Could someone please explain what if anything happened at Santa Anita on Feb 4th. Bob and John in the 4th race ran an identical time as High Limit did in the Strub. However according to Beyer, High Limit received a Best Year-to-Date North American route figure of 109 while Bob and John got the same thing Judge Smells in Caddy Shack gave Spalding, \"You\'ll get nothing and like it\". Obviously Beyer thinks the Track changed speed somewhere mid-day.
Bob and John may or may not be a major Derby contender, a figure identical to High Limits at one mile and one eighth this early would stamp him as the horse to beat. A few years ago some had Smarty Jones fast, some slow.
Has history repeated itself again.........
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could someone please explain what if anything
> happened at Santa Anita on Feb 4th. Bob and John
> in the 4th race ran an identical time as High
> Limit did in the Strub. However according to
> Beyer, High Limit received a Best Year-to-Date
> North American route figure of 109 while Bob and
> John got the same thing Judge Smells in Caddy
> Shack gave Spalding, \"You\'ll get nothing and like
> it\". Obviously Beyer thinks the Track changed
> speed somewhere mid-day.
>
> Bob and John may or may not be a major Derby
> contender, a figure identical to High Limits at
> one mile and one eighth this early would stamp him
> as the horse to beat. A few years ago some had
> Smarty Jones fast, some slow.
>
> Has history repeated itself again.........
And Beyer apparently doesnt even factor Wide. You have to remember Beyer thought Bellamy Road was the second coming and has NEVER selected a Derby winner.
That track was hard to get a handle upon and appears to have fluctuated. For the two races in question however, its an issue of \"Which way did it fluctuate\".
Anyone relying upon Projection for that card (aka Give some of the horses what they usually run and calculate the others off those usuals) is making a monumental mistake and is going to lose credibility with knowledgeable handicappers upon later results.
My inclination? Up factor Beyers reading of \"Bob and Johns\" effort. Down factor his view of High Limit\'s effort. There appeared to be more pace in High Limit\'s race, but \"Bob and John\" came home like a good thing. Head to head at the Derby distance, it\'s \"Bob and John\" and thats a no brainer.
More evidence that if you Live upon Mass Produced figures be prepared to Die upon them.
>For the two races in question however, its an issue of \"Which way did it fluctuate\".
Excellant point, as a matter of fact the onlypoint at all
>My inclination? Up factor Beyers reading of \"Bob and Johns\" effort. Down factor >his view of High Limit\'s effort.
Hasn\'t Jerry and TG been roundly criticized by those on the other Board for doing just such a thing???
SC-- I did basically what Andy did. What people keep forgetting is that we don\'t just look at the winners-- there were other horses in those races-- and other races on the card as well. Just after the Bob and John race the track got MUCH slower, and it showed more in the sprints than routes-- next race was slow horses (for SoCal), but they went 7f in 1:27:62.
Hey Chuckles-- why aren\'t you posting under your \"own\" name? As I recall, I gave you a warning, but didn\'t toss you, and if I had, do you think we wouldn\'t be able to tell it\'s you?
The two stakes are attached.
Thanks for the attachment , I\'ve wondered what you gave everyone in those races and it look\'s pretty much as expected . Nice call on the AQU analysis today , I\'m going w/ River City in the Whirlaway .
Maybe ctc would have had better results had he used the name \"Artist formally known as Prince\" for a handle ...
First, lets look at the entire card, omitting Grass, rather than three races.
1-4^ 25kMdnClm 1.10.96
2-4 50KClm 1.10.34
3-3 100Stk 1.49.15
4-3f 32kMdnClm 1.27.62
6-3f MSW 1.18.29
7-4 300Stk 1.49.14
9-3 MSW 1.16.66
The contention is the 3YO maiden claimer fillies in the 4th race went so slow its an indication the track was \"Slowing Down\". Arguably, that was the worst race on the card however. What about the 9th race when 3YO maiden special weight colts went close to two seconds faster than the same age fillies in the 6th? In light of that race, Was the track really Slowing Down after the 3rd? Or, was it speeding up?
The key to the Sham/Strub reality, does not exist in the Sham or Strub. It exists in the 3YO MSW sprints. Those two races are the races I\'d like to see post race figure assignment Past Performances upon. On the numbers assigned, the horse coming off the win in the 9th race has to be considered a Monster. I don\'t think he is.
On the numbers High Limits Strub is appoximately 12 lengths faster than \"Bob and John\" despite the same raw time, same relative path and co equal weight. That is incredulous. This is the time of year that good 3YOs move forward. \"Bob and John\" did not move forward a snails eyelash per Beyer and TGraph.
Not saying Bob and John is the horse to beat, but this is clearly a problematic result. Again.
The two Turf races were also very interesting as far as final time and quality of animal.
Great card for future handicapping.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SC-- I did basically what Andy did. What people
> keep forgetting is that we don\'t just look at the
> winners-- there were other horses in those races--
> and other races on the card as well. Just after
> the Bob and John race the track got MUCH slower,
> and it showed more in the sprints than routes--
> next race was slow horses (for SoCal), but they
> went 7f in 1:27:62.
>
> Hey Chuckles-- why aren\'t you posting under your
> \"own\" name? As I recall, I gave you a warning, but
> didn\'t toss you, and if I had, do you think we
> wouldn\'t be able to tell it\'s you?
>
> The two stakes are attached.
I can easily see how you gave the figures you did in the Sham. Those seem to be very much in line with an expectation from prior figures for the horses in that race. The figures for the Strub are more difficult for me to understand. In fact, it seems that if you added about 3 points to each of the figures in that race it would create a better fit based on expectations from prior performances. Obviously some of the horses at the rear of the field clearly X\'ed, so I wouldn\'t base much on their performances. But for the horses at front and middle of the field there seems to be trend of moving forward with the numbers you assigned. But I\'m not an expert at reading patterns and I admit that my analysis is based purely on a cursory look at the figures rather than a detailed analysis. But I think this race would be very instructive if you would give us a little more detail on why you assigned each of the figures that you did. If that isn\'t too much trouble for you and doesn\'t divulge any proprietary information that you would rather keep secret. Thanks in advance.
After watching and reviewing the entire SA card several times, it makes NO logical sense that HL performed 10-11 lengths faster than Bob and John. If that is a result of the projection method, you can pickle it.
Miff-- Okey Dokey.
Jim-- Even if I did that race in a vacuum, not using surrounding info, you can\'t add three points. Very few horses in the race ran tops as it is-- if you did it that way, you would have all but one not running back to a previous top, and most running way off their tops. If you take the last 5 figures for each horse, see what percentage are at least a return to previous tops-- it will probably run 30-50 per cent. The mathematical chance of all those picking the same day to run that bad would be very small-- I discussed this around BC time.
CTC-- You are using raw times, comparing rough classes of horses. We are using figure histories of the exact horses in question, with previous efforts adjusted for track speed, weight, ground etc. Who do you think has a better handle on what happened?
For what it\'s worth, they watered the track before each of the first 4 races, again before the 6th, and no more afterward. The first 3 races held together. The track got much slower for the fourth, and gradually speeded up slightly thereafter as the day went on, possibly because it was drying out. See \"Changing Track Speeds\" in the Archive Section for more on moisture content and track speed.
And of course Greelys Galaxy ran 6 lengths better/faster than Bob and John on the same day. Makes sense.Nice job.
Far be it from me to stir things up but this one seems to have struck a cord with some and brought out the usual nut cases.
1.)Items of Note there was not a drop of rain in sight on this particular day. The only way the Track Speed changed was by the Track Maintenance Team.
2.)Bob and Johns previous biggest claim to fame was being dusted 5 lengths by Brother Derek and 4 by Your Tent or Mine. High Limit has now won the San Pascual and looked \"really sharp\" winning the San Antonio and will go favored in the Big Cap. Would High Limit have beaten the two aforementioned runners by five lengths last out. The answer is so obvious it doen\'t need answering.
3.)Bob and John beat a field of four that consisted of two claimers and a maiden. A group that apparently ran as fast as the group in the San Antonio.
Yeah Right............
Silver,
Who Bob and John beat is IRRELEVANT.How FAST he ran is all that matters.
Miff-- you really need to think about that statement a while.
Once you give him a figure, that\'s true. But to get to the figure... looking at how fast those horses ran compared to how fast they usually ran is how you know how fast he ran. There\'s no other way to make figures.
Jerry,
Tell you what. Your call. I\'ll bet whatever amount you like that NO OTHER CREDIBLE figure maker will have HL 11-12 lenghts faster than Bob and John that day. Wanna bet,Yes or No.One word answer.
At the risk of getting lumped in with \"the usual nut cases\", I\'m going to offer one more comment on the Strub figures. Note, I am NOT comparing High Limit with Bob And John. I\'m simply looking at the Strub and the relative figures within that field. Here is a summary of the first 7 finishers. all the others were 25 or more lengths back and I\'m ignoring trying tio make sense of those. The first number is the figure for the Strub. That is followed by the next most recent and so on. I have used the x.y format to avoid trying to use superscripts (which I am incapable of formatting in this medium). Otherwise I\'ve used the TG nomenclature for the numbers.
HL 1.1- 2.1 -6.3 -8.2 3.2 24.1 1
TTAT 3 3 6 -7.3 -8 9.2 -10.2
G 1.2 6.2 0.2 0.2 4 5.2 5.1
GG 3.2 2.3 7.1 7.3 3.3 2- 4.3
HTG 3.2 7.1- 5.1 -8.1 -10 -17 -18
IC 6.2 3.2 11.3 -17.2 -10.3 -10.3 15.3
DM 5.1 3 3 5.3 -10.3 6 8.1
Comments:
HL - If you add 3 he gets a 2.3. Very much in line with his last and previous before that on dirt.
TTAT - If you add 3 he is at a 6 and runs back to pretty much the level he had established before he spiked that 3.
G - If you add 3, he gets a 4.2. Pretty much in line with his previous level except for those 2 big numbers last spring. Maybe those are the annomalies.
GG - If you add 3 he gets a 6.2. Hard to see a line on this one. He has been up and down between a 3 and 7 in general except for his one freak out race last spring. I don\'t see that a 6 is an unexpected result for this one.
HTG - If you add 3 he gets a 6.2 as well. His only other dirt race was a 5.1 and all his other grass races were worse than a 6. some much worse. So I don\'t see that a 6 is anything unusual for this one to run.
IC - If you add 3, he gets 9.2. And it would still be the second best figure he\'s run. Maybe he bounced off the 3 in his last.
DM - If you add 3, he gets an 8.1. This is the toughest one to explain. He had been running pretty consistently better than that.
The bottom line is that I can 3 to all these and get what I see as results that are very consistent with their recent history. The only exception is DM. So adding the 3, only requires me to have to assume that one of these regressed. And then there are the last 4 finishers who were 25 or more lengths back. Not much doubt that they regressed. And adding 3 to their figures really doesn\'t change that story.
Once again, I don\'t claim to be an expert in reading figures, and certainly not in making them. So I would welcome any comments regarding the \"analysis\" that I offered above.
Guys, I\'m disapponted in how the formatting turned out in that last post. I tried to get the numbers aligned better to make them readable. It didn\'t work. I hope you can wade through them anayway and get to the points I was trying to raise.
Jerry - Here's an even more dramatic example of track speed changing from race to race.
Rockport Harbor won the G3 Essex Hcp in 1:47.68 for the 1 1/16 miles.
The race immediately before this, a Maiden Special Weights, was won by a 3YO named Sayhellotolarry in 1:47.42 for the same distance in similar front running fashion while setting faster early fractions.
Either a) Rockport Harbor is a very poor graded stakes for older horses winner or
b) Sayhellotlarry is suddenly a new Derby contender or,
c) there was a dramatic change in track speed from one race to the next.
What kind of maintenance did they perform to the track between these 2 races? I'd be interested in seeing what figures these 2 get relative to each other.
Bob
Jim,
Don\'t worry about the formating, the figures were clear enough. I frequently have the same problem when trying to post table-like messages.
While the results you get by adding 3 points to the Strub numbers are plausable, leaving them as they are is more likely to be correct. The reason for this is something I discovered when I used to make my own figures. Beyer once did a study from the DRF database and found that the average race winner has an improvement in his Beyer from his previous race by 6 to 9 points ( this is roughly equivalent to 2 or 3 T-Graph points). By not realizing this I found my own figures were begining to creep downwards. If one applies this average improvement factor to the assigned Strub figures you will find they are more in likely to be correct without adding the 3 points.
Bob
>Who Bob and John beat is IRRELEVANT.How FAST he ran is all that matters.
Or in this case how SLOW he ran.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> CTC-- You are using raw times, comparing rough
> classes of horses. We are using figure histories
> of the exact horses in question, with previous
> efforts adjusted for track speed, weight, ground
> etc. Who do you think has a better handle on what
> happened?
Actually, I predicted before the figures were published that the efforts of High Limit and \"Bob and John\" would be controversial and
scored disproportionately.
The quote below is interesting.
> \"For what it\'s worth, they watered the track before
> each of the first 4 races, again before the 6th,
> and no more afterward. The first 3 races held
> together. The track got much slower for the
> fourth, and gradually speeded up slightly
> thereafter as the day went on, possibly because it
> was drying out...\".
In this quote you state the track got very slow with the 4th race, which by the way involved 3YO 32 Thousand Maiden Claiming Fillies. Just how many races had these fillies run to establish a sound pattern of repeatable figure races?
I\'ve bet upon a lot of cheap young maiden claiming fillies in my life and there is only one truism that I can take from that class of race and it is this:
\"Maiden claiming fillies are notoriously unreliable.\"
Just how much stock are you willing to invest in the notion that those fillies were reliable enough to gage a major track \"Slow Down\" upon? By your analysis the track was speeding up post 4th race. What if you were incorrect about the track becoming abysmally slow in the 4th? If the track actually remained static or sped up slightly by the Strub what would that say of High Limits effort? Could it mean that \"Bob and John\" may have actually run faster than High Limit?
Is there any reason to believe the following pedigree may be finding maturing form?
http://www.pedigreequery.com/bob+and+john
Silver Charm began this thread with a quasi thought provoking post, then intimating that Bob and John may be the next fast horse. He then made a sudden retraction to defend the host assigned number. Would the Real Silver Charm please stand up? Is he the One that impliedly questioned the number assigned or is he the Silver Charm that abandoned the implied theme of his post to embrace High Limit as the next great handicap star? But even more importantly, which Silver Charm is correct, the sincere one or the disingenuous one? The inside money is on the proposition that he doesn't know.
>Silver Charm began this thread with a quasi thought provoking post
Quasi thought provoking post???????.....this thread has you up half the night then editing what you said late morning the next day.
>then intimating that Bob and John may be the next fast horse.......High Limit as the next great handicap star.......
>which Silver Charm is correct, the sincere one or the disingenuous one? The inside money is on the proposition that he doesn't know.
>Would the Real Silver Charm please stand up?
This apparently has turned into a Handicapping Board version of \"To Tell the Truth\". Between church, 10-K readings, and the competitors conference call I haven\'t an opportunity to respond properly. Also out of respect to the proprietor of this Board and his highly competent staff I reserved my opinions.
However I have decided my considerable reputation has been challenged and to withhold my opinion could be interpreted as a sign of cowardness.
Bob and John Race: 24.2 48.4 112 136.2 149
High Limit Race: 23 47.1 111.2 136.2 149
I think there\'s a pattern here:
a) The final times that tend to come up on the fast side compared to the rest of the day also tend to be accompanied by *moderately* slow paces and generally uncompetitive race developments. That was clearly the case in the B&J race.
b) The final times that tend to come up on the slow side also tend to have very fast paces and competitive race developments that wipe out all the contenders (the 2005 Derby) or extremely slow paces (many turf races).
*Perhaps* Beyer is overrating High Limit\'s race a bit. The horses behind him are not all that good this season (at least yet) and those that set the pace are cheapsters that dueled each other off.
*Perhaps* Bob and John ran a faster race than recently, but mostly because of the easy circumstances and not because of any special improved ability. Perhaps he wouldn\'t have run as fast against faster fractions and more competitive competition.
*Perhaps* (stress perhaps) the track didn\'t change speeds and both figures should be *about* a 105.
105 would tell us that High Limit improved in his second start off a layoff, Ice Cole and Acexecutive dueled each other off, Giacomo came back short but not that bad, and Greely\'s Galaxy is a one hit wonder.
105 would tell us that B&J etc... imnproved their recent figures partly because they are lightly raced horses and partly because the early pace was moderate and uncompetitive but not so slow it hurt them like in a turf race with an extremely slow pace. That left all of them with more in the tank for the last 4 furlongs than a more typical race.
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Silver Charm began this thread with a quasi
> thought provoking post
>
>
> Quasi thought provoking post???????.....this
> thread has you up half the night then editing what
> you said late morning the next day.
The fact that I was up late had nothing to do with your post. The edit was a single edit for a typo because the issue was whether the track \"sped\" up, not \"speed\" up. Clearly the track was getting faster late. The issue is whether it was slowed down by multiple lengths in 30 minutes before it started a \"generally faster time trend\" Thorograph thinks it did took a substantial \"slowing hit\" in one race that applied to the Strub as well. I don\'t.
>
> >then intimating that Bob and John may be the
> next fast horse.......High Limit as the next great
> handicap star.......
>
> >which Silver Charm is correct, the sincere one
> or the disingenuous one? The inside money is on
> the proposition that he doesn't know.
>
> >Would the Real Silver Charm please stand up?
>
> This apparently has turned into a Handicapping
> Board version of \"To Tell the Truth\". Between
> church, 10-K readings, and the competitors
> conference call I haven\'t an opportunity to
> respond properly. Also out of respect to the
> proprietor of this Board and his highly competent
> staff I reserved my opinions.
>
> However I have decided my considerable reputation
> has been challenged and to withhold my opinion
> could be interpreted as a sign of cowardness.
Still not sure where you stand. Maybe, you dont have a firm conviction either way.
Tabitha,
I\'m doing to you what I do to all of my women.
I\'m making you BEG FOR IT.........
Miff-- Beyer (who at this point is the only other American figure maker I know of worth talking about in terms of judging track speed) has HL running 13 points faster, or 4 of our points. In other words, we both came to the conclusionthat the track changed speed quite a bit-- just disagreed about how much.
CTC-- While the track was at its slowest for the maiden claimer, it was still much slower after that, compared to the first three races. Nobody hung anything on one maiden claimer. But there was enough historical data in that race to come up pretty tight with a figure, and most definitely enough to know it didn\'t make any sense at all to use the variant from the earlier races.
Jim-- I\'ve gone through this before, but the way to do this is not by looking at each horse and deciding whether it\'s possible for them to have run the worse figure. It\'s by looking at each horse and seeing what the percentage chance is of them running in different ranges, and one of the quicker ways to do that is with the Thoro-Patterns. But in this case, just look at what percentage of each horse\'s figures are 3 or more points off their tops, historically-- and then think about the percentage chance of so many doing it.
Just to give you an idea-- if it\'s 50% for one horse to run that bad (it\'s not), it would be just over 6% for only 4 horses to do it. And the same goes the other way-- if it\'s 30% for each horse to run a paired or new top (it\'s actually higher), the mathematical chance for only one of 11 to do it is very small (Jimbo showed the formula for that one around BC time).
People are really getting sensitive over this issue. Posts being deleted, must be a case of cabin fever. Anyway here goes
For those following along please see the first post from TGJB in this string which contains PDF files of both the Strub and Sham.
Bob and John for most Baffert Trainees has been a slowly developing individual who has received, for this particular conditioner, light training. However Baffert has followed a similar pattern with his two previous Derby winning trainees, who were products of his program: Silver Charm and Real Quiet.
http://www.thorograph.com/archive/files/derby1997.pdf
http://www.thorograph.com/archive/files/derby1998.pdf
This may explain why he has, as TG has accurately measured, paired in his last four efforts. Going into the Sham, Bob and John according to the Thoro-Pattern analysis was 40 % likely to pair, which is precisely what he did. But we are still in February and as the sheets of the aforementioned champions explains things change once we get to March. Bob and Johns work pattern has been a blend of the four, five and six furlong variety, (see DRF workout archive). The last two were not bullets. Which means the trainer was backing off on the pressure attempting to get his runner to reach peak form as the stretch run to Kentucky begins in the first of March. As the intensity and distance of the works starts to pickup expect to see Bob and John make that next inevitable forward. But don't expect to see it any sooner than that and absolutely don't think you saw it when you really didn't.
High Limit unlike Bob and John was a fast horse from the get go. And despite the efforts of the most patient of conditioners the horse suffered thru a early productive three year old campaign that was beset by physical problems over the remainder of the season. After a six month break from dirt racing High Limit returned with a game front running effort in the San Pascual and put it all together in the Strub doing something he previously had not done. Rate kindly and finish strongly. The result was a breakthrough Top. If High Limit is over his physical issues and can hold his current form, the trainer profile says he has a 42% chance of paring his Top. A pair of that effort makes him highly competitive on Big Cap Day, with holding his from being the primary concern instead of distance limitations.
SC-- what posts were deleted? It wasn\'t by me.
Jerry,
There was a post by a new name TGPOSTER that compared the splits of the two races and made some suppositions. I read it.It\'s gone.
I just called Paul, and he took down a post from a guy who is barred here. Not because of content, but because of source. If that guy sends it to someone we do allow to post here and that person puts it up, it will stay up.
The poster was CH. After repeated warnings I barred him for a couple of months, but he started posting under other names. After a few of those I sent him an e-mail, telling him to knock it off or I would make it permanent. He kept doing it, and after a few more I barred him for good.
Later this week we are going back to the old way we did things-- if you don\'t have a real e-mail address (not hotmail etc.) you won\'t be able to post here.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jerry,
>
> There was a post by a new name TGPOSTER that
> compared the splits of the two races and made some
> suppositions. I read it.It\'s gone.
I read it too and tend to agree with with TGPoster. His position was that in all likelihood \"Bob and John\" ran faster than scored here and High Limit ran slower than scored here. My best approximation using site numbers is about a 1-2 for High limit and about a 2-3 for Bob and John. If you deduct 3 points from ALL in the Sham the race is still viable. If you Add 2 points to all in the Strub the same is true. In the Sham there were young, improving age horses. In the Strub there were comeback and questionable horses.
The individual that deleted TGPosters response is probably the same individual that removed CTC\'s \"Ask the Experts\" access.
Silver Charm, the older Derby patterns are probably not as applicable for a number of reasons. One of which being the current vogue of \"Projection\" and strict adoption of \"Changing Track Speed Theory\". Assignment of Pairs is more likely with that methodology, as is assignment of some really big numbers, when the Pairs don\'t actually occur.
TGJB, its entirely possible that I could be persuaded by perusal of the Sham/Strub card MSW race past performances with the figures earned. For that matter it wouldn\'t hurt to see the entire card with post race figures earned. By offering only the subject races with the figures earned all that is suggested is Projection dictated that the assigned numbers be assigned. We know that. My take on it at this point is signficantly different than a 5 for \"Bob and John\" and a Negative 1 for High Limit. I believe the track was quirky early, but speeding up by the 7th to be as about as fast as the 3rd race.
You\'re position is fast early, really slow by the 4th, despite watering, and then no water beginning with the 6th and then a quickening trend due in part to drying, but never getting so quick as the 3rd when watering was suggested to be keeping the strip glib. Understanding nature plays an enormous role, its very hard to follow the logical consistency of fast, very Slow, Quickening, but still slower than the early races when watering ostensibly made the track faster. In the face of that, the 9th race final time looms.
There may be a difference, at this point, there is no objective basis to believe it is a 6 point difference.
As Jerry explained, the \"tgposter\" message was deleted because the author knows full well he was asked not to post here anymore and has attempted to do so under various pseudonyms. It has nothing to do with the content of his post.
That person\'s original and subsequent handles are the only one\'s banned from this site.
need explanation. when a so-called super trainer claims a horse for 10 gs and runs him 3 days later for 20, how the hell do u idiots think hes not drugging them? how the hell can a trainer make a horse run 7 lenghts better in 3 days?
I think most of the posters on this board agree that some trainers are moving up horses.
Here\'s a better question: how can you still be a Cub fan?
TGJB,
Looks like these guys are right, you don\'t know what you are doing. I mean, you gave out another winner in your ROTW with the cold exacta too. Who threw the darts today to come up with that one?? Those numbers for Seafree at FOUR different tracks prove that your projection method is truly faulty. I concur with Miff, pickle your projection method imediately. BTW, if your numbers are always this bad I\'ll take a jar of Dill pickles.
Its getting past tired to read the constant criticism of your methods and figures. Its one thing to give an opinion and explain your point of view, but to go on and on and on and on.............enough already. If these guys don\'t agree with your methods, then go away and use someone elses. If a restaurant has poor service and lousy food, do you keep going back so you can continue to bitch and moan to your friends about your bad experiences or do you find another restaurant??
P Dub,
Spoken like a true blind follower. ANOTHER winnner in the ROTW. Check the rotw record, it\'s a complete embarrassment for most of the past 70 odd weeks.The RAG guys call it the \"Joke of the Week\" or the \"Waste of the Week\".
Also if you wish to participate, get the facts correct. Alan nailed the ROTW playing the Favorite to bounce, perfect call. What did that have to do with the projection method?
Aside from the fact that projection methodolgy was used to come up with the huge figure that the favorite was likely to bounce from and projection methodolgogy was used to come up with the figures of the 2 horses that ran 1-2, I quess it had nothing to do with it.
Bob
Bob,
That seems a bit of a \"stretch\". With 6 weeks off and being the fastest, class, and working well I thought Pussycay would jog.Wrong, but I don\'t bet shorts anyway.
Miff,
I\'ll grant you that Pussycat\'s Doll loss had as much to do with pattern (or violation thereof) as with her figure. but the identification a of Seafare and Play Ballado as the horses to profit from this was a function of there figures derived from projection. The alternative to the projection method is class pars, which are far less accurate and are mainly only used until horses have run enough to give more accurate figures used in projection.
Could we be using different senses of the term \"projection\"in deriving figures?
Bob
Hi Bob,
Nice to meet you. I am well aware of projection,pars, et al. For about 10 years I used to informally \"make\" TG figs of all the races in New York.I have used TG Figs for 18-20 years(about) with great success.Alan Rosenthal was unofficially promoting the product back then at the Staten Island simulcast.The figs were chicken scratch on graph paper and came with a rubberband. The figs were \"gold\" for a long time.
In the process of \"making\"/ projecting the tg fig after the card back then,I would come very close to Jerry\'s fig as would several others TG users.I stopped doing that about 6 years ago.When you use any product for a long time it is easy to spot change. Jerry can argue but the product/figs have changed dramatically lately and I am NOT the only user saying it.After investigating for about two years, I can only conclude that the current projection method is the root cause. I suspect Jerry will confirm that he has not changed anything in this regard.
There has NEVER been so many \"ugly\" TG pairs, EVER.I say that from my experience with the product.There has been and will be issues with figs( like Bob and John, a very ugly group of pairs). NO other figure maker that I checked, agrees with TG on this except Beyer who is still several lengths off TG.Jerry has stated that he only considers Beyer credible.I should have the figs of the five fig makers at some point fairly soon. I\'ll post them but don\'t know if they will stay up.
I didn\'t bet the La Canada or even look at the ROTW. Just having reviewed it, congrates to Alan for scoring on that race.
Several factors jump out at me however. Pussycat Doll had that one Huge figue at 7 furlongs on a wet track. That was it. Taking a stand against that figure for whatever reason left her very vulnerable to try and win upon her other numbers. She was stretching out to 1-1/8. Just how repeatable was her previous figure? and thats assuming if it was Projection assigned, as we suspect, it was a legit negative 2.
Maybe Alan took something from the Strub and applied it to the La Canada. Pussycat Doll may have bounced. Then again, she may not have. I read she ran rank early. She did fold up pretty good late.
The race that interested me was the San Vincente. A six furlong test between Too Much Bling and Lost in the Fog is gonna be worth the price of Admission. I\'m on the record with Bling.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Bob,
>
> Nice to meet you. I am well aware of
> projection,pars, et al. For about 10 years I used
> to informally \"make\" TG figs of all the races in
> New York.I have used TG Figs for 18-20
> years(about) with great success.Alan Rosenthal was
> unofficially promoting the product back then at
> the Staten Island simulcast.The figs were chicken
> scratch on graph paper and came with a rubberband.
> The figs were \"gold\" for a long time.
>
> In the process of \"making\"/ projecting the tg fig
> after the card back then,I would come very close
> to Jerry\'s fig as would several others TG users.I
> stopped doing that about 6 years ago.When you use
> any product for a long time it is easy to spot
> change. Jerry can argue but the product/figs have
> changed dramatically lately and I am NOT the only
> user saying it.After investigating for about two
> years, I can only conclude that the current
> projection method is the root cause. I suspect
> Jerry will confirm that he has not changed
> anything in this regard.
>
> There has NEVER been so many \"ugly\" TG pairs,
> EVER.I say that from my experience with the
> product.There has been and will be issues with
> figs( like Bob and John, a very ugly group of
> pairs). NO other figure maker that I checked,
> agrees with TG on this except Beyer who is still
> several lengths off TG.Jerry has stated that he
> only considers Beyer credible.I should have the
> figs of the five fig makers at some point fairly
> soon. I\'ll post them but don\'t know if they will
> stay up.
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 02/13/06 11:26AM by
> miff.
Miff, when you say \"Bob and John, a very ugly group of pairs\", what specifically are you referring to that makes them \"ugly\"?
Miffed,
My facts are straight. Your whole point is the faulty use of the projection method. Isn\'t that how the numbers for the winner were derived??
The Rag (perfect name, isn\'t it) guys put out so much information for us its easy to see why they would feel that way. They have such a great track record of handicapping races beforehand and always post sheets of horses that are questioned by users over here. Its nothing short of ridiculous for you to even bring them up in that context.
Blind follower?? No. Have I ever made numbers? No. But you don\'t have to be a chef to know whether or not the food tastes bad. I\'ve had more good days than bad with this product. At some point it may be a question of ego with all of you. We have people changing their names to get posted, others letting us all know how brilliant they are (I\'m a rocket engineer or whatever, I have X number of degrees, I used to make numbers, I\'ve been blah blah blah). Great for all of you.
As far as the ROTW being poor for the last 70 odd weeks, do you have the numbers on them?? Or are you just projecting??
Jim,
I do not have Bob and John\'s sheet. I THINK he has paired his last three or four races on TG.In particular, I felt that his last race was better than a half point improvement and without question he outperformed Greelys Galaxy who received a substantially superior figure in a very average performance. I have seen all of the races in question.No other source has Bob and John pairing his last four after adjustment, ergo the term \"ugly\" pair.
After reviewing the entire day of Bob and John and High Limit it seems questionable that the track changed speed/slowed by 11-12 lengths from the third race until the end of the card.Please check yourself Jim.Someone very sharp who is at SA every day advised the track slowed by app .60 from the forth race on(almost 3rd lengths)by their evaluation, done daily taking into account all of the pertinents that Jerry speaks of.
It will be very interesting to see the figs of the 1st race winner, that day, vs the last race winner who SHOULD grade out as the second coming of Pegasus since the track slowed by 2 full seconds+ by days end.I believe that the recently turned three year old filly snails that crawled around in 1.27 and change(4th race) may have skewed Jerrys thinking that day.
P Dub,
I have no ego. I am strictly a gambler that relies heavily on figs to try to beat the game.I said I \"informally\" made figs but I know when a figure is questionable as do many people that follow the game daily.
As regards to the ROTW, I do not follow it closely, others do and say it does not done well over time.I\'m sure TG has some records going back and they could post it. For all I know the RAG guys could be busting my chops because I walk around with the TG sheets at the track.
Miff-- I don\'t want to get caught up in an endless loop of this. I always end up in the same place-- either having to spend a lot of time going over the same stuff over and over, or letting wrong stuff go unresponed to, or cutting someone off. In your case the situation is complicated by your being a good long time customer, and I know your posts are made in good faith (although some of the editorial comments are pretty annoying). But I won\'t bar you.
Not that I care what the other figure guys do with the day (they could have the dogmatic approach Ragozin does, for example, and simply decide tracks don\'t change speed), but your pals evidently decided the track DID change. So once you understand that, the only question is how much. What some of you guys don\'t grasp is that I\'m not just making figures for Bob and John and Greeley\'s Galaxy, I\'m making figures for-- AND LOOKING AT DATA FOR-- lots of horses. DATA THAT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT. Figures for all the horses, adjusted for beaten lengths, ground, weight, and in some cases wind (not a factor on this day)
The day basically went like this-- it got much slower for the fourth (the race after Bob and John), and gradually got faster thereafter. Specifically, the fourth was at minus 7, the rest of the dirt went minus 4 1/2, minus 4 (Strub), minus 2. This was a day where the one and two turn races lined up.
I\'ve already posted the Sham and Strub on this string. In the case of the Sham, note HOW MANY horses would run big new tops if you make the race faster (3 out of the 5). Sure, they all could (even if it\'s 40% for each one, which by itself would make it unlikely for all of them to do it)-- but more importantly, the alternative had them all running almost exactly their previous top. If you make the race faster, you are saying that all 3 picked exactly the same day to jump the same amount-- some coincidence. It is FAR more likely that they all ran back to their previous tops-- that\'s the kind of situation that all figure makers want to see more than any other.
But now I\'m going to go further. Attached you will find the maiden claimers from the fourth race, right after the track changed speed, when the track was at its slowest. Remember, I took off 7-- see what happens if you add 7 (or even less) to the race.
Miff: \"I do not have Bob and John\'s sheet.\"
TGJB posted it. Check it out. Then let me know what you find ugly about it. Or are you saying that ALL pairs are ugly? I\'m not really following your point, I guess.
TGJB, if you add 7 as you suggest, then the 1st and 3rd place horses would have paired their previous race (not an extraordinary outcome) , and the 2nd place horse would have regressed about 7 points ( a pretty large X). Except for the 7th place horse, those are the only ones with enough starts to make any sense out of \"patterns\'. I can\'t see any logical basis within this race for choosing between \"as is\' or \"plus 7\". I.E. I can\'t find the basis for an argument within this race to either accept or challenge how you figured it. But then I would have to say the same thing if you did just add 7 to all the figures. There\'s really not much data here. IMHO.
Jim,
No, all pairs are not ugly. On the contrary, most pairs stack up very well. The term \"ugly\"(my description) relates to a group of races by a runner that come up the same on the sheets but defy racing logic when viewing them, taking into account all pertinents.I am now fairly certain that \"ugly\" pairs are the by product of the projection method and must be graded in the way they are but eyed with suspicion.
I firmly believe that a horses\' performance on the track should STRICTLY be graded by what it does that day as opposed to what someone THINKS it should have done or NORMALLY does.Then to try to fit that square peg into the round hole is calamity in waiting.
If you are around the game and the animals themselves you will find an endless list of reasons why horses vary in their performances,sometimes widely,sometimes only marginally.
Jerry,
With respect, I completely understand where you are coming from. If you wish, I will not post anymore. As a friendly gesture, let me say that it does you no good to have employees/friends post praises/defenses of your product that are transparent to a blind man.
You should have welcomed constructive criticism and dissenting opinions to improve your product since someone may chance upon something that you cannot see from your understandably parochial seat.
Regards,
Mike
Miff-- I\'m going to say this one more time and that\'s it, because I\'ve covered it dozens of times, and you are completely missing it.
The relationships between horses in a race are completely fixed by beaten lengths, weight, and ground. I CAN\'T just \"project\" a figure for a horse, and do the same thing for another in that race-- if Bob and John gets a 5, the second horse has to get an 8, etc. You could do what you are suggesting for exactly one horse a race.
What this means is, the very fact that you see so many pairs means the figures are falling into place, not being forced-- having horses run back to previous figures, or in their own tight ranges, is how you HOPE it comes out when you make figures. The whole concept of making figures by whatever specific method (to say nothing of betting with them) is based on the idea that past figures are a guide to future efforts. Each time it comes out that way, with lots of horses running back to previous figures, it is not only evidence that this figure is correct, but that previous figures for several horses, coming out of different races, are as well, which in turn means evidence the figures for the OTHER horses in THOSE races are too.
Jim-- Young, very lightly raced horses are at least 50% to pair their top or run a new one in any start, and can\'t be more than 25% (probably way less) to run 7 points off it. You really want an entire field to run 7 points off their tops? For four of them to do it, even using 25%, would be 25x25x25x25, which works out to less than 1%. And that\'s just with four. And even the way I did it, several ran way off their tops-- and only two ran new tops, which is far less than usual for a field with this many making only their second or third start.
wow
P-Dub,
Have you ever watched an episode of Sienfeld?
George Costanza really exists and is posting on this board today.
Your points well taken, If you don\'t like the product express your complaint and move on. If you don\'t believe that a track can change speeds during a course of the day move on. Race track People are stubborn to a fault.
I wish we could talk handicapping patterns more often and challenging figs less often. We should challenge eroneous figures from time to time but you got the RAG faction always trying to prove a point and in sabotage mode. Jerry doesn\'t help his own cause either because he takes strong defensive positions.
If I were him, I\'d take the high road.
Maybe it\'s time to have two boards, one for handicappers (private with ID etc) and one for complaints.
NC Tony
Miff,
I don\'t have access to Rag\'s ROTW what\'s their record?
NC Tony
Tony,
I did not know RAGS had a ROTW.No clue on its overall performance or TG\'s for that matter.
NCT,
I do watch and thats not a bad analogy.
I respect Miff. He writes plenty of intelligent posts, has thought provoking things to say, and is obviously a knowledgeable racing fan. I have never made figs and don\'t pretend to know how.
My frustrations are not with whats being said, but the amount of dialogue involved. It just never stops, and some people are NEVER satisfied until they have the last word. You all know who you are.
Its always a good thing to question why things are. But when an answer is given to a question, that should be the end of it. Its not. Look at the length of this thread, it practically takes up the front page of the message board and involves mainly 3 authors with the sporadic comment from another person.
I come to this board to read about handicapping and hopefully improve my game, the occasional update on racing news, and the clever and funny comments from several of you. Lately, its as though people with another agenda (I don\'t know, maybe discrediting this products validity) are flooding the board. And the disappointing thing about it is that these people are obviously intelligent and can add so much to the discussion of handicapping races. Instead, they go on about the methodology of the product. Well guess what....MOST OF US DON\'T CARE. Thats why we use TG. If we didn\'t like the product or if it didn\'t work for us, we wouldn\'t use it nor would we visit this site to read about it. The other site is such a complete waste of time, with among other things the childlike name calling, that its no wonder this is such a popular forum to express views.
About the ROTW I can recall from memory several nice wins, including the juicy 12-1 on Ticker Tape in the American Oaks and the same race the following year when Cesario romped and the next 3 finishers were the 3 fastest fig horses in the race (Super pd at least 1000+, similar to last year\'s Classic with the big fig horse winning and the next 3 fastest completing the Super for a 12k payout). I would think that providing an analysis with full sheets BEFORE a race would be something to be proud of, as I don\'t know of another fig provider that does this. This shows a certain level of confidence in the product to even do this regardless of the outcome. And for those that criticize this gesture........have they ever gone on record BEFORE a race and provided an analysis?? Or do they not have enough confidence in their product to go on record??
TGJB -
Can you tell us the TG numbers that Sayhellotolarry and Rockport Harbor ran on February 11th at Oaklawn, per Bobphilo\'s note below.
The 3 y.o. maiden, Sayhellotolarry, carried 121 lbs and ran every fraction faster than the 4 y.o. Rockport Harbor, who carried only 115 lbs, in the race immediately following. Yet Beyer gave Larry a speed figure of 89 and Rockport a 99.
Should I add Sayhellotolarry to my watch list or Rockport Harbor to my bet against list?
bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jerry - Here's an even more dramatic example of
> track speed changing from race to race.
>
> Rockport Harbor won the G3 Essex Hcp in 1:47.68
> for the 1 1/16 miles.
>
> The race immediately before this, a Maiden Special
> Weights, was won by a 3YO named Sayhellotolarry in
> 1:47.42 for the same distance in similar front
> running fashion while setting faster early
> fractions.
>
> Either a) Rockport Harbor is a very poor graded
> stakes for older horses winner or
> b) Sayhellotlarry is suddenly a new Derby
> contender or,
> c) there was a dramatic change in track speed from
> one race to the next.
> What kind of maintenance did they perform to the
> track between these 2 races? I'd be interested in
> seeing what figures these 2 get relative to each
> other.
>
> Bob
>
>
Deb-- I did something similar to what Andy did. I also put the 3yo race on my list to review.