Just wanted to make sure this string gets moved up so it doesn\'t get lost.
Okay, I\'m back. There\'s a lot to get to, and I\'ll try to get to all of it, but I want to use this thread for a very specific subject-- Friedman\'s post about the Chilukki race-- because it is of overriding concern in evaluating the figures made by both companies, and impacts several of the other subjects that came up.
Here\'s what Friedman said:
On the day in question (4/28/99) Chilukki won the first race at CD. The track was worked on several times, but specifically between the first and second races. The track was AM muddy, track listed as good for the first, fast for races 2-5, sloppy 6-9 when more rain hit. Friedman says \"accordingly\", they used 3 variants for the card. He then goes on to talk about subsequent events indicating the number they assigned turned out to be correct, which I\'ll get to later.
Now the key stuff, and you have to read this pretty carefully-- I had to read it twice and show it to someone else before I could really believe he said it. Friedman says they came up with the figure by going over the historical data about the relationship between 4 1/2 furlong races and other sprint distances at CD (he says Kee by mistake, but that doesn\'t matter). Now, I could have a field day with that alone, but right now I have other fish to fry-- actually herrings, red ones. In this case, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DISTANCES IS NOT THE ISSUE-- THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRACK SPEEDS IS. The two races could both be at 6 furlongs and it wouldn\'t make any difference.
So, how did they come up with a variant for a race that was not preceded by another race, run over a track that had a different moisture content than the following race, and that was worked on between races?
Possibilities:
1- They did it at the same variant as the second race. This is what I thought they did, and it would have been wrong to do it that way, but Friedman says they did not.
2- They cut the race loose, and did it based on the horses that ran in the race itself. This would be a real news story, a feat worthy of Karnak. There were exactly 2 fillies in the race who had run before, one start each over the downhill 4 1/2 course at Keenland (which Ragozin gave figures to, another future field day). Even if you think those numbers were accurate, they both had run in the mid thirties, and both were assigned jumps of at least 15 points in this race, so they obviously weren\'t used to construct the variant here. So if they did the figures based on the horses that ran in the race they did so using workouts and/or pedigree, which seems unlikely.
3- Which seems to leave only the following-- they used the variant for the second race, but adjusted it with a mechanical correction. And the obvious question is, how did they come up with the correction? Possibility 1 is that it is arbitrary. Possibility 2 is that they used \"careful attention to the OBJECTIVE condition, (and) the track history in SIMILAR situations\" (emphasis added).
Okay, what is the \"objective\" condition? When Friedman said that the listed track designation changed, and they \"accordingly\" changed the variant, is he serious? Is he actually claiming that a good track at CD always has the same variant, and always differs from the fast track variants (which of course are always the same) by an exact amount? And what are \"similar\" circumstances? All times where the track goes from good to fast have the same variant relationship? Really? How about the ones where they worked on the track between races, do those have the same relationship? Do you know all the times they worked on the track between races, at all tracks?
My guess-- at best, this is another example of the Ragozin use of broad averages. They may have taken a bunch of times that tracks went from good to fast (independent of work being done) and averaged them to come up with a rough correction. First of all, the only reason averages are used at all, ever, is because there is variability in the results you are testing-- if the average is a 4 point difference, some are 8, some are no change, etc.. That means the number you are assigning may be assumed to be AT BEST relatively close (in the above example, within 8 points), meaning only if the situation you are looking at actually fits exactly into the situations you measured with your average, and the results you measured were not too variable. And since they did work on the track, all that goes out the window, unless you did a seperate average for all the times they did work, which for starters means you have to know every time it happened.
Friedman\'s other point is that the subsequent figures the fillies ran vindicated the 4/28 figures because all the fillies (except Chilukki, of course) ran back to those numbers in the next 3 starts. First of all, as I\'ve pointed out before, you use earlier figures to make the later ones, so it is to some degree self-fulfilling. But more importantly, PLEASE-- these are 2 year olds, in April. OF COURSE they\'re going forward, rapidly-- if you were to believe Ragozin, the two making their second starts in this race both moved forward 15 points.
As for Awesome Humor winning-- it\'s meaningless. We don\'t leave boxes because the races come up fast-- we do it because there is not enough info to make figures with. It wouldn\'t have mattered if the Chilukki or Awsome Humor races had come up 2 seconds slower.
I urge everyone to read the above and Friedman\'s posts again, carefully. Please keep all comments on this string to the narrow confines of the figure making questions discussed here-- there are other strings for \"all figures are imperfect\", or \"Friedman wins so the figures must be good\".
I think I\'ll be able to get to the rest of this late tonight. For now:
\"Friedman fires smoking gun--shoots foot\"
Whose foot? His own? Yours? Bad title, pal.
I wasn\'t sure how many words would fit on one line, I was parodying a Daily News headline, and I never heard the expression \"he shot someone else in the foot\".
Yeah, there goes the rest of my free time this week. Of course, there are people who would say it\'s fine to just delete you, or simply ignore what you have to say.
If we\'re going to do this, let\'s try to make it about the big stuff that matters (actual issues), not line-by-line trench warfare about angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin minutiae, okay?
That was my favorite. Was it the Daily News or the Post? How come Zuckerman gets all the great women? I\'ll stick to the big issues. TG vs. Rags methodology. Expect a little bit about The Clash, too.
A spectre is haunting Lower Manhattan--the spectre of Chilukki\'s 1999 debut figure. All the powers of the SHEETS office have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Ragozin and Friedman, Jake and Hardoon.
Where is the figure maker who has not hurled the branding reproach of blowing Chilukki\'s debut figure, against the more advanced opposition figure maker?
(I\'m fully expecting Friedman to get this joke.)
OK, all kidding aside, Friedman has just taken a hammer and sickle to your trainer stats, and you want to talk about a 1999 MSW at Churchill Downs. Did Ragozin get the number wrong? If I had to bet, I would bet that he did. I don\'t think he should have made a figure for that race. Did you get Came Home\'s debut number wrong? I don\'t know. Please break out your data, as Friedman did, so that I can have a go at this question. The track was changing speed that day, right? This will be a great place to contrast your approach to Ragozin\'s.
You wrote: \" In this case, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DISTANCES IS NOT THE ISSUE-- THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRACK SPEEDS IS. The two races could both be at 6 furlongs and it wouldn\'t make any difference.\"
I\'m not sure this is fair. Friedman was working off of a speed chart. These charts are often unreliable at distances shorter than 6F and longer than 1 1/8. Since, as seems plain, he linked (in some manner) the first race to later races, the accuracy of his chart comes into play. Therefore, it is perfectly logical for him to entertain the question of whether his chart was holding up. Please tell me what he did that merits an ALL CAPS rebuke from you.
\"As for Awesome Humor winning-- it\'s meaningless. We don\'t leave boxes because the races come up fast-- we do it because there is not enough info to make figures with. It wouldn\'t have mattered if the Chilukki or Awsome Humor races had come up 2 seconds slower.\"
I\'m not sure I follow your reasoning here. You criticized Friedman for making a number on the Chilukki race. He then points to the Awesome Humor race as an example where his willingness to make a number in a difficult situation produced a good bet. What is the problem? He introduced his Awesome Humor line in a way that made it clear that he wasn\'t presenting AH\'s win as evidence for the accuracy of his Chilukki figure.
\"Friedman\'s other point is that the subsequent figures the fillies ran vindicated the 4/28 figures because all the fillies (except Chilukki, of course) ran back to those numbers in the next 3 starts. First of all, as I\'ve pointed out before, you use earlier figures to make the later ones, so it is to some degree self-fulfilling.\"
To what degree would that be, given the manner in which Ragozin makes figures? Throw out the turf races. That leaves us with what, 70 horses Ragozin can use to make the variant when these horses run back? Unlike you, Ragozin doesn\'t split routes and sprints. This means he has a bigger sample with which to work. Did these horses all run back on the same day? Even if they did (and they didn\'t), the numbers aren\'t big enough to support what you\'re suggesting, unless you want to build your tower on your \"to some degree\" linguistic escape hatch. But there is a bigger issue here. Friedman knew damn well how tough it was to make a figure for this race. That\'s why he marked the day for later review. To think Friedman would then allow the shaky figures for this race to poison later races is to think Friedman is an idiot. Is that your position?
Now I want to ask you some specific questions about how you make these figures I respect so much and have defended so often:
1: To what degree do you use speed charts?
2: How often do you update them?
3: Imaginary day. Hasn\'t rained in a week. Three sprints this day, races one, two, and three. The evidence from race one suggests the track is three points fast. The evidence from race two suggests the track is 4.5 points fast. The evidence from race three suggests the track is three points fast. What is your variant for these three races?
Look, Friedman frustrates both of us by being vague when he discusses how he makes figures. For one thing, these historical corrections are impossible to counter to anyone\'s satisfaction. Here\'s something from his book. I believe it\'s important to understanding how he makes figures:
\"Seriously underconsidered by Beyer and most other analysts is the LIKELY speed of the track today, based on weather--especially precipitation--and on the track superintendent\'s habitual day-to-day changes in grooming the track.\"
In this sentence, I believe, lies the answer to more than one of these mysteries with which you and I, among others, like to entertain ourselves. Should we suspect skullduggery in Friedman\'s recalcitrance, in his general unwillingness to engage in detailed discussions about figure making? I don\'t think so. A couple of years ago, I asked you a question that would have required an answer of much specificity. Here is your reply: \"I don\'t want people going to school on my variants.\"
Did I read a recent post by Freidman correctly??
Is he now saying that the numbers for the Chilukki race may have been off by TWO or THREE points??
Silver Charm wrote: \"Did I read a recent post by Freidman correctly??\"
Not if he spelled his last name in it.
\"Is he now saying that the numbers for the Chilukki race may have been off by TWO or THREE points??\"
Please tell me you are doing self-parody.
Silver,
If you are referring to this
\"I can\'t argue with you on that--if you add two points to the Chilukki race the subsequent development also looks ok.\"
I don\'t think he\'s saying anything about the number they gave being off two or three points. HP
HP,
Thanks for the intelligent explanation.
Alydar,
Go back and study your Economics 201 about \'lagging indicators\'.
Silver Charm wrote: \"Go back and study your Economics 201 about \'lagging indicators\'.\"
Economics 201? You really should have gone to a school that was more, how should I put it, ambitious.
lagging indicator:
An economic indicator that changes after the overall economy has changed; examples include labor costs, business spending, the unemployment rate, the prime rate, outstanding bank loans, and inventory book value.
If you think the time of a race is a lagging indicator, you have a bit of a problem.
Econ 201 was just one of the courses we were required to take before we went to grad school and before we became licensed in multiple states.
For someone does\'nt know how it goes I thought I might tell you.
Alydar,
1- The reason I want to talk about the Chilukki race (\"Smoking Gun\" post)is because when it comes to figure making philosophies, hard cases make good examples. That race is the perfect illustration of how the Ragozin reliance on assumptions and averages is wrong. With all the wind and dust that has been stirred up, it is important to note that there still is ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION for how they came up with the variant for that race.
Don\'t have the run-down for the Came Home day on my desk (it\'s in storage, we don\'t store the data in that form in the computer, are about to start), but if I gave a figure (as opposed to a box), there was more data to go on within the race, and/or more surrounding data that could be used without it being ridiculous to do so, than on the Chilukki day. Which is not to say I necessarily got the Came Home figure right-- as I believe I said at the time, it is always possible to blow a figure, since there is an element of judgement involved. Which in turn does not mean it\'s okay to make wild leaps based on assumptions or broad averages.
Incidentally, my recollection is that Ragozin made that Came Home figure even slower than I did, but I could be wrong.
2- The question of the distance of the Chilukki race was a complete non-issue-- no-one raised it but Friedman. What you say about the reason he brought it up might have some merit if he had also explained how the variant was determined, but he did not-- HE HAS YET TO EXPLAIN HOW THE FIGURE WAS CREATED, DESPITE SPENDING AN ENTIRE POST PRETENDING TO DO SO. That\'s why it rates caps. If he linked the races \"in some manner\", as you say, let him explain why, and how. Ahem-- why not ask him?
3- If Awsome Humor had lost next time, would it have been an indication the figure was wrong? Did she pair up her figure on Ragozin second out? If 2 year olds that are given a slow number first time out jump forward to win second out, is that an indication the first number was wrong? Again, I am offering no opinion on whether either race was fast or not, just that there was not enough information to create an ACCURATE figure. You don\'t need figures to know that an open lengths maiden special win on a major circuit is a pretty good race. If Chilukki\'s first out number was 3 to 6 points slower first time out (or even faster, for that matter) would her second out win (and number on Ragozin) look \"wrong\"?
4- These days, if you throw out the turf races, you are left with about 50 horses. Whether or not the horses come back in the same race (which happens a lot with early season maidens because there aren\'t that nmany races), each horse becomes an information bit you use to make later figures. I said \"to some degree\" because Ragozin does make variants differently than I do, but I would add that I don\'t use early season 2 year old races to make variants. I also made clear that the \"self fulfilling\" aspect was a minor consideration in attacking his argument-- the major reason one can\'t draw conclusions based on 2 year olds \"getting back\" to their numbers is because the horses are changing so quickly. I will be having another field day with this and related subjects later this week, when we exhaust this one.
\"To think Friedman would then allow the shaky figures for this race to poison later races is to think Friedman is an idiot\". Len has said he is going to be posting the 00 Wood horses. Hold that thought.
5- Speed charts lay out both the points per time interval for a particular distance, and comparitive par times on a \"standard\" (or average) day at the track in question. For the first purpose we use them all the time, for the second we use them as a starting point. If you set the pars in stone you can get in real trouble-- aside from the obvious errors Ragozin makes with sprint/routes, the 7f at Laurel and 1 1/8 at Keenland are two examples.
Depending on how you look at it, we either never update speed charts, or do so every day.
On your imaginary day, \"suggests\" is a key word. But if the evidence seemed pretty solid, I would definitely go 3/4.5/3. A point and a half is nothing, considering timing mechanisms, wind gusts, and track maintenance issues. 3/6/3 is the decision I get paid to make...
...that, and understanding what the correct overriding philosophy should be.
Your last part misses the point. There was no recalcitrance on Friedman\'s part about Chilukki-- he SET OUT to explain how they came up with the number. He only stopped when my post made it clear he was in way over his head.
I was in the Ragozin office for 9 years, working there and as a client, and I had arguments with Ragozin about this stuff then. Paul worked there for 12 years after I left, so I know about the things they have done since then. (One of which is totally crazy and the real reason they did the Chilukki race the way they did. What I\'ve been doing is trying to get Friedman to come out and say it, but he has figured out that he\'s dead if he does. It\'s an arbitrary correction). I understand how the Ragozin operation makes figures, and judging by Friedman\'s post, better than he does.
Silver Charm wrote: \"Econ 201 was just one of the courses we were required to take before we went to grad school and before we became licensed in multiple states.\"
You need to ask yourself why you would write something so pathetic. These \"multiple states\" have even more explaining to do.
\"For someone does\'nt know how it goes I thought I might tell you.\"
I bow to your eloquence.
JB,
I can\'t proceed until you clarify a few things:
You wrote: \"Depending on how you look at it, we either never update speed charts, or do so every day.\"
Are you saying you keep a running (constantly updated) average of the figures you give out at various class levels for each distance at each track? If not, please tell me what you are saying.
\" But if the evidence seemed pretty solid, I would definitely go 3/4.5/3.\"
Please define \"solid\" as best you can. If the second race had a seven-horse field, and three horses obviously Xed, and the winner obviously freaked, can the evidence be \"solid\"?
\"I understand how the Ragozin operation makes figures, and judging by Friedman\'s post, better than he does.\"
This sentence is so awkward that I want to know if it has been edited. It looks like one of those Blockbuster movies where they take out all the good parts.
Alydar,
Speed charts and par levels are two different things. I described how we used the speed charts, which have zero times for each distance based on a standard configuration (and which are adjusted for the average relationships between distances at that track, and used BY US only as a starting point), as well as time-per-point relationships (as in, 2 seconds at 6f = 10 points).
Par levels are made by figuring out the average winning figure for each class of race. Using these only lets you make rough figures, and is only useful when you are first starting your data base-- it\'s another example of a broad average. Once you have a significant data base of individual horses to work with, you are much better off basing your figures on the horses that ran on a specific card than on a broad average of all horses who run in those types of races in general-- obviously, you could be dealing with a strong or weak 10 claimer, etc., and you are using those horses to determine how fast the other horses are.
We use \"mechanical\" variants, as Ragozin used to call them, only to make my job easier-- the first step is to apply a claimer derived variant to the day simply because it usually gets the day within a few points of where it should be, meaning the numbers I have to add and subtract in my head as I do the day are smaller. We do not rely on the par levels in any other way, and I would point out that tying your figures to mechanical variants \"anchors\" your figures-- if racehorses as a group are getting better or worse over a period of time you can\'t know it, making comparisons from one generation to another impossible. You have already determined that 10 claimers are the same forever, etc.
In the example you gave (which is pretty much the most common single way a race comes out), it definitely can be solid if the 2-3-4 horses run numbers very tight to their histories (meaning, pair up last number, run exactly their top, etc.). Think about the alternatives-- if you give the race faster, you are giving the winner an even freakier number, and the 2-3-4 horses faster than you want to give them. If you give the race slower, the winner will look better, but 6 other horses will look worse. This, by the way, is almost exactly the situation that came up when War Emblem ran his first big one last year-- we gave him the number rather than have a whole field of good 3 year olds behind him collapse, and Ragozin went the other way. War Emblem paired the number we gave him EXACTLY in the Illinois Derby.
The sentence about my understanding how Ragozin makes figures better than Friedman does was edited, but I think I got my point across. Speaking of which, you neglected to ask me the most obvious question raised by the post you are responding to.
JB,
Your first part is a wonderful answer to a question I didn\'t ask.
Also:
\"The sentence about my understanding how Ragozin makes figures better than Friedman does was edited, but I think I got my point across.\"
Yes, but that wasn\'t really my point, was it?
\"Speaking of which, you neglected to ask me the most obvious question raised by the post you are responding to.\"
Do you expect me to interfere with you when you announce that you are setting a trap for Friedman? Besides, I am saving some of the good stuff for later.
JB,
What does this mean:
\"Depending on how you look at it, we either never update speed charts, or do so every day.\"
I saw where Came Home came up in this string so I did a little research. Came Home was given a 4 in his maiden win in July at Hollywood Park. Don\'t know what the track was like or the issue at hand that day because I was\'nt there, so I\'m not qualified to discuss anymore than what I just did.
Did see where Came Home came back to repeat that 4 in his next start, which was the Grade I Hopeful at Saratoga. The 4 doesn\'t look that out of line when look at say More Than Ready and others.
Saw one other thing that I thought was interesting. Came Home won the San Vicente last year and received a 0. This number was a record and I remember I kept thinking last year that Came Home would regress which he did, but only a little. As we said before the \'Good 3YOs\' just don\'t seem to bounce like they used to.
Now we see where TGJB has told us where Kafwain was really fast in this years San Vicente. Not surprised after having watched the race (was about Harlans Holiday). The irony is that Kafwain\'s sire is Cherokee Run
the same sire as
CHILUKKI!!
The ghost is here to stay.
The number in question on Came Home is his first out, which I think we had as 13.
Silver Charm wrote: \"I saw where Came Home came up in this string so I did a little research. Came Home was given a 4 in his maiden win in July at Hollywood Park. Don\'t know what the track was like or the issue at hand that day because I was\'nt there, so I\'m not qualified to discuss anymore than what I just did.
Did see where Came Home came back to repeat that 4 in his next start, which was the Grade I Hopeful at Saratoga.\"
You are wrong. Came Home\'s first TWO starts were at Hollywood Park.
Alydar,
What I mean is that we don\'t assume a fixed relationship between the distances, which is one of the two functions of a speed chart I described. This is mostly true for 1 and 2 turn races, but there are others-- you have to be careful tying together the sprints at Laurel (mostly, but not entirely, because they fool around with the run-ups), or tying the 1 1/8 with 1 1/16 at Kee, for example.
JB wrote:
\"What I mean is that we don\'t assume a fixed relationship between the distances, which is one of the two functions of a speed chart I described. This is mostly true for 1 and 2 turn races, but there are others-- you have to be careful tying together the sprints at Laurel (mostly, but not entirely, because they fool around with the run-ups), or tying the 1 1/8 with 1 1/16 at Kee, for example.\"
JB,
That\'s not an answer. You know it\'s not an answer. If you don\'t want to answer, just tell me, and I\'ll stop asking. But please stop with this nonsense.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, seriously. That is EXACTLY what I meant by that comment-- that we use a speed chart based on averages for that track, but only as a starting point. I start out looking at every day with as few assumptions as possible about tying together unrelated events.
JB,
There are three dirt sprints today. Two of them are at 5F and are for early 2yos, whom you don\'t use for making figures. The third is for older horses and is at 6F. How do you make a figure for the 2yo races, keeping in mind that you just said you never update the chart (except to the extent that you consider cutting races loose to be \"updating every day\")?
Author: Alydar in California
Date: 02-07-03 13:59
Silver Charm wrote: \"I saw where Came Home came up in this string so I did a little research. Came Home was given a 4 in his maiden win in July at Hollywood Park. Don\'t know what the track was like or the issue at hand that day because I was\'nt there, so I\'m not qualified to discuss anymore than what I just did.
Did see where Came Home came back to repeat that 4 in his next start, which was the Grade I Hopeful at Saratoga.\"
Alydar wrote:
You are wrong. Came Home\'s first TWO starts were at Hollywood Park.
Read what I wrote and tell me where I said in his first career start and then in his second career start. I did\'nt, I said in his maiden win and then in his next career start.
Silver Charm wrote: \"Read what I wrote and tell me where I said in his first career start and then in his second career start. I did\'nt, I said in his maiden win and then in his next career start.\"
If JB is going to ridicule Marc, who was 100% correct on his definitions, and then let this BS from you go by, there is a real problem here. I had questioned Came Home\'s debut number. Read what I wrote. Read what you wrote in reply. Read Came Home\'s past performances. Then keep your mouth shut.
Alydar you wrote:
\"Did you get Came Home\'s debut number wrong? I don\'t know. Please break out your data, as Friedman did.\"
Came Home received a 13 in his debut race.
Speaking of Friedman breaking out his data, when is he going to post the 2000 Wood as he promised. Or does he have something to hide.
Alydar,
IF--
There is no weather (precipitation).
There is no significant (unusual) work done on the track.
The track has a history of not changing speed under those circumstances.
There is nothing unusual about the circumstances of the two types (distances) of races (specifically, significant difference in run-ups-- also, at many tracks older horses run 5f, which gives me a history of those relationships to work with on days with no weather and work done. Be careful where you go with this one, because Friedman\'s answer was NOT an example of this).
There was no slide on the routes.
THEN I will tie the 5f races to the older sprint horses (if not, they will get boxes). I do the older sprint horses mostly against themselves, although I will look at the routes, IF the relationship has been constant, as an additional source of information if there is a choice between two ways to go. I will also look at the surrounding days IF they are both the same speed and there is no weather over the 3 days. But I will only use the routes and surrounding days as information bits, never as a reason to override a clear decision.
And when I don\'t have sufficient information, I leave boxes. The two sides of the house that I can see are white.
Go through the check list above to see if you can figure out how Friedman came up with the Chilukki figure, and how many unfounded assumptions went into it.
On a related subject, Friedman said something about the evidence indicating they got that figure \"right\", and implying we think so as well. Absolutely untrue, on both fronts. If you believe Ragozin, Chilukki ran a huge number first time out that was not within her (she didn\'t get back to it), but did not knock her out either-- she leveled off in a range a few points off her first out figure. That is much, much less likely than her either getting back to the number OR falling apart. The ones who ran behind her (and got beat 9 or more lengths at 4 1/2 furlongs) figured to go forward over the course of the year, so no conclusions can be drawn from their up the track April 2yo numbers. Best guess, and it\'s just that, is that the figure for Chilukki should be a TG 7 3/4 (Chilukki\'s 2yo top)or higher, meaning a couple of points worse on Ragozin.
Let\'s try to get this subject tied up today, because I have a whole backlog of projectiles that Friedman has aimed at his other foot to deal with.
Silver Charm wrote: \"Came Home was given a 4 in his maiden win in July at Hollywood Park.\"
This is false. He broke his maiden in June, won a stakes race in July, and won the Hopeful in September. You are utterly clueless.
Alydar, you are kidding about the definition thing, I hope. I was the one who supplied it, and I was 100% right. None of those synonyms was a definition, and you know it-- if so, they would all have to mean exactly the same thing (2 things equal to another thing are equal to each other). There are ELEMENTS of identification in characterization, just like there are elements of characterization in pigeonholing.
I would also add that a factual error is just that, nothing more. I\'m going to stop short of CHARACTERIZING what Marc did in comparison, to try and let everyone to cool off, and give myself a chance to get some work done.
JB, you are as wrong as one can be.
Synonym: A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word in the language.
char·ac·ter·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krk-t-rz)
tr.v. character·ized, character·iz·ing, character·iz·es
To describe the qualities or peculiarities of: characterized the warden as ruthless.
To be a distinctive trait or mark of; distinguish: the rash and high fever that characterize this disease; a region that is characterized by its dikes and canals.
Author: Alydar in California
Date: 02-07-03 15:59
Silver Charm wrote: \"Came Home was given a 4 in his maiden win in July at Hollywood Park.\"
Alydar wrote:
\"This is false. He broke his maiden in June, won a stakes race in July, and won the Hopeful in September.\"
You are correct.
Alydar wrote:
\"You are utterly clueless.\"
Don\'t talk about Friedmans 00 Wood numbers this way. He did the best he could..
Silver Charm,
Go to Friedman\'s site, identify yourself as Silver Charm (he will know who you are), tell him you are smarter than he is, and tell him you want to debate figure making with him. He has been doing this with much success for a long time. He deserves some respect from you, of all people.
\"JB, you are as wrong as one can be.\"
No, he\'s not. He\'s never wrong. You have just had your head handed to you. You are bloodied and beaten. Your argument has been completely destroyed. He has disposed of you. At least that\'s the way he likes to put it.
It seems there are multiple ways of looking at the issue of characterization. I, for one, think that when someone says:
\"Now, what does all this tell us about the two products, and those who use them?\"
someone is clearly characterizing.
If the quote said *some* of the people who use them, it was strike me as less of a characterization (\"identify\" might be a better word there), but there\'s a broadness to \"those who use them,\" that seems to be doing a whole lot of characterizing to me. For what it\'s worth. Since my intentions are clearly so corrupt.
Particularly unusual in this characterization, by the way, is making broad statements about a group of people-- \"those who use them\"-- based on message board postings of a total of a dozen people, if not less...
Regarding the lack of passion of Ragozin partisans *who post on Ragozin\'s website* to demand more comprehensive reviews of Chilukki\'s debut number, or any other numbers: What does this say about those who use Ragozin? Very little, because the sample of people who post on mesage boards is far too small to be indicative of anything...
Alydar,
You really want to go there? (and you know I\'m not talking about you).
On the other thing, please-- nearly the same thing is good enough? Identifying something (Marc is a Ragozin player) is the same thing as pigeonholing someone (therefore he is the same as all other Ragozin players, Howard Dennis for example)?
Identify-- John is the warden.
Characterize-- John is ruthless.
Stop already.
Author: Alydar in California
Date: 02-07-03 16:29
\"Go to Friedman\'s site, identify yourself as Silver Charm (he will know who you are), tell him you are smarter than he is, and tell him you want to debate figure making with him. He has been doing this with much success for a long time. He deserves some respect from you,of all people.\"
I don\'t think I\'m smarter than Friedman. I think TGJB is. Thats why I pay him to do my figures
I have been quoted as saying he runs the second best speed figure shop. I also said Thorograph is the Tiger Woods of speed figure shops ie-the best in the world.
Good Luck at the track this weekend.
JB,
In 15 minutes, I\'m leaving for several hours. Three things:
Marc used \"characterize\" in a way that is supported by every dictionary I have ever seen. You then told him, in effect, that he was deliberately misunderstanding the word and that he wasn\'t a \"stand-up guy.\" It is time for you to apologize.
You wrote: \"You really want to go there? (and you know I\'m not talking about you).\"
You are going to find that when I am extremely fond of a cause, I am inexhaustible.
Your figure post: I am going to give you a line-by-line response, being careful to compare your words to statements you have made over the past six years--unless you can think of a better idea.
Marc,
I\'ve been trying to go easy on you, and let you get out of here, but you\'re not smart enough to know it, or how your stuff plays. And now you are keeping me from my work, so you\'re getting me pissed.
1-- Notice I did not say any of those things you ascribed to me (destroyed, etc.) to Alydar. See if you can figure out why, since he is obviously disagreeing with me. Could it have something to do with him not shifting ground, re-casting my arguments, etc.?
2-- My question about users of the two products MIGHT have been a characterization IF I HAD ANSWERED IT. I stated what had taken place, and asked those reading to make their OWN characterizations. Get it?
3-- You also OF COURSE, BEING WHO YOU ARE, AND ARGUING THE WAY YOU DO, have re-cast my original statement in order to attack it. That statement was (roughly, from memory), \"I don\'t characterize Ragozin players AS A MATTER OF COURSE\". I said it in the context of why I was characterizing YOUR behavior, as I am in this post. Not ALL Ragozin players behave the way you do, as I believe I already said somewhere below on this board.
4-- Yeah, that\'s probably it-- if the sampling was bigger, it would become apparent that Ragozin players are as likely to ask hard questions of Friedman as both they and the TG players are of me. So when you, Patent, Plever, Litt, Soup, Jim, et al, are willing to grill me, but not Friedman, no one should draw any conclusions from it.
Alydar,
1- You are a loyal friend to Marc.
2- You are a loyal friend to Marc.
3- Knock yourself out. If instead you want to do something productive, get Friedman to explain how they arrived at the Chilukki figure. You (yes, you) are letting him off the hook-- all this stuff is diverting attention from a truly important point.
\"but you\'re not smart enough to know it, or how your stuff plays.\"
Perhaps you\'re the one who doesn\'t know how your stuff plays?
\"1-- Notice I did not say any of those things you ascribed to me (destroyed, etc.) to Alydar.\"
No, but you rather regularly make these comments to anyone who disagrees with you here who is not a customer of yours.
\"2-- My question about users of the two products MIGHT have been a characterization IF I HAD ANSWERED IT. I stated what had taken place, and asked those reading to make their OWN characterizations. Get it?\"
Finally, an acknowledgement that characterization might indeed be the right word to explain what you did. The ground shifts slightly. Now let\'s come completely clean-- again I find myself quoting your words:
\"\"Now, what does ALL THIS TELL US about the two products, AND THOSE WHO USE THEM?\"
To me, this speaks volumes. Does it \"tell us\" that they (Ragozin customers) are wonderful people? No, clearly, ay reading of the full post or the quote above indicates that \"all this,\" as attributed to the Chilukki dialogue and Ragozin customers not demanding more of Friedman, is a negative as it pertains to Ragozin customers. And accordingly, the question quoted above is clearly making a broad, negative characterization at \"those who use\" Ragozin.
\"3-- You also OF COURSE, BEING WHO YOU ARE, AND ARGUING THE WAY YOU DO, have re-cast my original statement in order to attack it.\"
This is also one of your tactics-- claim that you have been fouled by some sort of recasting. You made a statement about Ragozin customers when you characterized the way you did. You didn\'t (and don\'t) understand that there\'s other ways of handling things than your way-- fine. But trying to pretend it wasn\'t anything other than a broad characterization, when it clearly was, is not something I take well.
\"I don\'t characterize Ragozin players AS A MATTER OF COURSE\".
But then you proceeded to do precisely that. A broad, negativecharacterization.
\"4-- Yeah, that\'s probably it-- if the sampling was bigger,\"
I have no idea what would become apparent if the sampling was bigger. Your confidence that you can figure out an entire customer base of several thousand people off of those who contribute on a Bboard(s), well, I don\'t share it.
\"it would become apparent that Ragozin players are as likely to ask hard questions of Friedman as both they and the TG players are of me. So when you, Patent, Plever, Litt, Soup, Jim, et al, are willing to grill me, but not Friedman, no one should draw any conclusions from it.\"
There\'s a ton of reasons why people don\'t grill Friedman. #1, and far and away #1, is because he\'s not responsive to it. You then have to decide whether that means his figures are bad or if there are other reasons that are less harmful to one\'s ROI. Every Ragozin player I know who actually cares about this stuff, they choose the latter logic.
I aoplogize for taking up your time with another laughably moronic post.
Marc, I\'m going to let that post sit up there forever, without a response. Which is your tough luck, except luck has nothing to do with it. One of us (at least) definitely doesn\'t realize how this stuff is playing.
If you don't as you state assume some kind of fixed relationship between distances the
only other way you could assign any numbers at 4 1/2f races run exclusively by 1st and
second time out 2yo's in the springtime at Churchill would by reviewing past times to
establish a par at that distance and incorporating an average time into your speed chart for CD . I'm on
your side regarding the Chilluki debate but one of your follow up posts perplexed me.
You stated "But more importantly, PLEASE-- these are 2 year olds, in April. OF
COURSE they\'re going forward, rapidly.........." Absolutely, but this rapid development
also prohits you from establishing any kind of reliable par, no? And if you're not assuming
a fixed relationship between 4 1/2f and other sprint distance(s) how can you assign any
number to these horses?
\"Yeah, that\'s probably it-- if the sampling was bigger, it would become apparent that Ragozin players are as likely to ask hard questions of Friedman as both they and the TG players are of me. So when you, Patent, Plever, Litt, Soup, Jim, et al, are willing to grill me, but not Friedman, no one should draw any conclusions from it.\"
uh.....when did I (or jim, probably) ever \'grill\' you?
\'grill\' is not synonymous w/\'belittle\' or \'ridicule\'.
better keep that dictionary handy.
ps
\"Marc,
I\'ve been trying to go easy on you, and let you get out of here, but you\'re not smart enough to know it, or how your stuff plays. And now you are keeping me from my work, so you\'re getting me pissed.\"
look out, marc........
(sorry to hear about your tough luck)
JB wrote: \"Knock yourself out. If instead you want to do something productive, get Friedman to explain how they arrived at the Chilukki figure. You (yes, you) are letting him off the hook-- all this stuff is diverting attention from a truly important point.\"
JB,
I have an idea, a serious one. Since Friedman doesn\'t want to argue at the moment, let me pretend to be Friedman. I will defend all of Friedman\'s positions, and I will attack all of yours. I will answer every question as best I can. No evasions. None. I will vigorously defend everything from the Russian Revolution to the Chilukki figure, from The Terror to doing sprints and routes at the same variant. This will be mad fun. I will even imitate his writing style. Now I\'m getting excited. You have to let me do this. Please. Please. Please. You and Nicely Nicely spent 21 years in Ragozin\'s office. I have never been east of Denver. This is the perfect opportunity to make all your points against what is certain to be feeble opposition. Everyone will learn from the exchange. What do you say?
jinx
\"I have an idea, a serious one. Since Friedman doesn\'t want to argue at the moment, let me pretend to be Friedman. I will defend all of Friedman\'s positions, and I will attack all of yours. I will answer every question as best I can. No evasions. None. I will vigorously defend everything from the Russian Revolution to the Chilukki figure, from The Terror to doing sprints and routes at the same variant. This will be mad fun. I will even imitate his writing style. Now I\'m getting excited. You have to let me do this. Please. Please. Please. You and Nicely Nicely spent 21 years in Ragozin\'s office. I have never been east of Denver. This is the perfect opportunity to make all your points against what is certain to be feeble opposition. Everyone will learn from the exchange. What do you say?\"
I really think the better idea would be for you to play both the friedman role, and jerry\'s, too.
ps -- nicely
this quote thing is f\'d.
*** Bad idea. Alydar, get some rest . bj
Alydar,
For the third time:
I don\'t care what YOU THINK FRIEDMAN MEANT. When you have a large customer base that is buying figures you make based on thin air I will be glad to debate you.
Someone on this website once said (paraphrasing) \"Friedman doesn\'t have to come out and fight. He\'s got you to do it for him\".
Thomas,
I covered some of this in a post in response to Alydar yesterday about how I would handle a hypothetical day, but it is exactly one of the points I intend to get into once things have calmed down. That question was what I referring to in my response to Friedman when I said I could have a field day with that part alone.
Classic soup-- wisecrack, wisecrack, wisecrack. No content, and of course nothing that might require a brain, or knowledge of the subject (figure making). But hey, that\'s who you are-- a guy who throws content free crap all over other people\'s boards to gum up the works, because he has nothing to say-- sort of a virtual terrorist. Anonymously, of course-- in your e-mail to me you didn\'t even put a return adress. You\'re such a stand up guy-- how could I have ever have formed such a negative impression of Ragozin customers? Certainly no one else who reads your posts will.
Hmmm... Hope nobody does the same thing to the Rag board...
TGJB wrote:
> Classic soup-- wisecrack, wisecrack, wisecrack. No content,
> and of course nothing that might require a brain, or knowledge
> of the subject (figure making). But hey, that\'s who you are-- a
> guy who throws content free crap all over other people\'s boards
> to gum up the works, because he has nothing to say-- sort of a
> virtual terrorist. Anonymously, of course-- >
> Hmmm... Hope nobody does the same thing to the Rag board...
>
>
somebody\'s already been doing it for a looooooong time.
fortunately for the rest of us, they\'ve had the good sense to delete you.
UNfortunately, they are unable to ban.
ps
\"Anonymously, of course-- in your e-mail to me you didn\'t even put a return adress. \"
ahahahahahahahahahaha.....!!!
(no, it\'s not the spelling that\'s so funny)
by the way, you\'re not one of those bigots who forms an opinion about a whole group of people based on a couple he happens to meet, are you?
\"I don\'t care what YOU THINK FRIEDMAN MEANT. When you have a large customer base that is buying figures you make based on thin air ....\"
don\'t tell me there\'s somebody out there who just discards the final time, and pencils in a # that he think looks good on the line.......!!
oh, wait.....you said LARGE customer base.
Anybody still think I shouldn\'t be drawing any conclusions about Raggies?
bj wrote: \"Bad idea. Alydar, get some rest.\"
Well, well, well, may wonders like this one never cease. Welcome back, bj. I always said those Canadian peacekeepers don\'t get enough credit. Please do me a favor. Stick around and be prolific. Come December, I would like nothing more than to return an old favor by naming you comeback poster of the year.
*** I\'m always hanging around , trying to mine the occasional handicapping nugget. I stay away from the \"sheet war\" stuff now , I\'ve seen it all before . I\'m looking forward to the Spring - as I\'m getting too old for these minus 30 wind chills up here .
I can\'t wait for Saratoga - I only started going a couple of years ago , but I tell you , that track has gotten under my skin . Stay in the short line . bj
Author: bj
Date: 02-09-03 10:57
. Stay in the short line . bj
***********************************
Short line with incompetent penn & teller = being shut out. The key at any venue is finding the tellers that can punch \'em out. At Arlington\'s Trackside Kathy will tell people in line to get their money out as she\'s cranking \'em just before post. The line moooooves, the best I\'ve ever seen.
JB, here's what Friedman posted: Since older horses never run that distance at Kee, our
par time for that distance is determined from our model track and interpolated backward
from the longer sprint distances at KEE. Since that number seemed so incredible, we
printed out all the 4 1/2 KEE races for the previous two years to see how the figures for
those races (very often the 1st race of the day) held up in their subsequent performances.
My interpretation: They ARE assuming a fixed relationship(interpolating for 4 1/2). They
are probably looking at average par times between 5, 5 1/2, 6f and drawing some
conclusion where 4 1/2f figures ought to fit on their (yea he meant CD) speed chart. If I
understand you correctly you're gripe and rightfully so is a variant matter. But let's
assume there was no weather factor during the day in question. By assuming some fixed
relationship between 4 1/2f and other sprint distances the other guys are in a postion to
give out numbers at that distance. Weather or not they're interpolation is correct is
certainly open for debate and the idea that they can validate all this by going back and
looking at subsequent numbers of 2yo's in springtime is absurd. But you made a comment
in one of your posts that you don't assume fixed relationships which begs the question
how do you assign numbers in these races? Alydar's hypothetical was how you would
derive a variant where 2 races were @ 5f for unraced 2yo's and a 6f race with established
horses. In his case you've a bit a little bit of history for older horses @5f but where do
you go if those 5f races were @4 1/2 and that sort of data doen't exist?
This is a good question, the kind we need more of. I\'ll be getting to this as part of a very long post today (I came in early to do it).