So on one side we have Friedman once posting that Ragozin (Jake? Sherman?) figures are an \"objective measure of the resiliencey (sic) of the track\", on the other we have Miff saying \"zero science\" is involved.
Below find the SA Derby as I did it. Put aside for a moment that (as I said at the time) we got the race about 3/5 slow, timed a couple of times by a couple different guys. Just look at the horses.
We don\'t just make figures off the winners. If you make the race faster you are giving out a new top to the winner (who was clearly eased up, by the way), as well as a bunch of others behind him who this way get figures tight to their histories. In other words, to make it faster you would have to believe they all picked the same day to jump forward.
Everything we do here is probability, and nothing is 100%. But this one is at least 85%.
So, the following is true:
The last performance by CC was not as fast as:
VIT\'s last two
DWF\'s last
WS LAST
Samratt last two
Hopp two back
IH two back
WR last three
GA last two
MC last
...that\'s not credible and you would not be giving CC a new top if his SF was TG neg-1.25 which fit well on the day.
First of all, I took off two more from CC\'s 3/8 race than the other route, some race called the Big Cap. You\'re gonna have a REAL tough time convincing me the SF should be faster, since it would mean breaking it out further simply to give CC and MH new tops for no reason, or make both races faster, so GOD and WTC run neg 6s or better.
And even if I did all that nonsense and had CC faster coming in, I\'d still have the problem of all the other horses in the SA Derby who would get new tops.
Second, you simply have an opinion that he is faster than the others you mention (\"racetrack fast\"). You have a right to it, everyone does. But what I\'m doing is based on data, as I just showed. Yours is based on an assertion, made repeatedly.
I\'m going to say this again-- people who use pars (which includes Beyer) will have California too fast.
Now I\'m done giving lessons. After I talked at the DRF Expo, Beyer figure makers-- who do read this board, as do other ones-- made changes, specifically regarding breaking out races.
It is not an assertion that the following horses who recently raced exclusively in Cali all ran tops on TG as soon as they raced outside of CALI but not nearly as much on other figs;
DWF 6 point top
Hopp 3 point top
Chit 1.25 top
MH 1.50 top
Assertion that Cali circuit too slow? a coincidence they all outran their TG Cali TG fig?, naw!The racing world valuing a nickle bred CC,nothing special, figuratively speaking on your data,$5-6-7-Million?
How about a head to head, a nice steak in Lugers.I\'ll take the slow CC against any one of your \"faster\" horses,assuming the horses picked train up and draw fairly.
Let me know.
First of all, you\'re taking the favorite, if I want to bet against CC I can get better than even money elsewhere. Second, I\'m not giving my opinions here, now, you can email me. I like Lugers, haven\'t been there for a long time. Too many good steak joints in Manhattan now.
This goes to something I\'m going to go into in the seminar, and have recently discussed privately with Covello. There\'s a difference between anecdotal stuff and data. If I wanted to play that game I would point to Kristo, in the 3/8 race, or the Big Cap horses-- WTC got a worse figure at OP, obviously either the OP figures are too slow or the SA figures are too FAST. GOD too.
But we use data. And we run EVERY circuit against EVERY other circuit, individually and as a group, to get track to track relationships right, both within circuits and circuit to circuit. We break things down by surface, we break them down by distance. And I look at each study myself, and tweak them, down to fractional changes for a circuit. That\'s what being a top professional means. I do this for a living.
Whoa, its irrelevant that CC is the favorite, that the ill informed public\'s choice. CC slower than 5 others on your stuff and a few others equally fast. Isn\'t that the reason your customers buy TG,to find that out.
You should be chomping at the bit to take a \"faster\" horse and NOT have to lay a price.My personal favorite is VIT\'s empty performance two back beaten 5 1/2 lenghts(tapped out on him in exotics) ground loaded TG 1/2 was faster than CC\'s last...yikes!
Manhattan great steak joints, Luger still top shelf and different.
yeah but, per Sherman CC was the only horse in the barn to be asleep, laying in his stall just after the earthquake on 3/31. If that didn\'t bother him it\'s unlikely he moves up shipping east with \"ground tremors\" off.
We\'re working on a symbol for that.
TGJB, I appreciate the the supporting details you provide to your opinions, something sorely missing from most other assertions out there. I\'m surprised more people didn\'t jump on the post yesterday questioning the VIT # and saying he completely disagreed with it, while providing no supporting reasoning at all other than \"WooHoo! CC is so awesome!\"
My favorite part of MIFFs \"zero science\" post was how he started out saying there was zero science and then 2 paragraphs later was claiming he can tell a figure is wrong to the same level of certainty that 1+1=3 is wrong, which is 100% rooted in science.
Also entertaining to read that saying a figure is \"not reflective\" of what actually happened and saying a figure is \"wrong\" are apparently 2 entirely different statements.
To each his own, indeed
Thread,
Right/wrong way over your head as it relates to figure making in which there isn\'t a cintilla of science.
Mike
Oh, I don\'t know, Tread. Seems to me you posted yesterday something to the effect that Hopp figured to run bad at SA BECAUSE he had shown he didn\'t like that track, which you based on his figures there being worse, without taking anything else into consideration at all (like them being just the first two starts of his life). Seemed like an unsupported assertion to me, just saying.
There\'s a lot of that going around.
While it is certainly fair to point out they were his first 2 starts, the position is supported both by his jump ups and his regression on return that it would be fair to say he might not like SA. It\'s rooted in data and far from as unfounded as most of the other statements floating around here like \"visually impressive\" and the like.
You know, the first time you said that I let it go because it was so silly. Have you told your figure maker friends there\'s no science involved? Accounting for weight, ground, beaten lengths, wind, speed charts and all the rest, is what, exactly?
Nobody this side of The Man Behind The Curtain (Ragozin) ever tried to pretend it was ALL science. But NONE? You better hope that\'s not true if you use them.
I guess I can throw away all these computers we have around here...
Seriously? You\'re going to defend that?
You made a statement that there was a cause and effect relationship. Even with 10 times the sample size it would be silly to do any more than put it forward as a thesis. In this case, with the first two being his first two starts AND a clear pattern, with a bounce where you would expect one, it\'s not just a silly assertion-- there\'s NO reason to believe it\'s true. It\'s less than 50/50, at best a possibility.
I\'m not sure if what you just said is \"bounces only occur because their pattern says they should\", but if you did, I\'m gonna argue it\'s less black and white than that. The impact of the bounce may be more pronounced if there are other factors playing into it, such as moving to a surface they don\'t like as much, trying slop, etc. That\'s pretty much right out of Ragozin\'s book, if memory serves.
The original point of MIFFs question was that he felt the amount of the bounce was too high. Being on a surface a horse doesn\'t prefer might make the difference between a bounce only being 2pts or 3.5pts. The question of surface may have played into that, as could any of the other items I listed. I gave a list of potential factors that made the figure plausible and never said I was certain which ones applied.
Right, there\'s your science, Beyers science, Rags, CJ and a host of others science which disagree 28% of the time. True scientific formulas/methodologies produces the same result, all the time.
That seems like a somewhat questionable view of science, as it would mean that all of the stuff called \"science\" from Aristotle to Darwin to Hawking isn\'t really science.
The first sentence was a straw man, I didn\'t say it. Most of the rest I\'m okay with, especially your use of the word \"might\". Not going to look up the original post (PDub, you\'re not going to either).
No. Things that are ALL science do. Not ALL science and NO science are a universe apart.
Miff,
Apparently TGJB sees a fine line between implying someone is stupid (\"it\'s over your head\") and openly stating someone is stupid, but nothing you\'ve posted yet on these topics is even approaching my knee cap, let alone over my head. If you\'ve got more detail you\'d like to go into, don\'t be shy, I think most of the people here can handle it.
I\'m not too fond of either, but yes I see a distinction.
Thread,
Picking on an old man is not fashionable. Early on in a post, you referenced Bris figs, that sort of deflated my baloon.
Mike
If someone were to look back at the posting history and how your responses to any of my posts are worded, I think any reasonable person would find it somewhat incredible that I would be accused of picking on you. The opposite is more like it.
I said I use BRIS PACE data (not their speed figures) as one tool to help better understand race shape and stretchout potential, instead of just guessing only based on visual assessment or breeding. I use them fully understanding the caveats that they are not taking ground, wind, weight, or other TG factors into account. I think they are of little use on their own without the higher-level context that TG figures provide but do find them helpful in doing something like completely dismissing Goldencents ability to run a better figure at 10F, as an example.
I\'m pretty sure Miff was kidding about being picked on. He only gets upset when I do it.
Fun time of year.....a very lively board.
Try: zzzzzzzzzz
Was browsing through the archives and noticed that horses like, Silver Charm, Captain Boget, Real Quiet and Victory Gallop would not a have a shot in any of the last few derby\'s. Pretty bizarre. That being said as always tough to handicap without post positions. At this point I\'m interested in Samraat. He ran well in the Wood being after doing all of the dirty work.
Don\'t understand the reason for all the debate. If you think you have a better methodology, shut up and bet it and if you\'re right, take the spoils. What else do you want...praise?
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So on one side we have Friedman once posting that
> Ragozin (Jake? Sherman?) figures are an \"objective
> measure of the resiliencey (sic) of the track\", on
> the other we have Miff saying \"zero science\" is
> involved.
>
> Below find the SA Derby as I did it. Put aside for
> a moment that (as I said at the time) we got the
> race about 3/5 slow, timed a couple of times by a
> couple different guys. Just look at the horses.
>
> We don\'t just make figures off the winners. If you
> make the race faster you are giving out a new top
> to the winner (who was clearly eased up, by the
> way), as well as a bunch of others behind him who
> this way get figures tight to their histories. In
> other words, to make it faster you would have to
> believe they all picked the same day to jump
> forward.
>
> Everything we do here is probability, and nothing
> is 100%. But this one is at least 85%.
I\'m not for one second questioning your figure for CC. I agree with you and respect your work greatly. I\'ve learned a lot reading this board over the years.
That said, there is no evidence the time of the SA Derby is off at all. Using video editing software, it can be proven the race is timed exactly like every other 9f race at Santa Anita. I use it to time from the gate. The method is accurate to within a few hundredths.
I timed the last five Santa Anita Derbys. The run up isn\'t very long at that distance, 63 feet. The time of the run up (gate time minus official time) falls right where it always does for the race, between 3.15 and 3.35 seconds. If this race is off, every race at that distance at Santa Anita is off. This year\'s race was on the fast side before hitting the beam, 3.18, compared to 3.32 last year. So, gate timing actually makes this race better than appears, not slower. There is no evidence the race is mistimed, certainly not to to the tune of .60. Frame by frame video doesn\'t lie, and as I said is precise to within a few hundredths.
2013 Gate Time: 1:52.08
2013 Official Time: 1:48.76
2013 Difference: 3.32
2014 Gate Time: 1:50.70
2014 Official Time: 1:47.52
2014 Difference: 3.18
I\'ll be happy to email you the other years if you are interested, but they all look the same.
On a separate note, what did you think of the timing of Gulfstream mile dirt races this year? I personally think they were, and continue to be, wildly inaccurate.
This is cool info. Thanks for posting
Craig-- nothing against you personally, but a lot against your company because of the guy who owns/runs it, a truly nasty piece of work. Over the years there have been tens of thousands of posts here, and some bad stuff, especially in the early years when the Rag guys were posting, peddling what they had been told. But the single worst act was by Attenberg, who consciously and intentionally defamed us here, and I have the emails to prove it.
On a fast look, I can tell you that a 63 foot runup (which we also used) is usually around 230 hundreths, nowhere near 3 plus. It\'s always possible Equibase has the runup wrong for that distance, this and/or other years.
The 5th race (SA Oaks) had a 70 foot runup, we got that one a few hundreths fast, not slow, using 247 hundreths. So if there\'s an issue it\'s whether the reported runup for the SA Derby is correct. Regardless, as I have said here already, I did the race off the horses, and it\'s tight (see sheets with earlier post).
The GP teletimer has historically been notoriously off. I didn\'t notice anything specific this year but I take a lot of liberties based on the horses, especially when there\'s a long run down a straightaway (wind can have a big effect), so I don\'t pay as close attention.
By the way, frame by frame video is still attached to a clock somewhere...
I don\'t know the history, but I can assure you that has nothing to do with me posting here. I read here to see races from a different perspective, just as I\'ll check Beyer figures on occasion. It was just one figure guy to another. Marc has been nothing but professional with me. People get wiser and change, no?
I completely understand about CC figure being tight, no disagreement from me. I am a lot closer in mehtodololy to you than the other guy.
The timing I do is from the when the gate is completely open. That is when I begin. It is easy to pick out this exact spot for consistency. I could do the same using the instant the gate first moves as well. It doesn\'t really matter, as long as it is done the same way every time. When I begin, the horses have barely moved, if at all. Perhaps that is why my run up times are slower.
I don\'t know if the 63 feet that is reported is accurate, but I can tell that the gate is in the same spot within a few feet each time. So again, doesn\'t really matter if the 63 feet is right. It is consistent.
As for video being attached to a clock, that goes without saying of course. Timing errors occur when something trips the beam early or it starts late, but I\'ve never seen anyone say the clock was not calibrated properly. Possible I guess, but I really don\'t see it here. If that were the case it would affect all races at Santa Anita, not just some. Maybe I\'m misunderstanding something here. For what it is worth, Trakus has the race timed .13 slower than the official time. They do time from the gate as well but deduct run up distance and time.
As I\'m sure you know, Gulfstream uses Trakus now, not a teletimer, and there is an issue with mile races specifically. Even comparing multiple races on the same day can be a problem. Like you, it doesn\'t matter much to me. I treat those races separately. All in all, Trakus is still a lot better than what they had in place. It is that one specific distance that is a problem.
Anyway, thanks for letting me participate. I\'m just a guy that loves talking racing and making figures.
Quick story re video-- back in 2004, when Ragozin was a serious competitor, we used to check the figures they posted for big races so that we could point out ground loss errors, and we found several. For the Derby that year we noticed big differences starting after the 3rd finisher (Imperialism), and soon realized it wasn\'t ground, they had an error of about two lengths starting right there. We checked the charts, we watched the tape to verify the charts, the charts were correct. Ragozin had it wrong, significantly, in the biggest race of the year.
So as you might imagine, I posted about this, in detail and at length. And Jake came back on their site, saying there was no way they had it wrong, because they used video frame counting. I came back telling people to watch the damn race themselves. After a couple of days of maintaining that video doesn\'t lie they went dark.
But they didn\'t fix the error. They undoubtedly figured out they had a problem-- but rather than admit the error, they kept the original figures. Which their PAYING customers continued to use.
As it happens, I just started doing the GP day (or one of them) with the bad times at a mile. No joke.
Jerry,
I am not entirely disagreeing with you, but without constructive debate, there can be no enlightenment.I think the hard part for many, myself included, is all of us have watched the preps. Some of us have viewed them multiple times. When what we see with our own two eyes does not match what the numbers tell us, it is difficult to reconcile the two. This is where the healthy debate comes from.
True. I regret making the comment. The irony is I don\'t even think the derby actually confirms anything because of all of the troubled trips in the race. I find the Preakness to be a truer indicator of who is the better 3 year old.