So many posters, so little time. I won\'t get to everything, but...
David-- From my post of 5/2/00 (in response to you), which Paul reposted a couple of days ago: \"The point... is that since the track was sealed early in the card and opened just before the WOOD, since it rained during the card, and since every race after the third was around one turn, using these races to make the Wood variant and figures was crazy, and would result in giving out crazy numbers. IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION ON RAGOZIN\'S SITE FRIEDMAN SAID THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAD DONE, ALTHOUGH HE DIDN\'T SEEM TO THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT (emphasis added)\".
Your response to that post (directly below it in the archives, which are now working) began \"First, I want to thank Jerry for a temperate and well reasoned response to my question\". You did not at any point say anything to indicate I had misstated Friedman\'s position, because I had not.
I think the possible source of confusion here has to do with the concepts of using the SAME variant for two races, and that of TYING a race to the surrounding races. Both are ultimately the same thing conceptually-- see my \"smoking gun\" post. You either realize that you have to cut a race loose, or you don\'t.
JimP-- You ended up where you did because Marc blurred the issues as much as he could (talked past me, in your terms). The original statement I made was \"...the two services have extremely different philosophies of figure making which result in dramatically different figures on occasion, so both can\'t be right\". By this I meant that both philosophies can\'t be right. That statement is true, for all the reasons I went into in following posts, but it is not mutually exclusive from some of the statements you made-- it just has nothing to do with them.
When you say that all figures are imperfect, you are preaching to the choir. I\'m the one who says they are subjective, and that anyone can blow a figure-- I\'ve said it before on this site. But the two different philosophies MUST sometimes produce different figures even though the figures are supposed to represent the same thing, so AT LEAST one of them has to be wrong in those cases, BY DEFINITION.
On the other hand, there are situations (lots of them) where we will come up the same way-- track doesn\'t change speed (this years BC, for example), or the sprint/route relationship is constant. This results in there being overlap between the figures both services put out, and some degree of randomness in the results achieved using both.
Alydar-- First of all, the importance of an event may not increase by virtue of Silver Charm\'s presence, but his KNOWLEDGE of it may. That knowledge-- work done on the track-- is crucially important if you make all the assumptions Ragozin does tying one race to another. SC\'s information about CD that day is exactly as relevant as Spillane\'s about the Belmont grass course some years ago, detailed in my Figure Methodology post.
(reposted 1/30/03). The way I do figures, I made no assumptions about the relationship between the two courses, or two track sufaces 4/28/99, so I was able to make the right decisions.
Why did Friedman enter the tournements? For the same reason(s) everyone else did. No, he did not have anything to lose-- everyone knows they are a ridiculously short sample. While we are on the subject, I would point out that Wolfson\'s win was exponentially tougher, since he had to win/do well in an earlier tournement just to qualify.
Is Friedman a good handicapper? I know better than probably anybody else, since we spent hundreds of days handicapping cards together-- given the same data, we would come up with the same opinions more frequently than either of us would with anyone else. He is-- but that\'s not the question. The question is how good is the data he is using, or whether his other skills (or rebates) are good enough to overcome it\'s deficiencies.
The question is not whether Ragozin said in his book they take track maintenance into account, whether Friedman ever said they never did, or even whether they ever do. The point was that Friedman said they did not do so on Wood 00 day, despite all that happened, which is why his comment last spring was significant-- it indicates they should have cut the Wood loose, contrary to what he had earlier claimed. My guess is that they posted figures for the day before Ragozin found out what had been done with the track, and Friedman was stuck defending it, or that they did what they appear to have done with the Chilukki race-- use a correction based on broad averages. And no, it is not an aberration-- see 9/15 Belmont, among others.
And the importance, as Silver Charm points out, is that \"these days get at the core
of the philosophical differences between the two competing products\".
I do not care what
YOU (Alydar,as opposed to Friedman)
THINK (meaning interpret)
FRIEDMAN
MEANT (as opposed to what he said).
Words have meanings. Physical resilience(y) is a thing that can be measured-- they do it with golf balls, using a machine that hits balls with the same impact, loft, and dirction every time (clearly they don\'t use me). When we were kids, we had a method for measuring the physical resilience of the spaldeens we would use for stickball-- we would hold them out at shoulder level, and drop them on the sidewalk. When they were new they would bounce back to chest level. When they only bounced back to belt level it was time to get a new ball.
Ragozin and I aren\'t dealing with physical resilience, we are dealing with track speed. And we\'re not measuring it objectively, we\'re judging it based on the performances of racehorses. When they create a device similar to the ones used for golf balls, one that circles the track before every race, they\'ll be measuring it, and Len and I will go home.
Friedman\'s comments about \"physical resilience(y)\" and \"objective numbers\" were intended solely to create an impression that their numbers are scientifically accurate. The statement is marketing tripe, and has no basis in reality.
Marc-- I have no problem with Ragozin guys posting here-- I encourage it. My problem is with (being nice about it) your debating style. If you come here, come correct. Fair warning.
TGJB wrote in response to some earlier comments of mine: \"The original statement I made was \'...the two services have extremely different philosophies of figure making which result in dramatically different figures on occasion, so both can\'t be right\'. By this I meant that both philosophies can\'t be right. ... But the two different philosophies MUST sometimes produce different figures even though the figures are supposed to represent the same thing, so AT LEAST one of them has to be wrong in those cases, BY DEFINITION.\"
I\'m going to comment again. But be aware I am NOT taking a position on which set of figures is the best. I frankly do not have enough experience with either set (much more with TG than with Ragozin actually) to even take a position on that. The point I was trying to make (somewhat in defense of the comments that Marc made, although I don\'t know why I\'m defending Marc)is that it IS possible for the philosophies of both services to be RIGHT while producing different figures for the same race. I agree that on any given race, the figure produced by either philosophy will be either RIGHT or WRONG, and if they differ then at least one of them is wrong (maybe both). But my point was NOT about A PARTICULAR RACE it was about the TOTAL BODY OF ALL RACES measured under each philosophy. It is CONCEPTUALLY POSSIBLE for two differing philosophies (and more importantly two different measurement approaches)to be RIGHT TO THE SAME EXTENT (given that neither is perfect) even if those two approaches produce different results for different particular events. Again, please note that this is a CONCEPTUAL ARGUEMENT. I don\'t have any evidence to clearly demonstrate that they are equally right or that one is superior to the other in actual results. In fact, I don\'t think anyone has that evidence. At least I haven\'t seen it if it does exist. So TGJB, my arguement with your comments was not related to the quality of your figures (or Ragozin\'s) it was simply an objection to the LOGIC that you were using. I still disagree with the LOGICAL BASIS for your comment that \'...the two services have extremely different philosophies of figure making which result in dramatically different figures on occasion, so BOTH CAN\'T BE RIGHT\'if by \'both\' you meant BOTH PHILOSOPHIES. If by \'both\' you meant BOTH FIGURES FOR A PARTICULAR RACE, then of course I agree completely.
As I said, some of the things you said are not mutually exclusive from what I said. There are a number of different \"philosophies\" involved, such as sprint/route, tying races together, dead rail etc., and it certainly is possible to be right about one and not about the others. IN THEORY. There is however an overreaching issue of philosophy-- that of using averages (or not), along with some other things, that ultimately is either right or not.
Nunzio: Thank you. I remember it well and enjoyed it very much. I remember your dad\'s words, too. You and he have been among my favorites ever since. For some reason, I always thought of you as a scrappy kid. I was surprised to find out you were in your 40s.
Joe: Love your \"punchy\" wit. Six Feet Under is back in a few weeks. The final episode of this season\'s Curb Your Enthusiasm was the funniest TV show in history. Disagree?
Chris: Your drug post was one of the best posts I can remember.
Michael: I am far from an expert on breeding. It is my least favorite area of handicapping. That said, I do try my best, and I see the breeding here as a slight negative, but not a deal killer. The running style is of no importance to me. I consider that to be very close to total BS.
JB: I will reply Wednesday or Thursday night. This will be a good one.
JB wrote:
\"When we were kids, we had a method for measuring the physical resilience of the spaldeens we would use for stickball-- we would hold them out at shoulder level, and drop them on the sidewalk. When they were new they would bounce back to chest level. When they only bounced back to belt level it was time to get a new ball.\"
And don\'t think this Brooklyn stickball BS will suffice. You are going to answer my ####ing questions, starting with this one: Where did you get your weight adjustment?
HEY! That was Greenwich Village stickball BS. If you want Brooklyn stickball BS go to Nunzio.
Thanks Jim. Yes, that\'s more or less what I was trying to get it.
But TGJB gets his own share of marketing oomph by using words like \"WRONG,\" or \"marketing tripe,\" for that matter.
Sure, I\'ll answer your question-- unlike Friedman, who hasn\'t answered any of the ones I posed IN RESPONSE TO HIS OWN POST. Which, according to Marc, is \"understandable\".
When I began, I started with some assumptions, mostly based on what Ragozin was using. As you have probably noticed, I found some were wrong. The weight correction was his, and it proved to be roughly correct-- not through rigorous testing, but just by looking at how the figures fell out over a period of time. Since they don\'t give us the weights of the horses whatever we use will never be completely accurate.
Two points:
1- The structure of the game itself makes it impossible (at least as far as I can see) to do a test to see if 5 pounds= 1 point is correct, even as a rough average. Faster/in form horses carry more weight. If anyone can come up with a way to run a test for this we will run it.
2- We use 115 pounds as \"neutral\". Horses seldom carry more than 10 pounds more or less than that, so the range of possible error is small-- if our correction is off by 25% (which is a lot), the error would only be 1/2 point at the outside limit.
Marc, you cutey-pie,
When I use terms like \"marketing tripe\" or \"wrong\" it is in the context of something I am in the process of explaining, or have explained previously, and have made my case. When Friedman says his figures are \"objective\" he does not establish it (and of course can\'t, as you know as well as I do-- if not, show me otherwise). He said the \"physical resilience(y) changes\", but he has never explained what that means, or how they measure it. I ALWAYS explain and go into detail when I make a claim of any kind, if I have not done so on a previous occasion, and I went into detail explaining how the figures were not objective, and they weren\'t measuring physical resilience. Conclusion: Friedman made an attempt to sell the image of Ragozin figures being scientifically accurate, which they are not. Hence my comment about Friedman\'s \"marketing tripe\".
On a related subject-- Friedman posted pretending to explain how they came up with the Chilukki figure. At this point, you and everybody else who read my post in reply know that he has an awful lot of explaining to do ON A SUBJECT HE ORIGINATED-- this is not simply something out of the blue. So what do you do? You ask him about it, BUT SAY THAT IF HE DOESN\'T WANT TO ANSWER IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE.
Really? I posed 8 questions in that one post that need answering if Friedman\'s original position is to have any credibility, including the big one-- how did they arrive at the variant for the race? But you say it\'s understandable that he doesn\'t reply.
So-- you come on this site last week, I address every point you make, you do it again, I respond point by point again, you start shifting ground and re-casting arguments, I respond to everything you say.
Then, when something comes up which is truly important, that Friedman posted about and I simply responded to, you want to give him a blank check-- a base on balls. You expect to be taken seriously here?
\"Sure, I\'ll answer your question-- unlike Friedman, who hasn\'t answered any of the ones I posed IN RESPONSE TO HIS OWN POST.\"
The recent re-emergence of the Chilukki thread-- again, correct me if I\'m wrong on this, in your gentle fashion-- wasn\'t started by anyone associated with Ragozin. Friedman\'s \"own post\" was a response to posts that originated with those who are predisposed against his own numbers. To me, after having been bashed on this issue repeatedly by T-graph partisans, I find it entirely understandable for Friedman to throw up his hands and say: I refuse to *continue* to defend our numbers against those who are predisposed to disrespect them.
Jerry, you seem to acknowledge this inherent problem with your criticisms when you repeatedly ask Ragozin customers-- instead of you and yours-- to challenge Friedman more often.
Bull, again. While the subject of the Chilukki race has come up before, the subject at hand, originated by Friedman, WAS HIS EXPLANATION OF HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THE FIGURE. His explanation did not stand up to critical analysis.
If it was a simple case of Friedman throwing up his hands, why did Friedman make that post to begin with? Why wait until I responded?
\"Pre-disposition\" of those inclined to disrespect ones numbers is no more an issue for Friedman than it is for me-- in fact, historically it has been very much the other way around. Yet I have no fear of taking on all comers head on. Why do you suppose that is?
This is not an issue of \"bashing\"--I asked 8 relevant questions that Friedman left on the table. And you know it,but you are a partisan, as proved by your actions, so you don\'t care.
The reasons I urge Ragozin customers to ask Friedman questions are--
1- He uses the fact that I am the asker to duck, same as you are using it as an excuse to allow him to duck, and
2- In the hopes the questioner will see that Friedman\'s responses don\'t stand up to critical analysis. As I have pointed out often, it is to the figure users benefit to have as great an understanding as possible of how the figures arte determined, so they can judge the accuracy of them. SEE MY SMOKING GUN POST.
It is also to my benefit.
\"Bull, again. While the subject of the Chilukki race has come up before, the subject at hand, originated by Friedman, WAS HIS EXPLANATION OF HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THE FIGURE.\"
Again, I beg somebody to clarify this one for me, as the above does not. As far as I can tell, Len Friedman posted a few days ago re: Chilukki \"in response to some particularly ignorant and distorted posts from another board.\" I don\'t think he was referring to any threads from 1999, I believe he was referring to comments in the last month. From hostile commentators.
When the questions ultimately come from those who are hostile, I have no expectations that anyone should engage in the sort of responses you seem to be asking for here...
\"If it was a simple case of Friedman throwing up his hands, why did Friedman make that post to begin with?\"
You understand why now, yes? In response to some particularly ignorant and distorted posts, he says.
\"Why wait until I responded?\"
I didn\'t think he did.
\"\'Pre-disposition\' of those inclined to disrespect ones numbers is no more an issue for Friedman than it is for me\"
Clearly it is. When attacked by competitors, he might offer an initial response if prodded by his own customers, but he\'ll rarely if ever engage in a prolonged dialogue on figuremaking with those who are on record as thinking his figuremaking is a joke.
\"Yet I have no fear of taking on all comers head on. Why do you suppose that is?\"
You think you\'re right, and some people, but not all who think they are right, like to engage in these sort of prolonged discussions-- others do not.
\"This is not an issue of \"bashing\"--I asked 8 relevant questions that Friedman left on the table.\"
As long as those questions are coming from you, they\'ll stay on the table. I\'d prefer answers, but when you ask them, I know there\'s an awfully good chance there won\'t be any.
\"And you know it,but you are a partisan, as proved by your actions, so you don\'t care.\"
To some extent, you have a point. I\'m happy with their numbers, and I\'m sympathetic to the idea of not wanting to engage hostile competition in this sort of dialogue.
\"1- He uses the fact that I am the asker to duck, same as you are, and\"
Stamement I\'ve never seen from any Ragozin customer: \"I really wish Len Friedman would be more responsive when being harshly criticized by his hostile competition! That Len should really go back and forth with a guy who will never acknowledge the credibility of his numbers!\"
\"As I have pointed out often, it is to the figure users benefit to have as great an understanding as possible of how the figures arte determined, so they can judge the accuracy of them. SEE CHILUKKI.\"
I\'d argue that 99% of either Ragozin or T-graph customers couldn\'t care less about the minutiae of figuremaking as long as they continue to believe these numbers are a strong asset in their handicapping arsenal.
JB wrote: \"If anyone can come up with a way to run a test for this we will run it.\"
Sure. Since you think tighter indicates better, look at old sheets and see what adjustment would give you the tightest figures. You can do this for ground loss, too.
Marc--
Another load of Pleveresque crap.
As I said, what was originated by Friedman WAS HIS EXPLANATION OF HOW THE FIGURE WAS ARRIVED AT. Whatever posts he referred to could not be about that explanation, because he had never before offerred one, as far as I know. He posted it now because they have started selling on-line, and he has gone on the attack (trainer stats, this). He stuck his neck out, and I handed him his head, to the point where he has no credible response left.
Incidentally, this back and forth will not result in the smoking gun post slipping off the board-- we\'ll move it up again.
In terms of getting to the truth,it doesn\'t matter whether the questioner is hostile if the questions are reasonable and relevant. That\'s what political debates are all about. We both know mine were, which is why you brought it up on the Rag board. But you gave him an out, because you didn\'t know if he had an answer, and you are a partisan-- the worst kind, an intillectually dishonest one.
Yes, I do understand why Friedman made the post to begin with-- to try to sell more sheets on-line. He stopped when he did for the obvious reason-- he had no answer. If he did he would have shoved it up my ass, and you know it.
He WILL engage in any dialogue as long as he thinks he is getting the better of it-- there are lots of back and forths about trainer stats on his board (a subject I hope to get to later this week). He shuts down when he is in a bad spot, in this case after ONE post.
Your next few paragraphs are neutral nonsense which don\'t require a response, until your fantasy comment by a Ragozin customer, and statement about customers not caring about how the figures are made. THAT\'S THE POINT. It\'s not about what they believe, it\'s about what can be shown to be true, using critical analysis, among other things. Sunlight is the best disinfectent.
Alydar--
I don\'t see any way to do this without judgement being involved, and those figures are made using earlier figures, etc. I meant some kind of large body automated study.
Jerry,
Always a pleasure. Always nice to be called \"intellectually dishonest,\" by you, and have my viewpoints dismissed as \"crap.\"
I\'m going to post one last time on this subject, then beg off. There\'s a sequence of events-- directly tied to each other-- that have occurred recently and in the past:
1) T-graph partisan disses specific Ragozin numbers.
2) There\'s some prodding of Friedman (by those who are either not partisan at all or by those who are Ragozin partisans) for him to explain this specific number(s).
3) Many times, Friedman will respond. He\'ll post the numbers, briefly discuss the logic behind them, and the very few people who care who are Ragozin partisans are generally satisfied.
Here\'s where your expectations and mine start to differ...
4) Tgraph proprietor responds with an \"A-Ha!\" e-mail, which generally includes a series of further questions/accusations about the integrity of the Ragozin numbers. Some of these questions might even be interesting.
5) Either a Ragozin or Tgraph customer then encourages Friedman to continue the dialogue.
6) Friedman, at this point, throws up his hands and says, no enough is enough with this particular argument.
And I for one, don\'t blame him. If that makes me \"intellectually dishonest,\" so be it...
Tell you what, Marc. We\'re going to move the smoking gun post up to the top of the board, where everyone can read it again and draw their own conclusions as to whether there were points that demanded an explanation from Friedman, what his failure to do so indicates, and what your explanations of his not doing so really indicate.
I don\'t characterize the behavior of Ragozin players as a matter of course. When they act in such fashion as to deserve it, I call them on it.