halle Berry in my book.)
4: I have dealt with your specifics. You say your wife didn\'t want you to deal with our specifics. Again, absolutely pathetic, Patent.
5: You and Ragozin say track speed doesn\'t change in the absence of a visible change in the weather, etc. Read Steve Wood and Bruno De Julio to find out how hilarious that is. The point is that work (among numerous other things) changes the track. It is up to the variant maker to determine the degree of the change.
6: Did Ragozin have the turf getting slower as it dried out on Preakness day? What does this do to your thinking, David? Does it invalidate Ragozin\'s turf numbers? You have been ducking this question (and about 40 others) for some time.
David: Point number one: You wrote that JB\'s variants (not his figures) yo-yo up and down.
Answers I want before I reply to you:
1: Who makes \"Ragozin\'s\" figures at major tracks outside of New York and Florida?
2: Did Ragozin lie (\"accurate to a few inches\") in his book?
3: Have you ever asked Friedman to tell his employees to stop lying to customers about TG? What is your view on the ethics here? How do you reconcile the lying with your earlier statement that the Raggies don\'t want to have a lot of customers, that they are concerned about ruining their odds?
4: You can answer our other questions, too. I have a lot of faults, David, but I kind of have a decent memory. You WILL answer our questions before this is over. You will answer all of them.
I won\'t be the 1st & perhaps not even the last to point out that by now everyone understands both sides of this debate on theory, which can only be resolved by testing over a sufficiently large sample. Hence, I raise two fundamental questions: (1)Do you really think that it is possible to win an cyberargument with an equally committed stranger? and (2) Do you really think at this point that there is something you will say in one of your posts which is going to change anyone\'s mind?
Speaking of theory & track condition & track supers, isn\'t this question nothing more than another example of cellular automata in the universe, which holds that every physical action can be thought of as a computation in which the universe moves from some initial input to an outcome, which is the view of scientists who divide the globe into a fine grid to calculate approx. numerical solutions to complicated equations describing weather dynamics? More to the point, wouldn\'t almost everyone have a chance to participate & maybe even learn something which might help improve roi if we were discussing the betting strategy issues raised in HP\'s 1st \"lessons learned\" post?
In my case, the ones I am arguing against are not the ones I\'m trying to convince--the theory is similar to a political debate. My stated position from the time we started this board in \'97 was to try and bring the Raggies out in the open so that I could deal with all the stuff said out in the field I never get to address.
I recognize that sometimes this becomes unpleasant for civilians. But on-line sales for the 3 Triple Crown days were up 50% from last year, and 488 different people downloaded on Derby Day, not counting comps, many of them former Raggies (Paul and I recognize the names, others have called here).
I think the fact that anyone having a turf course getting slower as it drys out seals the argument .I have in the past used raggies and had some sucess with them ,but the TG\'s seem to be better for me.I have a question if anyone is willing to answer ,I seemed to do better with raggies on the west coast,more specifically so.cal.Do the track variants there shift less than, for example N.Y. tracks because of the infrequent weather change? Any observations would be appreciated .I also find the debates here sort of tiresome, but at the same time very informative ,keep up the good work fellas
Variants are actually moving more on the West Coast. My guess is that your handicapping style fits So Cal better.
Thank you for your response.
In David\'s case the attacks are justified--he has been astoundingly evasive and dishonest. The reason I don\'t react as violently as Alydar (most of the time) is that I have learned that most reading here are actually following this close enough to get it. Have you seen anyone come in to back up any of David or Jim\'s arguments? And it\'s not because Raggies don\'t come here--lots do. And they recognize he has left dozens of direct questions unanswered, instead setting up convoluted hypotheticals based on tons of his own assumptions.
We posted the Wood at the time, and here it is again.
Thank you for posting the Wood, which I find very helpful in this discussion. I have not had time to look at it closely yet, but can you tell me how big the point different was between you and Ragozin that day? In other words, how much would I have to deduct from each point in the Wood from your sheets if you had used Ragoznin\'s variant?
As I recall, it was either 2 or 3 points. One of the problems with this (as I said then) is that later numbers are made by using these numbers as well. It would obviously help if you could get the same horses on Ragozin.
Well, for analyzing the question of whether your sheet would collapse if we deducted 2-3 points from the Wood, I don\'t see how it matters what the Ragozin sheets show.
teekay:
Whatever works best for ya is the way to go. TG\'s west coast figs actually were instrumental in my switch to their product fwiw.
Generally, I find So Cal difficult to play. So many runners coming off long layoffs or very gappy spacing in their records. In recent years the quality of racing has plummeted not to mention field size. With the more consistent weather, perhaps pace \'cappers do better ala Brohamer et al.
In last years BC Classic, west coaster Tiznow looked tons better on TG and on the Rags virtually unplayable. One race does not a product make LOL.
Believe me ,I really dislike So.Cal. tracks ,I have very little success with TG there ,however I did have some success with Raggie\'s there.I do agree with the Tiznow #\'s and thought he really looked good in the B.C.C.at Bel.I was in Vegas the year prior using Raggies and could not make Tiznow that easily .thanks for your reply.