Now what kind of attitude is that? First, I thought the Red Board Room was more of a training tool than anything else, so it shouldn\'t matter if I am a customer or not. Second, it really should be geared towards people who are not already customers and give them a way to learn the product before they buy it (which you can do with the Sheets).

But, for the record, I am an occasional user of TG and I\'ve also been slowly trying to convert a fanatical Sheets user over to your product.

I still don\'t understand the no printing function. If you understand what they are trying to prevent with this, please explain it to me.

Thanks.

Wow! Eliminating the printing of the Red Room sheets dramatically reduces the usefulness of this feature. I practically learned how to use the TG sheets by printing out the days card, handicapping the races and then watching the race replays I had recorded. This learning process would be nearly impossible, or extremely difficult, having to do it completely on screen. I will also not be practicing any new handicapping methodologies and will probably slowly use the sheets less and less.

It\'s a real shame that you have gone to this new policy likely because you\'ve had a few users try to somehow manipulate the system. This is a classic case of penalize many because of the wrongs of a few.

I hope you reconsider the no printing policy on the red room sheets. I don\'t understand how it can help your business more than it will hurt your customers.

You might as well re-merge back to Ragozin and be done with it all.

You once had a good thing going here; let\'s bring it back.



Post Edited (01-07-04 20:15)

AtswhatImTalkingAbout looks like the winner.

What does it mean when you say \"we just make dead rails\"?  I don\'t quite get that statement.

Thanks.

How does a track physically get a dead or live rail? We hear about this all the time, but what physically makes this happen? Does the track maintenance person create the bias on the track? If so, is it intentional?

Thanks

Also, and I hate to mix questions because you\'ll end up not getting an answer to one or the other, but . . . do the TG numbers adjust for track biases. That is, would you adjust just some horses in a race with a rail bias or is it an all or nothing adjustment. Meaning, you adjust all the horses for a fast running track one day, or none of the horses?

Here is a repost of the original entire thread:

Changing Track Speeds

Posted by TGJB on November 17, 2001 at 20:52:56:

One of the few reasonable questions posted amid all the recent noise was, in effect, what would cause a track to change speeds during the day?

Track speed is to a large degree a function of moisture. The variables include: composition of track relative to holding water, amount of water added, when the water is added (before the races, between the races, between some of the races), proximity to large bodies of water (Bay Meadows and Monmouth are examples of tracks where tracks change speed regulary, presumably because of the tides), temperature (in terms of freeze, thaws, and general drying out on hot days), and wind (evaporation).

Even if water is added each race, in equal amounts, the track can change speed. If x is added, it may be cancelled out by evaporation, At 3x, it gets a lot wetter throughout the day. At 1/2x, it gets dryer. At track A, it may get faster as it gets wetter, while at track B it may get slower. At track C, it may get faster until it reaches a certain degree of wetness, and then gets slower.

If a lot of water is added before the races, but not between them, you get a gradual drying, perhaps with the track speed getting faster or slower, but then leveling off at some point when the water has evaporated. Unless the temperature is below freezing, in which case you get a gradual freeze, and the track gets faster; except, for example, at Turfway, where the chemicals in the track keep it from freezing, so it just gets thick and slow.

Keep in mind how small a change in speed we\'re talking about. One fifth of a second equals one point. Lets say a race goes in 1:10, or 350 fifths of a second. A 1% change change in track speed means a difference of 3.5 fifths, or 3.5 points and that was, in fact, about the amount the track changed on Breeders Cup day.

Again, I refer anyone who wants to know more to my post of 5/2/00.

TGJB



Posted by The New Kid on November 18, 2001 at 07:14:05:

Thanks for a reasoned response to the many times I asked that fundamental question. 3.5 points is a significant amount to add/subtract because of the speed change of a track (I would still hold the difference should be below one point).

Determining the answer to the second fundamental question (is it a slow track or a slow horse(s)

that cause \'speed\' differences during the day?) involves more expertise to provide answers/final numbers for particular horses (the track judgement that you discussed on your 02May00 post). Making as few assumptions as possible (assumptions could mean utilizing past mythical handicapping ideas into \'that final number\') is the wise way to go, and as you inferred, experienced judgement is the way to go. I find whenever my past handicapping \'expertise\' involves itself into my numbers, the numbers suffer and my ROI suffers, so I ignore subjectiveness from my numbers development (perhaps I ignore important \'real\' factors, but more often enough those I discard are worthy of their new home).

My experienced judgement tells me to avoid the imposition of my handicapping prejudices; your experience tells you to utilize judgement that has been aquired for several years (notice I did not say \'prejedices\' for you...).

I don\'t ask the question, what number would each horse run today, but I instead ask the question which horses can/will run well today (relative to the cycle shown in the last four races juxtaposed

to the horse\'s best number--usually a number found by NOT looking further back than 18 months ago, but sometimes farther back depending on the age of the horse). Everyone here knows my betting strategy so I won\'t go into that......

The third fundamental question: by using TG sheets or RAG sheets HOW can a person know what a horse is going to do today when his last five numbers are virtually the same, and those horses that are the other contenders have straight line duplicate past numbers? How can one with clarity determine which horse or horses to choose?

The Ron Smith is a good example of how confusing your \'straight line\' numbers are; please provide an idea why Pleasantfer (Shrek is right, with your numers this horse was between 2 and 5 points slower than the rest of the group) won. Lets see, Elawassul ran a 5 last race out and had one early in the year at FG, so because he reacted to the FG 5, did you believe he would react negatively (I would argue that the most recent 5 could/should lead to a new top--and if that happened, EVERYONE would agree with this second idea). Regal Dynasty had a pair of 5\'s in his most recent, so a reaction was \'inevitable?\'

Mr. Pleasentfar had a last race top 7.1. In your system one is lead to believe that horses will react negatively to last ract tops (except for Spain last year): in my system last race top most often means BETTER is on the way.

Lodge Hill (your analysist liked) had a pair of 5\'s and then the last race 7. Like the 02X did the 7 indicate a rest race and made your analysist believe that the horse could circle back to its previous 5\'s or exceed them? My top horse was Williams (sent off at 7/2 helped me pass him and bet odds/patterns on a few others). Williams like Lodge (though faster) had a pair of 4\'s before his last race 6, AND had a 2 to improve towards. Would you suggest that the 2 and the 4\'s was the best the horse could offer this year and would therefore tail off?

Cetewayo had virtually the same pattern as Lodge, yet your analysist ignored him. What made Lodge better than Cetewayo from a pattern perspective--OR did the time off between races lead you to believe that this one could not do well today--I ignored the horse because of price, not because of numbers though I said that Lodge was better than Cete.

Gritty was my second choice who had four 4\'s in a row and then a 5--ran too well without improvement, therefore regression would be expected? Man from Wick was your analysist\'s second choice: WHY? He had two most recent 5\'s with a 6 in between and then two previous 5\'s; why, except for age, could your analysist expect more from this horse?

You know that I\'m not asking these questions for myself, but as I suggested, in addition to every other tool that you\'ve offered your customers (unlike RAG), perhaps adding more information to your introduction site--ALL of your PATTERNS listed with races that demonstrate your patterns and their effectiveness would help keep your present customers (they could utilize your sheets to win more often--therefore guaranteed repeat business), and help your new customers \'grow\' into excellence.

One reason why you probably DON\'T do this, and probably the reason why RAG doesn\'t even offer as much as you do, is because BOTH sites wager on horses too, and the better informed public would mean less juicy odds for you....just a guess.

Still like my numbers and their patterns better...

though I owe it all to TG for pointing me in the right direction years ago (as TG owes it ALL to RAG for the same help several, several years ago...).



Posted by OPM on November 18, 2001 at 02:16:11:

Jerry with such minor changes leading to such a great difference in results, it\'s a miracle that the #\'s hold up as well as they do over time. A few pts that I like to make. I have always thought that the path of each horse is not as accurate as can be(did it run 3w or 2.7w), any thoughts on how to improve this(give each horse a GPS reciever). I also would like to have wt. and path equivalent for each distance(i.e. 5 lbs equal 1 pt at 6f? but how many pt at 1 1/2m, 3w equals 3 pt at 6f but less the longer the race is) Also, what improvements will help to generate better figures over the few years(i.e. how can we get drugs out of the system). In addition, which types of races (if any) does your figures offer the best chance(I feel it\'s turf and 3 yr old racing)?



Posted by TGJB on November 18, 2001 at 14:29:21:

1)The path we print is rounded off because of space limitations. Typically a trackman will give us 1-2 0r 223 0n a turn.

2) 5 pounds=1 point at race distance, and 1 path=1 length(NOT a point)per turn.

3) Roughly, 1 point=1 length at 5F, gradually increasing to be worth about 2 lengths at 10F.

4) If I knew how to stop drugs I would have told someone. A nice start would be to stop horses from training on Clenbuterol between races, but that means testing them between races.

5) Everyone has their own favorite types of races to bet. I like 3 yo stakes, myself.

TGJB

Here is the entire original thread:

I Repeat: Regarding The Texture Of The Track

Posted by TGJB on November 12, 2001 at 17:45:07:

I posted this a few days ago, expecting it ti be a lightning rod. The silence has been deafening, considering it deals with questions a lot more relevant than most of what appears here. So I\'m posting it again. There are related issues to discuss as well, but I\'m saving those for what I hope will be the upcoming dialogue.

: I suggest to all that they read Friedman\'s hilarious post of 11/9 (BC & Track Bias) where he says that although no horses that raced inside on BC day ran tops, and 11 of 21 horses that ran outside did, that the overall \"texture\" suggested that there was no dead rail.

: On a related subject: take a look at the figures Ragozin posted for the BC Distaff. This goes to a point I have raised several times: Ragozin\'s dogma does not allow for a track changing speed through a day unless he KNOWS of a reason why it should. He has the Distaff collapsing, with Unbridled Elaine and Spain going back 3 points each, but running 1-2, and the others running poorly as well. The way he covers himself is by putting a G (gusts) in front of the figures--meaning, well, take this figure with a Grain of salt.

: What he has clearly done is have the whole day at the same speed--I had the track much slower earlier in the card. Ragozin players, see how the Distaff looks if take 3 points off Len\'s figures.

: I predict that at least 75% of the horses in those 3 races--the Distaff and the two non-BC races--will go forward in their next start, on Ragozin, and that almost all the horses that ran on the rail will go forward in their next start--on both.

: Which is why we have marked them with an X. TGJB



Posted by Paul on November 13, 2001 at 10:14:13:

I made Figures for many years for N.Y. and Ca.. I encountered occasions several times where the results weren\'t \"in line\" with the rest of the card. I found that the races were many times Filly and Mare races. Always unusually slow, without a logical explanation.



Posted by John Del Riccio on November 13, 2001 at 07:08:22:

Races 1 & 2 on BC day at BEL were disjoint from the rest of the card. The Distaff was unusually

slow, but Spain & Elaine were really the only ones running much from the 1/4 pole to the wire.



Posted by bj on November 12, 2001 at 20:25:14:

*** You are preaching to the converted here JB - if i didn\'t think your numbers were any good i wouldn\'t pay almost 40 bucks Canadian to buy them . Your posts are meant to be provocative to Ragozin players who interlope on this board . My experience in reading these guys over the years is that you won\'t win them over no matter how compelling your arguments may be . A valid comparison done by a third party such as the one contemplated by Sport Stat would not be so easily refuted . bj



Posted by TGJB on November 13, 2001 at 20:56:43:

TG--My experience is that you can win some Ragozin players by engaging the fundamentalist ones in a public dialogue, about the methodology itself. And especially when there are truly stark examples that can be looked at, as in this case.

You don\'t have to prove to me you\'re not a sycophant. TGAB



Posted by Marc on November 13, 2001 at 10:57:57:

:A valid comparison done by a third party such as the one contemplated by Sport Stat would not be so easily refuted .

I\'d be fascinated to hear how a third party can \"prove\" that any speed figure is superior to another.



Posted by Da winner on November 13, 2001 at 01:33:40:

BJ is right. I\'ve used Ragozin Sheets for years. When you attack their approach as \"hilarious,\" it feels like an insult to me too -- it implies that my winnings have just been lucky since they came from readings of bad figures. Your contemptful language just gets me pissed and makes me take your pokes at them personally. If the Ragozin operation is such a joke, how come you and half of your staff are alums? If you started the discussion with some respect, you might get more \"dialogue\" and less bs.



Posted by Prol on November 13, 2001 at 21:05:31:

:agreed....I\'ve never posted hear, but it\'s this type of dialog initiated by you and your staff that won\'t even allow me to purchase your product...I\'d use the word \"classless\" to describe your post, tho I\'m sure your figures are competitive with those given out by Ragozin



Posted by TGJB on November 13, 2001 at 20:45:28:

TG--As I pointed out on another thread, the reason it is hilarious is that their dogma forces them to defend an indefensible position when examined in the light of their own data--no horses on the inside running tops, more than half the ones on the outside running tops. Think about that for a minute.

As I said, I meant this to be a lightning rod. I recently complimented Friedman here when he deserved it (which he has never done me), and I treat this silliness the way it deserves as well. There are also far reaching implications about what they did with that day, which I\'ll be getting into when I have everyone\'s attention. TGJB



Posted by Marc on November 12, 2001 at 18:16:43:

He has the Distaff collapsing, with Unbridled Elaine and Spain going back 3 points each, but running 1-2,

Unbridled Elaine-- big trouble line makes sense for the backwards number. And though Friedman reportedly liked Spain\'s line, I thought she was awfully likely to regress off of the two big efforts (they were big on Ragozin\'s numbers), then another effort 3 weeks later. So both of those numbers made sense.

:and the others running poorly as well.

Once you get past the first two, the rest in that race are pretty easy.

:What he has clearly done is have the whole day at the same speed--I had the track much slower earlier in the card.

I thought is was quicker earlier, no? Just based on the Juvy filly time...

Not in any way disagreeing that the rail was dead. OTOH, don\'t horses react to efforts made on dead rails? Isn\'t it more taxing to run on them? If so, why are they almost all a lock to move forward next time?



Posted by TGJB on November 13, 2001 at 20:50:56:

TG--I\'m going to say it again, advisedly, since I have in front of me Ragozin figures going into the Distaff, and what he gave them--see what happens if you take off 3 points. The question is not whether you can come up with a scenario explaining why the best filly race of the year TOTALLY collapses, but whether it is right. Do you really believe that in the biggest race of the year every single horse ran well off its top? And you\'re not even getting to see what doing the day that way means in terms of the first 2 (non-BC) races. It is completely, definitely, wrong. TGJB



Posted by AT on November 14, 2001 at 11:31:03:

I guess I don\'t really understand what your point here is. You really can\'t \"prove\" your charge until these horses run back. It\'s you against them at this point. Why would someone who has had success with Ragozin respond favorably to your argument?

Point out examples BEFORE the next race with these horses and you might be able make some inroads but when you start a post out in the insulting manner that you did here, it\'s pretty hard to take you seriously.

If you\'re able to identify instances where RAgozin numbers are inferior prior to a race, I\'ll listen. But until then, I can\'t take these comments as anything other than an attempt to increase your credibility with your own users and to appease the blood-thristy TG crowd on this board.



As for comments in this string talking about Ragozin players having an axe to grind, that\'s laughable. The majority of us welcome the T^G players. We\'re betting against each other and if we believe the numbers we\'re using are more accurate, then we have an advantage. I never can understand why TG players don\'t feel the same way. If any group seems to have an axe to grind, it would be TG players judging from this BB.

The TG product is high-quality IMO, I just prefer Ragozin. I have won quite alot of money using their figures. In order to get me to switch products, you\'d need to demonstrate to me that I can win MORE money using your product. You can\'t do it by making claims that are purely speculation at this point.



Posted by HP on November 13, 2001 at 12:16:35:

So it wasn\'t a lightning rod as you expected. Come on, you read this board. First off, most of the people who post here really don\'t have a clear idea of how these figures are made, EVEN IF THEY THINK THEY DO (including myself). Furthermore the people you are talking about, the diehard Rag guys who really have an axe to grind, could care less what you have to say and you should know this by now.

I believe you should try to gain ground with new users and direct all your marketing efforts this way and never mention Ragozin again. As Bill Clinton would say, \"I feel your pain\" and respect your efforts to raise this to a real examination of methodology, but as you initially said \"the silence was deafening.\" You\'re not going to get any satisfaction and you might as well accept it already and stop beating your head against the wall. Push your strenghts and improve and refine your products and make it digestible for a new audience. Your product is unique. Raggies are Raggies. Case closed. HP



Posted by TGJB on November 14, 2001 at 17:24:56:

TG--We have picked up LOTS of Raggies. It is much easier here than at the track, where they have to endure peer pressure. TGJB



Posted by HP on November 15, 2001 at 08:50:24:

I would hate to see you squandering much-needed energy. Best of luck and keep it up. HP

Here is the entire original thread:

Figure Making Methodology

Posted by Jerry Brown on May 02, 2000 at 12:43:10:

Recently David Patent posted a question on this site which, although barbed, raised some important questions concerning the making of figures, and the differences in methodolgy between Thoro-Graph and Ragozin. For those unaware of the background, the issue at hand is the dramatically different figures assigned by yours truly and Ragozin to the Wood Memorial - we had the race going fast, with several horses running new tops while Ragozin had it going even faster, substantially, with 5 of the 12 horses jumping to big new tops.

The point I made in earlier postings is that since the track was sealed early in the card and opened just before the Wood, since it rained during the card, and since every race after the third was around one turn, using these races to make the Wood variant and figures was crazy, and would result in giving out crazy numbers. In response to a question on Ragozin\'s site Friedman said that was exactly what they had done, although he didn\'t seem to think there was anything wrong with it.

David then posted his question, most of which follows here:

I finally think I understand how TGJB got the variant for the Wood -- he made it up.

By this I mean that he apparently decided what the a particular horse or horses should have run in the Wood and constructed the variant to fit the pattern that he believed should have held for those horses in that race. Brown ridiculed the use of surrounding races as \"silly,\" so he clearly did not use the surrounding races to get the variant. So, the question is, if not the surrounding races, what can one use?

I have read before comments by TGJB to the effect that he will at times fit the numbers to the pattern he believes should prevail rather than accepting what appears to be an unbelievable number.

Now, that may or may not be a sound way of handicapping, but how can you possibly prove or disprove such a method? As such, one who makes numbers by this method has no grounds to criticize another maker of numbers except on the basis that horses cannot move or should not move forward or backward more than a particular amount in a given race. That seems to defy logic and history. Horses do crazy things all the time. It seems to me that we must have some anchor to tie our numbers to, and if not, then it is pure guesswork.

For starters, let me say this: Even if it were impossible to make figures based on one race, it would be wrong to tie it to surrounding races in circumstances like this - you would be no better off than tieing it the same days races at Keeneland, or the races of the same day a year earlier at Aqueduct. I mean this literally.

Aside from the weather,aside from the other races being one turn, the fact they sealed and unsealed the track especially with water in it, makes comparison a no-go. It is, in effect, two different tracks.In a situation where it actually is impossible to do a figure - like Chilukki\'s debut last year, when the track was obviously changing speed and the field was all first-timers - you are better off not making a figure than making a misleading one, and we left boxes for that race.

But it\'s seldon impossible - most of the time it\'s fairly sraightforward. David is right - horses do crazy things all the time. But groups of horses seldom do. That is the whole theory behind their \"projection\" method of making figures, used by Beyer, Myself, Ragozin, etc. - That the past histories of horses can be used to predict future figures. If that premise is wrong, not only can\'t you make figures, you can\'t use them to predict the outcome of races. And if you make a mistake,like Ragozin did with the Wood, it compounds itself because you will use those figures to make later figures.

Where David is wrong is that he says I use the patterns of the horses - I do that minimally. Mostly you use the speed (ability) of the horses. To ovesimplify it, if you have a race where a lot of older horses with tops of 10 are running 5, you did something wrong. Obviously, if you have a situation with lightly raced horses and a weather change (or it\'s the only grass race of the day, after a dark day, and it rains that night), it\'s gonna get tricky. That\'s where judgement comes in. And I feel compelled to point out that at this point I\'ve done a lot more track days than Ragozin has - for the last decade. I\'m pretty sure he\'s only been doing two circuits, and even before that never more than six. I\'ve been averaging around 10 for 18 years. My judgement is pretty good.

David\'s other question was, in effect, how do you know who is right. Well, you don\'t find out by blindly following dogma. You find out by checking to see which figures correlate well with results in the long run, and by using common sense. For the former, we have set up the Red Board Room. For the latter, I raised this issue to begin with, and I think anyone who is not blindly partisan gets it. But I\'ll go further.

We\'re going to post the entire Wood field, with the numbers they ran. David, why don\'t you see if you can get Friedman to do the same, and tell me which makes more sense. Assuming they won\'t do it, look at ours and tell me how they would look if they were two points faster (keep in mind our figures run a couple of points faster than Ragozin\'s).

We\'re also going to re-post a response of mine from a year ago, that deals with these and related subjects in more depth.

From posting 2.25.99

Back in the \'80s, when I had only been making figures a few years, the Belmont meet began. The Widener and inner grass courses, which for years had running at the same variant as each other, suddenly split in no consistent pattern. One day one would be five to six points faster, the next day the other would, it would stay that way for a couple of days, then they would be at the same speed. It was clear from looking at the horses at the time something was going on, but what? It made no sense.

So I sent my top track man (Bill Spillane) out with a tape measure, figuring something was wrong with the turf rails (0, 9 foot & 18 foot), or the starting gate was being positioned incorrectly. No dice. Spillane said everything was right. I had no explanation, but since it was clear from looking at the horse\'s figures I continued to split the variants anyway.

Connie Merjos was ragozin\'s NY track man at the time, and a friend of mine from my Ragozin days. A couple of weeks intot he meet he stopped by to say hello, and I asked him what the hell was going on. He had no idea what I meant--Ragozin had not been splitting the variants. A few days later he called me back to say that he had talked to other figure makers (Lawton, etc.) and every one but Ragozin was splitting. And now Ragozin had sent him out with a tape measure, but he had found nothing, so Ragozin was continuing to use one variant for both courses.

I wonder if anyone has figured out the punch line.

A few days later Spillane had to hang around the track late, and happened to be there when they turned on the sprinklers--Widener course only. The courses were being watered on different days.

The day after I found this out I told the story to Julian Weinberg, who had switched from Ragozin to Thoro-Graph (he later worked for us) but still had friends in their office. Julian went over to 11th Street to say hello, and told the story to Bob Beanish (for which I threatened to remove his windpipe). According to Julian, Bobby thought it was silly, called Ragozin over, and told him the story. To which Len replied, \"So that\'s what\'s going on.\"

The point is this: make as few assumptions as possible. In Robert Heinlein\'s Stranger In A Strange Land, a character, when asked what color a house is, says \"the two sides I can see are white.\"

I make no assumptions about the relationship between one and two turn races because I have found the relationbship changes often at virtually at all race tracks (see Monmouth)--I hardly look at one when doing the other. I make no assumption that track speed is constant throughout the day even without weather change because I have found (contrary to a statement in Ragozin\'s book) that it often does change, especially at tracks near large bodies of water (see Bay Meadows).

Here\'s what we know: horse\'s past figures can be used as a guide to what they will run in the future, and to what they ran on the day for which you are doing variants. How do we know? It\'s the premise. If it is wrong, not only all speed figure methods invalid, whether projection or class level, but the whole exercise would be pointless--they would be useless as a predictive tool for betting races.

How do we know the premise (and figures) are right? By the results of races. If the results correlate with the figures, the figures are right. If not, they are not.

Here\'s what we don\'t know: we don\'t \"know\" the relationship between sprints/routes is a constant, we don\'t \"know\" two contiguous grass courses have the same variant, we don\'t \"know\" track speed stays constant all day because the weather doesn\'t change, let alone stay constant one day to the next (an argument I had with ragozin when I was there--if there was no moisture between days he assumed no change). There\'s a lot people \"know\" that we don\'t know.

We do know that much of what we use as underlying data is inherently inaccurate. Wind speed is estimated by a human being who is looking at flags (on the roof or infield, not the track itself) before and after the race, not during. And the true effect of wind has a lot to do with direction, since there\'s a very large structure (grandstand) right there. Incidentally, Ragozin uses airport wind at some tracks--hourly readings taken miles from the track.

We also know that 5 pounds = 1 point, which both Ragozin and Thoro-Graph use, while a good estimate, is not accurate. But since we can\'t get the body weights of the individual horses, it will have to do.

We know ground loss is estimated by humans, and some of these guys tend to use more of the \"fan out\" (top of the stretch) than others, and some are more conscientious than others.

So, given the above, we know that claims of super accuracy due to video frame counting etc. is the equine equivalent of counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. Accuracy, indeed, depends more on the judgment and common sense of the figure maker than on the raw data, as you said.

TGJB



Posted by The Fat Man on May 03, 2000 at 00:03:55:

Discussion provides much food for thought!

Love those Rags people, but now respect you

too Mr. Brown. Now off to the Salad Bar.



Posted by David Patent on May 02, 2000 at 20:12:58:

First, I want to thank Jerry for a temperate and well-reasoned response to my question. You were very helpful in illuminating some of the more subtle differences in approach between you and Ragozin (although I am not sure what the turf course watering anecdote has to do with different methodologies. Sounds like Ragozin goofed and once he knew the facts I would assume he split the variant).

Actually, both sides agree that you can use the past to predict the future and that horses do generally run within a certain range of their ability. That holds more true, however for 25K older routers than for 3 y.o.s in April. In other words, I am much more willing to believe a big jump up in the majority of a field of top 3 y.o.s in the Wood than I am 25K claimers (although I have seen that happen too occasionally).

Where I disagree in terms of provability is Jerry\'s point that you can track performance by seeing which figures correlate well with results in the long run, and by using common sense. When you say results do you mean betting results? Can\'t be that because money management is everything in betting. Could you set up a program to bet Rag and Thoro using the exact same betting criteria and bet the same amounts based on some pre-ordained formula? Maybe but I doubt it. Also, I\'m all for common sense but I don\'t know how you quantify that.

To me the real question of whether to use Rag or Thoro is kind of sheet you are comfortable looking at. (I\'m serious here). Thoro sheets look much \"prettier.\" Lines are smoothed. Horses run little tops and bounce a little here and there relative to Ragozin, which often produces very ugly lines on horses -- corresponding to the view that horses more often do crazy things (for which they usually pay the price in the next race or two).

That said, thanks again Jerry. I\'d love to see the Wood numbers up on the Rag board. Although I am a Ragozin customer 99% of the time I am often frustrated by the nonsensical distribution system they cling to (i.e. no downloads) and the sometimes Red Square like approach to dissent.



Posted by Jerry B on May 03, 2000 at 20:15:02:

TG--First of all, did David and JR Litt compare notes before posting or what?

To clarify a couple of points:

1. I used the example of the grass courses to show the danger of assuming correlation between two things (two grass courses, consecutive days, one and two turn races, sealed and unsealed tracks) and making figures combining both, as opposed to doing them independently. Incidentally, Friedman said in his post they did the day on a \"slide\", which by definition means they did correlate the sealed track to the unsealed one. I look at all the sorrounding info too--I just don\'t make as many assumptions about using it.

2. Yes, 3yos in April are more likely to run new tops than older 25K claimers--that was why I was willing to give 3 horses new tops and two others pair-ups. But once you know to disregard the surrounding races that became by far the most likely scenario to be correct--horses sometimes run 6 point new tops too, but it would be unreasonable to have a whole bunch of stake 3yos in April doing it. The only way you can come up with the scenario Ragozin did is to tie it to surrounding races--otherwise there is no argument for it, other than \"anything is possible\".

3. There are various ways to attempt to check which figures are best--Sportstat just finished a 6 month mechanical study, for example, which will be published soon (we have no idea how it came out). But when you are dealing with an individual race where lots of horses get huge numbers, the best way is to see what they do over a period of time.

If several horses who ran big numbers fall apart for a long period of time (as opposed to bounce), if they pair up a lot on one set of numbers or the other, or if they settle in at least 2 points off that number--any of these would be something to consider.

4. As far as tighter (prettier) lines, the way I do it, using horses previous figuures, that\'s going to happen. But since I don\'t fudge within a race, the fact that I can pair up so many horses is evidence that the earlier numbers and the new one I\'m making are likely to be right. Think about it.

5. If JR is referring to Skip Away\'s Blue Grass, we gave him a 1-3/4 that day. I personally bet out on him that day, and against him in the Derby. And yes, future figures gavve evidence that the number was right.

TGJB



Posted by JRLitt on May 02, 2000 at 20:09:31:

I appreciate this explanation because it is well reasoned and is devoid of some of the animosity and defensiveness often displayed when discussing the differences in methodologies. I have a couple of points.

(1) I don\'t think anyone disagrees that past performance is predictive of future performance. I do, however, dispute the notion that it is necessarily true of top three year-olds running in April. It would surprise me to see several 25K claimers jumping up to big new tops. It would not surprise me in the least to see that happen with the 5 horses in the Wood. That says nothing about whether Ragozin is correct in his numbers, but I do not believe that one can look at the Wood in isolation and predict a number based solely on past performance and relative order of finish.

(2) I dispute the notion that one can determine the validity of one method over the other by examining subsequent races. JB used the example of Chiluki\'s number of last year, which I believe Ragozin gave a 5 (I guess Thoro simply made no number). Seeing that number, I drew several conclusions: (a) Chiluki was unlikely to repeat that number anytime soon (b) was likely a better sprinter and (c) would likely not have a very short-lived career. All of these turned out to be true. I could also say the number was clearly wrong because she never ran close to it again and that it is highly unlikely that a 2 year-old filly would run such a number in May. There is simply no way from the subsequent data to \"prove\" which is correct.

Similarly, there will be no way to know based on the next few races, who was right in the Wood (though I would say if FP runs terrible as I suspect it would lend credence to the Ragozin number. [take a look at Skip Away\'s Ragozin sheet sometime as an example where JB would probably have disputed the number because it was too big, but is perfectly consistent with his future performance). If these horses run worse over the next few races, they could all be reacting to the number. If they hold the numbers, they will have reached new levels. Both are consistent with typical 3 year-old patterns. I would love an explanation as to how the subsequent races are going to \"prove\" one methodology over the other.



Posted by Dan on May 02, 2000 at 14:34:42:

This is one of the reasons I really prefer Thorograph. As an owner, I have had two horses race on one day at Bay Meadows (which you mention in your post) and have had the slower one run a faster final time. Just get the results charts from BM, somedays you\'ll see 6,250 claimers go 6f in 1:09 flat and later in the day Alw NW1 horses go in 1:09.2. Whatever you think of NorCal allowance horses almost without exception they are much faster than our 6,250 claimers. How else can you explain this phenomena except to say the track changes over the course of the day. As for sprints and routes, if you don\'t believe in this, all you have to do is look at the DRF variants. Look, I know they are badly outdated and almost useless as a handicapping tool, but if you don\'t believe that there is a difference in sprint and route track speeds then the DRF variant, as basic as it is, should be identical or close to it, for sprints and routes. It rarely is. If you average it over extended periods of time you\'ll see the routes and sprints have completely different variants. Ask any trainer, the horses are more consistant than the track condition, and thus, they are the best guide of how fast they run. Thanks again for explaining all this JB, those of us who believe in TG really appreciate it.



Posted by Richie on May 02, 2000 at 19:55:16:

Jerry, I have been using you for probably 2yrs, I don\'t bet serious money unless I have the sheets. You sound pretty smart. I am a happy man. Thanks



Posted by Lost Mountain on May 22, 2000 at 08:45:27:

Here\'s my problem with TG; horses run the same # all the time. Like they are machines. The other guys don\'t flat line nearly as often. Sorry guys, but there is no comparison.

I also tried and could get to the archives but not the specific post titled, \"Figure Making Methodology\".

Somehow, I got to it, so I will repost the entire thread in a separate message with the same title for everyone\'s benefit.

JB,

In a recent post you mentioned some old articles that you posted. I\'m assuming you meant they were posted on this bulletin board. How can we go about getting those old topics and reading them?

By the way, I think it would be a great idea for you to pull topics like those out and post them on a special \"education\" section of your website for permanent easy accesibility. The more knowledgable we all become, the more we will use the sheets.

Below are the posts I\'m referring to:

I have gone into the differences in great detail- you can find \"Figure Making Methodology\"(5/2/2000), and a whole series of posts following last years Breeders Cup(\"Texture Of The Track\", follow ups to that, \"Changing Track Speeds\" etc.)

--from your post under subject \"Re: The Kaintuckee Derby\" on 4/22/02

JB, you talk about Ragz methodology maybe being somewhat flawed here and there. What would happen if you somehow convinced him that you were right and he should adjust his methodologies somehow.

Wouldn\'t that screw up at least 4 years worth of data?

Wouldn\'t you then be comparing apples to oranges with newly adjusted numbers comparing to legacy numbers?

Wouldn\'t he then have to go back and spend countless man hours retesting all of his current thinking about patterns, etc?

Just curious how you would go about implementing changes into number calculations? Is it a regular occurence for you to continually tweak your numbers? I understand that you would always want to produce the most accurate number, but I\'m just wondering if it\'s feasible?

I\'m not familiar with the Simulcast book, could you tell me what it is? Are you referring to the New Race Summary Thoro-Quick sheets? If not, are samples available on this site to look at?

Just curious also, why would you buy and use the ThoroQuick sheets versus the regular sheets? Aren\'t they the same price?

Thanks.

Cappachino posed an interesting analysis going into the Cal Derby (the last race). The horse made a big move and then a hideous bounce. How would you have analyzed the next race (i.e. the last one ran, the one right after the huge bounce). I know it\'s post-mortum, but interesting none-the-less.

The horse ran a good race. Is that to be expected given the solid line prior to the big new top and awful bounce. I would have thought maybe another bad race or so. Or was the bounce such a bad race that it probably wasn\'t much effort. I\'ve always thought to consider every race an effort, regardless of whether the number looks like a stroll in the park or not. So with the huge new top, maybe the horse would be wiped out for longer than just one race.

Any thoughts group?

Sorry, my comments were so long.

For a great reason to use the sheets look at the Turf Paradise, Race #2 on April 15th (maybe JB can post this particular race on the site again for discussion purposes).

You didn\'t have a super long-shot win the race, but it seemed an easy race to handicap with the sheets and had a nice payday.

If the race gets reposted, we could have a nice discussion in this board about it.