How many in the office had this one, a gift from the gods. all right!!!!
I would rather not have known. 7-1.....
Actually, this race raises and an interesting, albeit potentially explosive, question. The question is -- How does one know when an aberration is something that can be a strong indicator of an underlying hidden truth and relied on versus when an aberration can be viewed as a sui generis event that can be disregarded? Let me give better context to explain.
The reason Two Sixty Four looked so good on the numbers was that his mid-Atlantic figures (including a beautiful pattern) were clearly superior to the NYRA figs assigned to the other contenders. I recall years ago that there was a lot of criticism directed towards TGJB\'s mid-Atlantic numbers suggesting that he was giving absurdly high figs to clearly inferior horses on those circuits.
Fast forward to this year\'s Breeders Cup and there were allegations made that Ragozin\'s figures were flawed because e.g. Grade 1 quality figures were handed out in a midweek low level allowance at Del Mar or that all the horses in the Super Derby ran faster than all the horses in the Jockey Club Gold Cup (I know this is an exaggeration, but you get my point).
To me, a user of both Thorograph and Ragozin, this sort of debate is interesting. When I use the figs (whichever ones), what I am looking for is an edge. It is just the sort of edge I want when something comes out looking starkly different than what would be expected under conventional thought. In other words, I really like it when I find an unusally strong number in a place you would not expect or an unusually weak number in a race that would be expected to be strong.
However, I do also recognize that sometimes what looks aberrational might actually end up being aberrational (which is not necessarily troubling in the short term because, if one bets the way I do, one can take some losses because the playable prices do not require that they be hit all the time to be profitable). So, we come back to my question which is -- how do you know when something that appears aberrational is not aberrational but rather a good indicator of a hidden truth?
I put this question to JB because he has been on both sides of the question -- He has had to defend his own figures against claims of being off the reservation and he has also made allegations about others\' figures being off the reservation. Now, I already know the answer is going to be that if you work with all the figures and lots of horses you will see that everything has to fit together somehow and if you change one number, you have to change all in the same race which ends up having a ripple effect so you need to find the right place to put a number to make all your evidence work. However, I wonder if there is some way to understand better about particular aberrations on the day you are confronted with them. For example, lets take the famous allowance race before the Illinois Derby by War Emblem. When you looked at WE\'s sheet for the Illinois Derby, you needed to figure out what to do with that number. Maybe you say to yourself the young three year olds do tend to jump up and that sort of jump up happens so you embrace it (if I recall, he had been in Chicago and then wintered at the Fair Grounds -- sometimes the wintering in the warmer climes wiht maturity and development can with time stimulate a young colt who may have been having problems to jump up). With the mid-week allowance at Del Mar, I do not know anything but maybe the nature of the race and the horses in the race can tell you whether a jump up could have been embraced or rather viewed with suspicion. As for Two Sixty Four, I think you could feel good about his numbers, he was regularly running competively, his pattern was nice, in the race under examination was running against a bunch of NY Breds, so the relatively weak numbers they had compared to him could be explained by their running within the same weak group of horses. An interesting test (especially if this is the last few days before 5 points get added) would be to scan the data base for negative numbers. Were any of these run in claiming races? I know I have seen 1s or 2s run in claiming races. Then, looking at some of those cases, it would be interesting to see if there are or were reasons to say some were true indicators and others were one time aberrations to be ignored.
Anyway, sorry to potentially rip open a nicely scabbing sore.
SoCal,
Can\'t address the larger issue at hand, but one reason to embrace \"264\" and his figs Wednesday was the success of Banjo Picker 11 days earlier at AQI. Banjo brought a similarly attractive pattern from the \'Mid-Atlantic\' to Ozone Park for that race, and was the first thing I thought of when looking at Two Sixty Four\'s page.
Naughty New Yorker ruined my tri, but along with Gold/Roses and Carminooch, the winner was clearly an include at worst and key at best the way I saw it...
Steve
Dear Steve,
Thanks for the response. I do not specifically recall Banjo Picker\'s sheet, so, it is hard for me to reply too much. Also, the whole number power issue is clouded by pattern issues which I think are better put aside for the purposes of this discussion.
Two Sixty Four really had number superiority (in addition to a beautiful pattern). Only second choice Gold and Roses had run one figure better and you could view that number with a touch of skepticism (sloppy sealed track figure in a race with evident and unexpected wide margins between the horses -- 21 lengths separated the first 4 finishers). Favorite Carminooch had once run one figure close but that was in his last effort that looked like an isolated jump up which might well induce a bounce (but note the differences between late 3 year old versus early 3 year old jump ups -- the same sort of move was made by War Emblem early and that type of effort is less likely to be an isolated jump up).
With Banjo Picker, did he have number superiority coming in? I seem to recall there being some pretty strong horses in that race (they may have not run what was necessary recently, but I would be surprised if BJ\'s top was better than some of the others in that race). If he did have number superiority, maybe we should take a look at him. If he was a pattern play, then he is somewhat less relevant although still potentially interesting.
I admit it is hard to separate pattern and number power sometimes (and it may be particularly tough in this case).
Best,
SoCal
Hey Steve
Richie from PA, this weeks freebies really paid off already, contrary to many posters opinions over there. Have a great new year.
Two Sixty Four was my single Pick 6 and I still missed it. Never would have had the Stoklosa horse. Uggh.
SoCal
JB is out of the office until Monday. He\'ll probably respond to your question when he gets back.
SoCal-- I\'m taking a few days off (in NoCal), so I won\'t be checking the board that often, but I saw this and have a little time, so...
There are two different issues here: how I \"know\" a figure is correct, and how you (the customer) do. I know from all the ways that I use to make the figures themselves, which I have discussed here many times at length, and I have access to a lot of information you do not when doing so-- all the other figures that must be assigned if I give the one in question (they are connected as you say, one can\'t be changed without changing the others), the lifetime figure histories of the other horses in the race, the other races, the history of what the track does, run-ups, track maintenance etc.
You do not have any of that information, except on those rare occasions I post whole races after they have been run with figures (Gold cup etc.). So how do you know? You can\'t know about an individual figure before the fact, but you have some ways of making global determinations as to whose figures to trust:
1-- You keep an eye on what horses out of that race (or that part of the country) do going forward. The two recent Mid-Atlantic shippers are just two to come from there to NYRA-- I seem to remember a lot running at Saratoga. And I seem to recall a horse called Super Frolic that someone bought from there and raced elsewhere based on those figures. One caveat here is to remember that some horses won\'t fire shipping or first time over a track, but if a significant number of horses from a location are running to their figures-- not consistently running big new tops, not consistently running no better than 3 points off their tops-- the figures are right or close.
In looking at individual races (or days), it is important to keep in mind that horses other than the winner come out of them. Example-- the Gold Cup, where you could argue either way what Borrego would do going forward, but it was simply ridiculous to think that all the other horses would run MANY points worse than they usually did on the same day (as Ragozin had it), but then jump WAY forward again next time out.
2-- You can use common sense. That was what was behind all the examples of silly Ragozin figures I gave pre BC, and we had some more examples coming out of it (like Borrego getting a better number for running tenth than winning the Gold Cup laughing). This also applies to checking on the reasoning used to make the figures (I\'ve quoted Ragozin\'s own words on assuming the track does not change speed, for example, and showed scientific evidence for why it is absolutely wrong). Also to someone\'s willingness to explain their reasoning, and post figures for whole races to expose them to critical analysis (when someone consistently doesn\'t want to answer questions, there\'s a reason for it, both here and in politics, and that\'s a non-partisan comment. I voted for the guy the first time).
On the other hand, I have several times pointed out IN ADVANCE times where you would be able to track major errors those guys had made with a group of horses-- 01 BC at belmont, 7/27/05 last 2 dirt races at Sar, Gold Cup this year, etc. And by the way, I will give free data for a month to anyone that can get Friedman to post those 7/27 Saratoga races on their site and keep them there for a week.
There is obviously a lot more to say on this subject, but that\'ll do for now. Short answer-- you need to figure out who figures to be right, because in an individual case you won\'t have a way to know before the fact.
And I don\'t mind these conversations at all.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SoCal-- I\'m taking a few days off (in NoCal), so I
> won\'t be checking the board that often, but I saw
> this and have a little time, so...
>
> There are two different issues here: how I \"know\"
> a figure is correct, and how you (the customer)
> do. I know from all the ways that I use to make
> the figures themselves, which I have discussed
> here many times at length, and I have access to a
> lot of information you do not when doing so-- all
> the other figures that must be assigned if I give
> the one in question (they are connected as you
> say, one can\'t be changed without changing the
> others), the lifetime figure histories of the
> other horses in the race, the other races, the
> history of what the track does, run-ups, track
> maintenance etc.
>
> You do not have any of that information, except on
> those rare occasions I post whole races after they
> have been run with figures (Gold cup etc.). So how
> do you know? You can\'t know about an individual
> figure before the fact, but you have some ways of
> making global determinations as to whose figures
> to trust:
>
> 1-- You keep an eye on what horses out of that
> race (or that part of the country) do going
> forward. The two recent Mid-Atlantic shippers are
> just two to come from there to NYRA-- I seem to
> remember a lot running at Saratoga. And I seem to
> recall a horse called Super Frolic that someone
> bought from there and raced elsewhere based on
> those figures. One caveat here is to remember that
> some horses won\'t fire shipping or first time over
> a track, but if a significant number of horses
> from a location are running to their figures-- not
> consistently running big new tops, not
> consistently running no better than 3 points off
> their tops-- the figures are right or close.
>
> In looking at individual races (or days), it is
> important to keep in mind that horses other than
> the winner come out of them. Example-- the Gold
> Cup, where you could argue either way what Borrego
> would do going forward, but it was simply
> ridiculous to think that all the other horses
> would run MANY points worse than they usually did
> on the same day (as Ragozin had it), but then jump
> WAY forward again next time out.
>
> 2-- You can use common sense. That was what was
> behind all the examples of silly Ragozin figures I
> gave pre BC, and we had some more examples coming
> out of it (like Borrego getting a better number
> for running tenth than winning the Gold Cup
> laughing). This also applies to checking on the
> reasoning used to make the figures (I\'ve quoted
> Ragozin\'s own words on assuming the track does not
> change speed, for example, and showed scientific
> evidence for why it is absolutely wrong). Also to
> someone\'s willingness to explain their reasoning,
> and post figures for whole races to expose them to
> critical analysis (when someone consistently
> doesn\'t want to answer questions, there\'s a reason
> for it, both here and in politics, and that\'s a
> non-partisan comment. I voted for the guy the
> first time).
>
> On the other hand, I have several times pointed
> out IN ADVANCE times where you would be able to
> track major errors those guys had made with a
> group of horses-- 01 BC at belmont, 7/27/05 last 2
> dirt races at Sar, Gold Cup this year, etc. And by
> the way, I will give free data for a month to
> anyone that can get Friedman to post those 7/27
> Saratoga races on their site and keep them there
> for a week.
>
> There is obviously a lot more to say on this
> subject, but that\'ll do for now. Short answer--
> you need to figure out who figures to be right,
> because in an individual case you won\'t have a way
> to know before the fact.
>
> And I don\'t mind these conversations at all.
>
>
Jerry and crew. Above one of the reasons I SPEND my $$$ on your product. Thanks for your Bonus to the users over the between holiday week.Good year with about a 1.75% return on bet ammount,handicaping tool expense,and travelexpense. With rebate my return in gross $$ was more significant than my day job which I\'ve done for 32 yrs. THANKS FOR THE INTEGRITY OF YOUR SERVICE AND THE PASSION YOU HAVE FOR IT TO BE THE BEST. HAPPY AND HEALTHY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOU ORGANIZATION.