Since there have been some comments on the Rag board concerning BG\'s 6 1/2f turf race, let me clear some things up. The amount of \"cutting loose\" required to get that figure right was negligible-- there were 3 turf sprints that day, and the total spread of variants for the 3 races was 2 points, certainly no more than average for a range of variants for a day, since between small timing variances and wind gusts anyone in their right mind would allow themselves a point or so of play in either direction from a variant even if they made the (silly) assumption that track maintenance and climatic conditions had left the track (or turf) exactly the same speed for each race. My guess is that Ragozin (actually probably Friedman, I believe he does their SoCal figures) got to that crazy fast figure by tying the race to surrounding days, a dogmatic position that I have discredited in the past (most notably with the story about the overnight watering of the two Belmont grass courses on different days, but that is just one blatant example).
By the way, the figure I gave BG for that race is plenty fast enough-- it\'s one of the fastest grass races any 3 year old has ever run, let alone run in February. As I said in ROTW, if he stays in one piece (which now appears unlikely) he will be tough to handle on grass.
I would also point out that one of the problems with getting a figure wrong is that the problem compounds itself-- you make figures using past figure histories of the horses (all serious figure makers do, invocations of \"science\" notwithstanding), and bad figures in the past mean more bad figures in the future.
\"As I said in ROTW, if he stays in one piece (which now appears unlikely) he will be tough to handle on grass.\"
Hmmm. Is there any race that this horse has run that would be fast enough to contribute to him having a hard time staying in one piece?
\"I would also point out that one of the problems with getting a figure wrong is that the problem compounds itself-- you make figures using past figure histories of the horses (all serious figure makers do, invocations of \"science\" notwithstanding), and bad figures in the past mean more bad figures in the future.\"
I totally agree with this, but let me make one exception and one comment.
Comment: Often times when you say Ragozin has a race too fast or too slow, it seems you might be lacking a comparison of the how fast they have the rest of the horses on the card for the day the figure was run.
Exception: The least likely figures to contribute to future figure making success are figures run over an off-track, because the figure maker naturally downgrades the value of these numbers on future-figuremaking because of the track conditions-- off-tracks provide so many Xes, as well as its share of freakouts in the other direction. Yet the most consistently criticized numbers from TG or Ragozin are these off-track/drying out track numbers. Looks like rain at Aqueduct this Fri/Sat. Drying out conditions on Saturday, look out. Similarly, a one number turf-sprint jump up first time Mullins, either as a \'capper or as a figure maker, what possible impact should it have? Very little, right?
And let me pre-empt and say, yes, if they got the whole turf sprint \"wrong\" it would of course have some impact on the figure-making for the horses in the field who are generally running in races with those conditions.
But as for how much it pertains to Buddy Gil\'s future numbers....
One more correction:
\"Yet the most consistently criticized numbers from TG or Ragozin are these off-track/drying out track numbers.\"
should have read \"TG of Ragozin\"
I\'ll get to this stuff as soon as I can. I actually thought I would have some free time today...
Marc,
I can\'t spend as much time on the board as I did yesterday, but this one could be productive.
1- The issue of \"staying in one piece\" I brought up in ROTW was in regard to the way top 3 year olds are pushed in the spring and through the triple crown, which very few survive-- they seldom become good older or grass horses. Buddy Gil has already had 3 hard races, and sure enough bled through Lasix Saturday (usually a sign of stress)-- and now faces a LOT more stress.
If the scenario you described were in effect-- if the ONE race in Feb had set him back--
it is much more likely he would have gone back in his last.
2- The whole point of my drawing attention to this stuff is that I DO know how fast the horses ran, and SHOULD have run on Ragozin (about 3 points slower)-- that\'s why I try to get them to post the figures. This is a parallel universe situation-- your acceptance of the premise that Ragozin figures are correct and therefore their methodologies must be correct, and explanations for their behavior justified, make my position an impossibility. I know, I was there, although even then I challenged more things than you guys do. So I try to get you guys to look at the data itself to point out the internal contradictions, and conflicts with basic logic (Chilukki, Keenland 4 1/2f races) that believing in what they do must produce. And I try to get them to post the races so that you guys can see what I see.
3- The \"exception\" paragraph-- this is worth a 2 page response on its own, and I havn\'t got the time. Let me just say this-- you are absolutely right that it would be wrong to place much reliance on Ragozin off-track figures, either as a bettor or in making future figures, because he simply gives out almost exclusively bad figures in those circumstances, and on windy days-- I would guess he assigns figures averaging at least 2 points slower (which is a lot) than on fast tracks, and there is no reason to believe it is justified. I have discussed this here before, but I don\'t have any idea where the post is.
The reason drying out and wet days are in the most dispute is because those are the days when the variant tends to change during the card, which is one of the things that is effectively not ALLOWED to happen under the rules the Ragozin office uses to make figures-- the use of broad averages is a big part of that. Hence the problems with the Chiluuki day, Wood 2000, Preakness day 2002, Storm Flag Flying last fall, Laurel 2/22, etc. If nothing is going on with the day (BC 2002) it\'s pretty easy to get it right. But the exceptions are the important part of what we do-- while I used the above examples on this board because they were dramatic because of the importance of the horses running, there are thousands of lesser examples.
And very often the figures from the disputed days play a pivotal role in future figure making-- FP\'s Wood figure detemined that years Derby figure, regardless of what Friedman says, and if you looked carefully at the Derby figures at the time you know that.
4-- BG jumped up a lot in that grass race on ours too. But both what the other horses in that race ran and what BG did pairing up in his very next start (a figure Ragozin and I agreed on) are pieces of evidence that our figure is right. And leaving aside both your position and the far more negative one of several Ragozin players, Friedman thought he was just one of 6 contenders in the SA Derby, while I said he was \"the horse to beat\". Proof? No. Evidence? To some degree.
5- Your follow up point goes in the right direction, but not far enough-- the horses from those races will spread out into other races, and be used to make future figures, and since Ragozin ties days together to an extreme degree, LOTS of figures have to be affected anytime there is a mistake.
TGJB,
Appreciate your tone on this, sincerely.
\"If the scenario you described were in effect-- if the ONE race in Feb had set him back--
it is much more likely he would have gone back in his last.\"
I see your point but I\'ve seen plenty of 3-yr-olds run one scary fast race on Ragozin and take 2-3 races to fall apart, with the only super-fast number being that one... And I think Buddy went backwards on Saturday...
\"This is a parallel universe situation-- your acceptance of the premise that Ragozin figures are correct and therefore their methodologies must be correct, and explanations for their behavior justified, make my position an impossibility.\"
I think \"correct\" is too strong a word. I think \"figures that I\'m most comfortable with that I have the most success with,\" makes more sense. I also the parallel universe goes both ways, of course.
\"conflicts with basic logic (Chilukki, Keenland 4 1/2f races) that believing in what they do must produce.\"
I think many Ragozin players think this isn\'t \"basic\" logic, but logic applied to the most unusual of situations. I will certainly say that any figures culled from 4.5 furlong races should certainly have ~ next to them...
\"And I try to get them to post the races so that you guys can see what I see.\"
When was the last time this worked?
\"Let me just say this-- you are absolutely right that it would be wrong to place much reliance on Ragozin off-track figures, either as a bettor or in making future figures,\"
If you want to argue your methodology is better for off-tracks or drying out tracks, you certainly know more than I on this stuff. Can I suggest you have yoru own dogma at work here, and it results in more horses running well on your numbers on these surfaces, as compared to Ragozin? But long before I became a Sheets player I started taking just about everything about off-track performances with a grain of salt... You seem much more comfortable trying to tackle the nuances of drying out tracks than anyone else out there, in applying yoru methodologies quite aggressively, and I\'m not convinced that\'s such a good thing.
\"The reason drying out and wet days are in the most dispute is because those are the days when the variant tends to change during the card,\"
Right, and the question is whether it changes as much as you say, or not as much as you say.
\"which is one of the things that is effectively not ALLOWED to happen under the rules the Ragozin office uses to make figures\"
This is where a lot of Ragozin players disagree with you. Rather consistently in the last couple years, when pressed on this point, Friedman has noted that specific drying out surfaces are indeed changing speed. He doesn\'t think they change as much as you do, but he DOES think they change. I believe the Ragozin book does indeed note that this happens.
\"FP\'s Wood figure detemined that years Derby figure, regardless of what Friedman says, and if you looked carefully at the Derby figures at the time you know that.\"
I strongly suspect there is a more comprehensive explanation for the Derby figures that year than FP\'s number in the Wood.
\"But both what the other horses in that race ran and what BG did pairing up in his very next start (a figure Ragozin and I agreed on) are pieces of evidence that our figure is right.\"
Sorry, I don\'t find that evidence all that compelling.
\"And leaving aside both your position and the far more negative one of several Ragozin players,\"
I\'ll be happy to introduce you to a couple other Ragozin players who didn\'t read Buddy\'s line so poorly.
You make some interesting points, but when so many of the arguments are about drying out tracks and 4.5 furlong races, my skepticism remains high.
Marc and TGJB,
Whether you HP and Alydar like it or not I enjoyed reading the above two posts. I can always keep learning. And those are the facts.
PS-I see where Friedman posted the numbers from Buddy Gils grass race, be curious to hear what the experts have to say. Since they had him in a virtual pair up in the SA Derby they must really like him in the KY Derby. I don\'t know kind of looks like The Deputy to me.
Again, I\'ll get to this (and Friedman\'s posting of the figures for the 2/23 SA race) when I can, probably tomorrow. Meanwhile, why do you suppose he posted those, but would not post the Laurel 2/22 figures? That\'s really rhetorical, but if you do choose to answer, please ask HIM why one and not the other, as opposed to giving him a base on balls.
SCharm,
I think it\'s unfair to address Alydar since I think he\'s \"banned\" and can\'t really respond.
Horses \"swallow dirt\" all the time. It\'s part of the game. If you want to believe this and the bleeding stopped him from \"exploding\" be my guest. He ran what he ran.
Your comment
\"Since they (Ragozin) had him in a virtual pair up in the SA Derby they must really like him in the KY Derby.\"
is totally unfounded given the fact that many leading contenders will race this weekend and nobody knows how they will look going into the Derby as opposed to Buddy Gil. You also make it sound like everyone that looks at the Rag sheets will reach the same conclusion, which is also nonsense.
I think you need to look up \"fact\" in the dictionary. It\'s nice that you like TG, and I agree and like the product as well, but you may be getting a little carried away. HP
I guess it did work after all, as they posted the Buddy Gil sprint numbers.
Horses who were within 1 point of their top in that race on Ragozin- 4
Horses who had tops of 3 points or more- 2. One was Buddy Gil, the other was a 3-yr-old debuter who figured to run nicely with natural development.
Horses who ran numbers 3 points or more off their top- 3
Looks pretty sane to me...
Marc,
I got tired just sitting down to reply, since with every detail of my reply the points I will have to address in the future and number of replies I will have to make increase exponentially. I probably will have to cut off this discussion soon, because I don\'t have the time.
One of the reasons you appreciated my tone is that I avoided the \"put every line in quotes and respond or comment\" approach, which comes across as \"every single thing you say is wrong and I will challenge every word\", and plays as hostile, raising everyone\'s temperature. Sometimes that form is necessary, and sometimes hostility is called for, but not always.
A few points, before the 2/23 stuff specifically:
1- The test for the differences in methodologies come up in what you call the \"most unusual of situations\". When the track doesn\'t change speed and the sprints and routes don\'t split it\'s easy for everyone. My point was that by examining what happens when you follow Ragozin\'s methods (meaning assumptions) to their logical conclusion in the unusual cicumstances where the issue is actually relevant you can see the logical problems. Incidentally, the problem isn\'t with 4 1/2f races per se, it\'s with the ones at Kee that are run over a downhill course that older horses never set foot on.
2- There\'s a lot I could go after in your comments about drying out tracks, but I\'ll just say this-- I said ALLOWED for a reason. Ask Friedman, in public on his board, whether they have rules about how much their figure makers are ALLOWED to move the variant race to race, regardless of conditions. They don\'t measure those changes in track speed during the day, they pre-decide them by rule-- and by the way, that\'s how they came up with the Chilukki figure. It\'s the only way you could, since there was absolutely nothing else to go on. They worked back from the variant in the next race-- if it is X, then the preceding race has to be X plus or minus (roughly) 1 point. This is also why Friedman clammed up when I broke down his explanation for that figure-- he realized how that rule would play.
The way I know this, by the way, is that the guy sitting at the desk next to me worked in Ragozin\'s office for eleven years. As far as I know they did not have this rule back when I was there, but in those days Ragozin did all the \"hard\" figures himself, so he didn\'t need no stinkin\' rules.
3- Yes, there was a more comprehensive explanation for FP\'s Derby figures-- \"texture\". That was the first time that scientific term was applied. In the real world, anyone who has made figures and looked at that years Ragozin Derby figures would see instantly that without FP pairing there was nothing else to justify the assigned figures, no reason to choose that particular variant for the race-- it wasn\'t tied to the other horses in the race, and there were no other races (this was a 1 1/4 race out of a chute) to tie it to. The figures for the DERBY were based on the disputed Wood figure, and the figures for lots of later races were based on the Derby.
4- \"...when so many of the arguments are about drying out tracks and 4.5 furlong races, my skepticism remains high\".
My arguments are about the METHODS used to make those figures, and logic (or lack of it). I did it with Storm Flag Flying\'s sept. race at Belmont, the Laurel day and others, because those show what happens when you try to tie together independent events.
On to the BG grass race:
Friedman did the race \"right\", given the data he was working with (the past histories of the horses). If you have looked at the figures I posted, you will see that I have also done it \"right\", for the same reason-- on both sheets the figures fit with the horses. But they can\'t both be RIGHT-- our figures run about 3 points faster, on average, and in this case they are about the same.
This is an example of what I meant by past bad figures creating further bad figures, whoever is wrong. In this case, it most likely is caused by the way each of us treat sprint/route relationships-- most of the time when they split you have to take off (give better numbers to) the routes. If you don\'t do this you will either use a variant that is an average of the sprint and route variants, giving both figures that are slightly off (sprints a little too fast, routes a little too slow), or tie it to one or the other, getting one right and the other wrong by a substantial amount.
As you can see from the figures we both gave the San Felipe and SA Derby, when you make the 3 point correction we have one the same, and one a little faster than Ragozin. The sprints, however, tell a different story-- in relative terms Ragozin has them much faster.
How do you guys know who is right? Over time you check the figures against results. But if you accept Ragozin\'s figures, it means the following: if BG had run as well as he did winning the grass sprint BY TWO LENGTHS, it would have been good enough to win both the San Felipe and Santa Anita Derby BY OVER SIX LENGTHS. Think about that.
Several posters (both you, Marc, and others on the Ragozin board) commented that the race looked fine on Ragozin. You are right-- it is internally consistent. It would be very interseting to get their (and your) reactions to the 2/22 Laurel races, evaluating them in the same terms. Maybe you can get him to post it.Only a cynic like me would think that Friedman\'s reasons for not posting one and posting the other would have to do with exactly the reasoning you guys applied in looking at the BG race...