A deep thinker on the Rag site posted today that the subsequent figures Congaree has run have indicated the 01 Wood figure we assigned was wrong. Ragozin gave him a bigger number than we did for that race, and his thinking seems to be that the 18 months and 9 starts (at 3 and 4 no less) where he did NOT return to that figure are not indications Ragozin got it wrong, but that the enormous figures over the last year prove the Wood number.
It would be nice if Friedman posted Congaree\'s sheet so we could all have an intelligent discussion, but I\'m not holding my breath. When the horse made the big jump in the NYRA Mile last fall both Ragozin AND I had the race about 6 points better than his previous best as a 4 year old, and his pattern was MUCH less healthy on Ragozin-- he had never come anywhere near getting back to his 3yo top, and some of his efforts were about 6 points off it (those pesky California route numbers again-- in reality he had 4 efforts as a 4yo within 2 points of his top). We didn\'t like Congaree that day because there were a lot of faster horses in the race, and if there were Ragozin players who played him that day as the favorite off the Ragozin sheet I will guarantee they weren\'t playing him to run a new top.
But since we are talking here, I will point out that it has now been three years in a row that the winner of the Classic has looked MUCH better on TG than Rags. This year PP didn\'t look good enough to bet on the day but could have been used (I did, and took the big price in the futures), and was significantly faster than on Ragozin, where he was an absolute toss. Last year Volponi was a throwout on Ragozin, a definite use on TG, and I and others made a lot of money on the race. The year before I pointed out here BEFORE the race that the biggest difference between the two sets of sheets on the whole card was on Tiznow, although I did not bet the horse.
Anyway, here\'s Congarees sheet.
I could not take seriously anyone that thinks the lightly raced spring time 3YO Congaree ran as well in the Wood Memorial in 2001 as he did several times this year as a mature seasoned racehorse.
I would have to concur with JB on this point.
I sit with a couple of devout Raggies each
year on BC day.
With Tiznow, I was at Belmont and bet the horse off the T-graphs.
With Volponi, I used the horse With MD in the Pick 4 which I am embarrassed to say I missed.
This year, I also missed the Pick 4 but PP was a use.
In all cases, my Raggie friends were astonished!!
They couldn\'t believe that I actually liked Volponi as a key.
And they were tossing their sheets in the air when PP won this year. Why is he going to run today? He needed to improve by 6 points to win...etc etc. We all know the lament.
In both cases, I showed them the T-graph sheet and JB\'s analysis of Volponi and they admitted off that pattern he could have been played. Ditto for PP though you still figured he needed to run a new lifetime top to win.
My personal feeling is that some players are just more comfortable with one set of figures over the other. My Rags friends (one in particular) is a pretty consistent winner and a sizeable bettor. So, this is not a \'shot\' at Rag\'s players but just my observation.
As we are all mature horseplayers (hopefully) and, therefore, opinionated (it goes with the territory), please do not take these comments as an assault.
Regards
Tip
Interestingly, and related to this discussion of Sheets vs. TG, I have used both, but have used neither for a long enough time to brag on, or bitch about, either. In the past, I have always made my own numbers, and even at times used either the Beyer numbers, the Brisnet numbers, or others from many sources. I could do this effectively since I in the past, have only used speed numbers and pattern analysis within the framework of a comprehensive handicapping attack where different factors get used more or less depending on the type or race. That being said, I have been trying to figure out which of the big two I want to use on a go forward basis. For the entire week of the BC, I invested at the track with three handiappers whom I respect immensely and try to learn from every time I\'m with them. One of them would rather not get up in the morning if he didn\'t have his TG numbers. The other two bag on my first friend every time we are together since they have been Raggies since the dawn of time I think.
As the post above pointed out, I had the same experience on BC day as the raggies couldn\'t believe some of the bets my TG friend was making (and cashing many). But what the earlier post didn\'t say, which I experienced many many times over the week, were the times where my TG friend was almost puking over how bad the raggie bets were, and guess what, they cashed many as well. Just as they both laughed at a number of my bets (which thankfully, many were cashed). The point is that as JB has said, every methodology of fig making is going to have its strengths and weaknesses, and the key is to understand the framework you are working within. Even if you put two TG users together, they probably won\'t make the exact same plays usually.
This is what keeps the parimutuel market happy and healthy!
I have in the past made made my living managing mutual funds and hedge funds, and I have seen the same thing with stock market professionals. Just because someone makes a bad (or good) investment doesn\'t mean they are bad (or good) investors. The key is to make sure the framework is sound, then find value for your decisions, hopefully becoming a consistent winner over the longer term.
Sorry to be so long winded, but just figure I would add my two cents worth; well maybe 1 1/2 cents worth anyway.
CC
ColoradoCapper:
The above post sounds like it originated from a worthy economists lots of information without a specific conclusion.
What is your conclusion based on your original premise about which product to use on a go forward basis?
CC
I definitely agree with your second to last paragraph above.
Regarding your post on another thread about Frankel and the BC. Speaking only of this year\'s BC, the brief analysis I provided in that string showed how his BC horses ran relative to their tops rather than relative to the competition. I don\'t quite see how the way they were spotted could explain that result.
Also, note that I used last 90 day stats only. During those last 90 days, Frankel horses only won about 21% of their races. Given this stat and the fact that most Frankel horses are entered in graded stakes makes it pretty clear that his horses might have be well spotted recently but they were definitely not walking over the competition. Also note that most of the Frankel horses that Ran X\'s on BC day were favorties(Sightseek, Peace Rules, Aldebaran, Tates Creek) so it is hard to argue that they were in over their heads.
In my mind, it is pretty clear that something was \"different\" on BC day with the Frankel horses. You have to figure that competition, surface, distance, racing luck, etc. all came into play in the previous 90 days in pretty much the same degree as on BC day. The only novel apparent \"cause\" of the change is the increased drug testing and security for the BC. Obviously, this is a limited amount of data and just a hypothesis. It may in fact have simply been a random bad day for the Frankel barn or their may be some other root cause but the existing evidence sure seems to point in one direction.
It will be interesting to see how Frankel horses do in graded stakes in FY04 (the new extensive testing is supposed to be done in all graded stakes in FY04). Can he continue his dominance or will he become just another good trainer?
Of course, the chemists usually manage to stay one step ahead of the testers but the chemists may have to play catchup now at least for a while...
Cheers.
Chris
I think it\'s very possible to assume that Aldebaron ran subpar because it was 6F at Santa Anita instead of 7F in NY. I bet against him for that reason.
All the turf races were very competitive and relatively evenly matched. IMO, it would have been no shock almost no matter who didn\'t run up to par.
MDO ran his eyeballs out in defeat.
The one and only true shock to me was how badly Sightseek ran.
Catman,
My long rambling post\'s conclusison was that if you are trying to determine which is \"best,\" it doesn\'t make sense to compare one or two specific examples. It does make sense to compare specifics to try and figure out which is good or bad at what.
As far as which I plan on using, I haven\'t used either enough to make a good decision. The only thing I have figured out is that probably either would be better than what I have been using. I have until the end of the year to make a decision as I have a January 14th tentative start date for my first full year of full time thoroughbred investing. That\'s why I am trying to soak up as much as possible from you guys here on this board, so that I can learn as much as possible.
As far as how BC day actually went, I had fewer winners that I can remember, but had by far my best day ever mainly because of exotics. My whole day was primarily tied arouind four longshots:Ashado, Touch of the Blues, Cajun Beat, and Bien Nicole. Three of the four helped to cash enough in the exotics to have a great day.
I would say though, that my girlfriend who knows so little about racing that she asked me if it was against the rules to bet more than one horse per race, had the best day of all in terms of winners. After listening to me tell her about big payoffs in the past (Arcangues and Volponi), she passed her normal $2 across the board strategy, and bet $2 to win on every horse that went off at greater than 10-1. OUCH, 5 winners! Adoration, Cajun Beat, Action This Day, Johar, and PP. So much for comprehensive handicapping!
Derby,
With regards to Frankel, good points all. I tried to throw out a different explanation, and you \"figuratively\" destroyed me!
Point taken,
CC
>>I have until the end of the year to make a decision as I have a January 14th tentative start date for my first full year of full time thoroughbred investing. That\'s why I am trying to soak up as much as possible from you guys here on this board, so that I can learn as much as possible.<<
Can I make a suggestion?
I see no reason you can\'t use multiple sources of speed figures. That\'s what I do. I use 3.
As long as you are familiar with the various methodologies for arriving at the figures (and you\'ve already stressed that you are) there are things to be learned by comparing.
When reasonably competent figure makers disagree by a significant amount for a specific race, it can sometimes be a clue about race conditions (pace, change in weather, surface moisture, wind) that impacted the time and/or the ease of making figures on that specific day.
Since the tote board is impacted to some degree by all the popular figure makers, huge discrepancies in the figures can lead to value on the board because various users will come to different conclusions based on whatever figures they are using. IMO there is value in knowing if a figure is solid or suspect and even more value in knowing who actually is right.
I use TG (IMO the best), Beyer (free), and Logic Dictates for NY races only (cheap). I adjust them for the various methodologies (Beyer and Logic are the same scale) and when I see suspect races I dig really deep into the race and try to determine beforehand who has it right. I then also track how horses run when they come out of those suspect races for further insight about who had it right so I can use that info in the future. Something to consider.
Good Luck!
Colorado Capper:
Classhandicapper has a good suggestion know thy enemy. My choice would be the TG product, becuase I believe splitting the variant methodology is better and reflects reality.
I suggest you use the other product if you believe horse\'s perform erratically, without a significant change in physical fitness, and you believe using a variant comprised from races over several days and varying track surface conditions is a better reflection of reality.