2 Qs for JB/AB & 1 Message for the Dittos

[Mall]

First the Qs, which I understand in advance might be viewed as a distraction for those involved in the time-consuming & demanding task of running a business, something I happen to know a little bit about. However, in a few hrs I\'m leaving on a 9 day trip to a no-internet access locale(no doubt welcome news to some), which should give you an opportunity to fit these Qs into your busy schedules.
(1)My reason for the detailed rejoinder to the decision to summarily dismiss KAN as a Donn contender was because it appeared(correct me if I\'m wrong) to be based on the \"8 weeks to recover from a top\" theory which, if true, surprised me a great deal. My memory, which is concededly not perfect, is that this idea originated with Robes many yrs ago & while I respect his & your handicapping acumen, the Q I have had from the start & which remains unanswered to this day is this: Where exactly is the hard evidence which supports the general rule, let alone its broad application in a wide variety of circumstances, including cases where the horse\'s line(i.e.KAN) shows just the opposite? The only \"answer\" I have ever heard, again many yrs ago, is that the theory is based on a reading of many sheets. In contrast, trainers & vets say, and have been quoted many times as saying, that some horses thrive & improve on frequent racing, which used to be called taking a regular turn. It is something players confront on a regular basis in the figures themselves. Absent supporting evidence, it seems to this handicapper that the \"8 week\" rule is in serious need of rexamination.
(2)The weight discussion was entertaining, but there is obviously nothing anyone can say which impacts the laws of physics, which is why I solicited the opinion of someone in the field. His preliminary off-the-top opinion was enough, in my view at least, to cast doubt on a fundamental assumption, raising the same Q re supporting evidence. Conceptually, I question the continued use of what very well may turn out to be insignificant weight differences to split hairs among very evenly matched horses.
In this Chinese yr of the horse, my message to the Dittos, a few of which I have come to think of as \"Jerry\'s Kids\", is one which permeates my posts: Ask questions. Be skeptical of theories based on the assumption that one size fits all. Above all, try thinking for yourself for a change. In the end, your will enjoy this great sport of ours so much more, especially when you\'re right.

[TGAB]

Mall wrote:
>
> First the Qs, which I understand in advance might be viewed
> as a distraction for those involved in the time-consuming &
> demanding task of running a business, something I happen to
> know a little bit about. However, in a few hrs I\'m leaving on
> a 9 day trip to a no-internet access locale(no doubt welcome
> news to some), which should give you an opportunity to fit
> these Qs into your busy schedules.
> (1)My reason for the detailed rejoinder to the decision to
> summarily dismiss KAN as a Donn contender was because it
> appeared(correct me if I\'m wrong) to be based on the \"8 weeks
> to recover from a top\" theory which, if true, surprised me a
> great deal. My memory, which is concededly not perfect, is
> that this idea originated with Robes many yrs ago & while I
> respect his & your handicapping acumen, the Q I have had from
> the start & which remains unanswered to this day is this:
> Where exactly is the hard evidence which supports the general
> rule, let alone its broad application in a wide variety of
> circumstances, including cases where the horse\'s
> line(i.e.KAN) shows just the opposite? The only \"answer\" I
> have ever heard, again many yrs ago, is that the theory is
> based on a reading of many sheets. In contrast, trainers &
> vets say, and have been quoted many times as saying, that
> some horses thrive & improve on frequent racing, which used
> to be called taking a regular turn. It is something players
> confront on a regular basis in the figures themselves. Absent
> supporting evidence, it seems to this handicapper that the \"8
> week\" rule is in serious need of rexamination.
> (2)The weight discussion was entertaining, but there is
> obviously nothing anyone can say which impacts the laws of
> physics, which is why I solicited the opinion of someone in
> the field. His preliminary off-the-top opinion was enough, in
> my view at least, to cast doubt on a fundamental assumption,
> raising the same Q re supporting evidence. Conceptually, I
> question the continued use of what very well may turn out to
> be insignificant weight differences to split hairs among very
> evenly matched horses.
> In this Chinese yr of the horse, my message to the Dittos, a
> few of which I have come to think of as \"Jerry\'s Kids\", is
> one which permeates my posts: Ask questions. Be skeptical of
> theories based on the assumption that one size fits all.
> Above all, try thinking for yourself for a change. In the
> end, your will enjoy this great sport of ours so much more,
> especially when you\'re right.

TG--There are tops and there are tops. Horses that hit the sub-1 level usually need time to recover. We\'ll do a run and see if the general rule is supported by \"hard evidence\".

[Mall]

Tks in advance for doing the work involved. Your response is proof, in fact hard evidence, that you have an open mind. I am looking forward to the results.

[Alydar in California]

Okay Mall. Welcome back. Who are the \"Dittos?\" Who are \"Jerry\'s Kids?\" You are obliged to name names.

[Mall]

It\'s nice to know somebody missed me Senator McCarthy,er, I mean Alydar in Calif. While it would be un-American to answer your exact question, these are the 2 groups I unsuccesfully tried to provoke:(1)Those who, minutes after the ROTW is up, post an \"analysis\" based entirely or almost entirely upon reading between the lines of JB\'s comments, which in some cases were not understood in the 1st place. In addition to never voicing any independent thoughts, I find it puzzling that those who do this have somehow reached the conclusion that someone cares what they think JB\'s comments mean. IMHO, comments regarding the ROTW analysis should be serious,original,etc & should only be made if the poster can honestly say that he or she has spent something approaching the same amount of time & work which went into something which, after all, was provided gratis; & (2)The meatheads who, instead of handicapping, buy the daily analysis & then post vicious & mindless diatribes if they don\'t turn a profit that day. I\'m never going to underrstand the allure of betting on horses someone told you to bet on, let alone the truly mystifying practice of going off on an analysis that the poster had not even purchased.
Finally, although I\'m trying to keep an open mind on the subject, I am not now & never have been a Communist or a Communist sympathizer, despite what you may have heard about my nickname and/or the so-called \"Cuba incident.\"

[Alydar in California]

I\'ve been called a lot of names (several of them here), but Joe McCarthy is a first. John Reed will be disappointed.

Let\'s see. You have in your possession a list of people you consider to be \"Dittos\" and \"Jerry\'s Kids,\" but you won\'t produce it, because doing so would be \"unAmerican.\"  Since I asked you to produce the list, I am Joe McCarthy. So what we are left with is a smear campaign against unnamed people who can\'t defend themselves without revealing their suspicion that they are targets of your scurrilous accusations. And everyone, target and non-target alike, who ignores your accusations will be tainted and left to twist, slowly, in the wind.

     What kind of a banana republic definition of \"American\" are you using, Mall?

  I disagree with everything else that you wrote, too:

Telling people to \"think for themselves for once in their lives\" is not necessarily good advice. This depends on who was doing the thinking before and who will be doing the thinking now.

If the TG-Rags weight adjustment, which has been used profitably for about 40 years, is wrong for splitting hairs at today\'s weights, it was also wrong for yesterday\'s figures, the projections based on yesterday\'s figures, and damn near everything else one can think of. Both TG and Rags numbers have a flow and a consistency that would be impossible if the weight adjustment were substantially and frequently inaccurate. This is easier to see on TG because of the pairs and trios, but  one can also see it on Rags in the way horses react and march back to their tops. To be open to making changes based on the spur-of-the-moment testimony of one non-horse-playing physicist is to be open to doing just about anything based on the testimony of just about no one.

Things like the \"Eight weeks off a top rule,\" whatever that is (you are oversimplifying), are based on original thinking by people who refused to be \"Dittos\" for the same trainers and vets whose views you are now parroting.

Your explanation for your \"Jerry\'s Kids\"- \"Dittos\" line doesn\'t make much sense when looking at the original. Stick to your guns, Mall. We need to stir things up here, even at the risk of HP (where the hell is he?) taking me seriously again.

[Mall]

Are you really the same Alydar who used a reference to Hegel as shorthand for an inside joke re the relationship between the Rags & Marxism? Even upon rereading the tongue-in-cheek nature of the comparison to McCarthy is readily apparent, although it does require this bkgrd knowledge: (a) that your name names request is virtually identical to the one McCarthy made repeatedly during the Army-McCarthy hearings; (b) that those hearings were part of an investigation of the House Un-American Committee; and (c) that minus the personal tidbits,the last line of my post parrots the testimony of many witnesses, including those who refused to \"name names.\" By the way, I\'m pretty sure that the \"Have you no shame Senator\" defense lawyer who is often credited with bring an end to the witchhunt landed his 1st & only acting role when he appeared as the Judge in \"Anatomy of a Murder.\"
My basic reason for not naming names is that I have no interest whatsoever in the personal attack/counterattack posts which seemed so prevalent before the changeover. I also have strong suspicions that certain of the \"names\" are in fact a single individual using multiple monikers, presumably as part of some misguided effort to show that there is a groundswell of support for his or her position. For example, witness the lack of posts critical of the daily analysis since one person was called out on the matter. I hasten to add that I am ready willing & able to defend my handicapping theories, which I do in 2 separate posts.
Lastly, I\'m not sure what to make of your claim that you know better than I what was in my mind when I did the original post & indulged my penchant for rhetorical flourish. On the one hand, it brings to mind Madame Cleo, the Jamaican pyshic in the news lately, whose power to see the future did not extend to predicting an FTC enforcement action. On the other hand, perhaps you are also making some reference to the logic of McCarthyism, in which case you\'re one up. As much as I enjoy debating racing issues with you, if you\'re serious about some of the things you wrote then perhaps HP\'s admonition that it\'s time to lighten up may have some relevance here, as what we\'re discussing are different handicapping theories, not the war on terrorism.

[Alydar in California]

Mall:

I\'m in a hurry. Please pardon the inevitable errors.

Moving beyond your straw men and ludicrous pedantry:

1: In his book, Ragozin advises his readers to compare horses to themselves and gives examples of horses who should be played right off their tops--\"eight weeks rule\" be damned. You are wrong. Regardless, you should be taking this up with Friedman. Be sure to include the stuff about the chant.

2: Karl Marx borrowed liberally from Hegel, including Hegel\'s view of history, though Marx ditched idealism in favor of materialism. Marxism is often called \"inverted Hegelianism.\" If you disagree (I\'m not sure you do), you are wrong.

3: Quirin\'s statistical studies of weight are nearly worthless. Your confidence in them is telling. Quirin called weight a function of recent form and class. In other words, he admitted that he couldn\'t isolate it for testing. It\'s silly of you to write of the \"lack of import\" of weight based on this book.

4: If you persist in thinking that Quirin\'s weight research is important, consider this: Quirin found that weight was more significant at longer distances, which kicks the hell out of your theory.

5: I\'m not going to spend a dime studying weight. Why bother? Just ask one of those trainers of whom you are so fond. Almost to a man, they believe that weight is important. (At this point, Mall, I want to thank you for telling us that you have your own business. That qualifies as information one can\'t do without.)

6: Your \"Unlike you guys, I think for myself\" BS is beginning to grate. If you don\'t make your own figures, you are leaving the most important thinking to someone else. However, I do admire your disinclination to embrace received wisdom. Your push to get TG to test the \"eight weeks off a top\" pattern, and other patterns, inspires awe. No passive, wait-for-them-to-give-me-their-pearls-of-wisdom handicapper are you. You want evidence. Sure wish I had thought of something like that.

7: When you write that you think it\'s wrong to split hairs based on small weight shifts, and when you minimize the importance of weight in general, you are saying more than you seem to think you are saying. In fact, you are saying that ALL of TG\'s and Ragozin\'s numbers are wrong. Weight is built into these numbers and the projections based on these numbers. Please read the TG and Rags introductory literature and address this.

8: You actually wrote this sentence: \"It compounds the felony, as it were, to simply assert, without offering any proof, that weight has been used profitably during this undefined period.\"

Ragozin and TG \"use\" weight. It is in every figure. I did define the period: about 40 years (a reference to Ragozin). Weight is one of the things that separate sheets from Beyer, etc. I know several people who use TG and Rags profitably. I\'m sure you do, too. Do you want me to get them under oath? Based on my experience, the percentage of TG-Rags users who win is a lot higher than the percentage of Beyer (weight free) users who win. This is a tough game. Success is precious and precarious. Successful formulas should not be tinkered with based on the caliber of argument that has been coming off your keyboard so far.

9: I\'m sure the TG/Rags weight adjustment would be better if we knew the weights of the horses. Absent that, we still have good figures. Besides, I can\'t think of a better way to assess the value of weight than this: Put a couple of fanatics in hole-in-the-wall offices (I know your office is new, JB; the term came from Jay Hovdey) and have them study the sheets of countless thousands of horses for dozens of years. There are times when experience deserves to triumph over theory, and this sure looks like one of those times to me.

10: Your Joe McCarthy comments are insufferably didactic and gratuitous. I stated clearly that I was KIDDING. But my words stand up well even if I were serious. McCarthy was notorious for claiming he had lists of 200 communists, smearing countless innocent people, and then refusing to produce the lists. Eventually, it would come out that he only had a few names on his lists, and those were often hilarious. In your case, the list is now down to one, it seems. (See chapter three of David Halberstam\'s \"The Fifties,\" along with hundreds of other works.)

11: HP is a bright guy whom I have never met, spoken to, or exchanged emails with. He takes me seriously when he shouldn\'t, but I appreciate that. He is one of the few people whose intentions always seem to be good. And his determination to try to do the right thing, even though he\'s anonymous and won\'t get any real credit for it, warms my heart. It really does.

12: Your attempt to turn your \"Jerry\'s Kids-Dittos\" line into an attack on a lone idiot who was blasting the TG analysis is quite funny. I challenge you to put that part of your post on top of this board and defend what you just wrote. We will have some real fun.

13: I appreciate your telling me that there is a world out there apart from horse racing. At your urging, I will look for it. But if it isn\'t there, I will be very disappointed.

14: There is no 14. I\'m superstitious, so I didn\'t want to end on 13. How about this? \"Drops of Jupiter\" is the song of the year, and it ain\'t close.

[Richie]

Alydar
You are the sharpest man I never met.

[TGJB]

This is you in a hurry?

[Mall]

1. There is no dispute that TG/Rags believe that certain horses can be played off their tops, but that doesn\'t change the fact that one of the Rags\' basics is that it usually takes 8 weeks to recover from a top. The Qs on the table are whether that is also part of the TG philosophy and whether it made sense to apply the rule to KAN. Suggesting that I take the matter up with Friedman is a non-sequitur. Waiting to see what JB\'s runs show is a more sensible approach.
2. I have no idea & for purposes of this discussion, it doesn\'t matter.
3. I could not disagree more, & reiterate my suggestion that everyone read the Quirin studies & decide for themselves. Quirin indeed found that weight could not be isolated, which I\'m assume most readers understood me to mean when I specifically pted out that weight is a \"dependent variable.\" In my opinion, Quirin\'s data is supported by Beyer\'s study of 6k horses which carried 6lbs more or less in than in their previous starts in Beyer On Speed(pgs106-08), which led to these conclusions: (a)\"...weight is a relatively tiny component among all the factors that affect horses\' performance; and (b)\"...American horses are seldom asked to carry huge imposts, so bettors can usually afford to ignore the factor.\" There can be no dispute over the fact that no one has yet isolated the precise impact of weight alone(although I continue to believe that it could be done by the right physicist), which is one of the reasons I questioned using weight as a criteria to separate closely matched horses. The thing that I think is telling is that you have not cited any statistical data but are instead relying on anecdotal evidence & criticism of the only data, however imperfect, that is available.
4. I agree that Quirin\'s research tends to indicate that to the extent weight is important at all, it is more important at longer than shorter distances, which is a Q I raised quite some time ago. As is readily apparent from the 1st post in this series, however, the issue under discussion now is \"the continued use of what may very well turn out to be insignificant weight differences to split hairs among evenly matched horses.\" On that Q, the Quirin & Beyer studies, while concededly not definitive, tend to support the position I\'m arguing.
5. No doubt the vast majority of trainers believe that weight is important but again, the Q is whether or not that belief is justified by the facts. The fact that I think it makes sense to consider the opinions of prominent trainers & vets does not mean that I buy into everything & anything they say or believe, anymore than I suscribe to everything & anything any handicapper says or believes. For reasons I have already explained, the personal attacks are not appropriate & if anything, detract from your argument.
6. The personal attacks & sophmoric sarcasm are beginning to grate as well, & do not reflect well on you or your position. In my view, there is a very big difference betwwen saving the time involved in doing one\'s own figures & carte blanche acceptance of anyone\'s handicapping theories. I\'m not sure if it\'s directly relevant to the debate, but you can rest assured that my belief that independent thinking is critical to a positive ROI is anything but BS.
7. I\'m well aware of the nos. methodology used by TG/Rags, and am also prepared to concede that your argument is a serious one which highlights what is perhaps the most dramatic difference in our thinking: If the hard scientific evidence is there, & there\'s no dispute that it isn\'t yet, then my opinion is that you have to follow it no matter where it leads, & if that means there was a fundamental flaw in the last 40 yrs of nos., then so be it. At this pt, all of the admittedly non-definitive & imperfect evidence seems to pt in one direction, which convinces me that it makes sense to consider the issue.
8. The fact that we both know TG/Rags players who have a long term positive ROI is anecdotal evidence which proves nothing. Dahlman has used both successfully & he apparently does not believe in any patterns. My anecdotal experience is that players who end up using TG/Rags were already very good handicappers to begin with, and do not abandon everything they know after they change. In fact, every successful TG/Rags player I know also uses an additional handicapping tool.
9. I\'ll go one step further for a different reason. I think that the weight & race-to-race changes in the weight of a horse might very well be valuable hadicapping info, & is in fact made available & considered as such in Japan. I trust that you are exaggerating when you guess that it would take \"dozens of years\" to resolve this issue & note that I have already made the pt that time & cost are factors to consider when deciding whether to continue assuming that something done in the past is true instead of finding out whether it is in fact true.
10. I\'ve already identified the 2 groups I had in mind when I did the post, & your fixation on this matter has me wondering if you have for some reason concluded that my comments were directed at you personally. They weren\'t, & it\'s time to move on to the merits of the debate. Those who read both posts can judge for themselves whether your reaction to the McCarthy reference was or was not out of proportion, & I suggest that they do just that.
11. I don\'t know HP either, but based on his posts am prepared to accept everything you have to say about him. I am also interested in his views on the substantive issues under discussion, which I feel confident will not include the kind of personal attacks & sarcasm you are relying on.
12-13. The posts are there for all to see & I don\'t see any pt in doing what you request. Besides, I don\'t know how to \"put that part on the top\" & both of these paragraphs are nothing more & nothing less than the kinds of things which have no place in a serious discussion.
14. I heard that it\'s unlucky to be superstitous, & I\'ve never heard of the song, so I\'ll end with a short passage from an 1812 treatise by the great Pierre Simon, Marquis De Laplace which I think has some relevance to the discussion: \"It is remarkable that a science which began with the consideration of games of chance should have become the most important object of human knowledge....The most important questions of life are, for the most part, really only problems of probability.\"

[Alydar in California]

Mall: I was afraid you would commit this sort of reply. Are you related to Jimmy in California? I don\'t have time to respond to this overwritten tripe tonight. In two or three days, I will give you my rebuttal. Meanwhile, please read some Hemingway.

Hemingway once entered a writing contest in which the entrants had to tell a story in no more than seven words. He won it with this:

\"For sale, baby shoes, never used.\"

Richie: Thank you. I always look forward to reading your race analyses. You are a very talented handicapper.

HP: Hegel stays, and look for Nietzsche to get a bigger role. If you don\'t like it, don\'t read it. And your comments about weight are wrong. Weight will cost more lengths at longer distances, but a length is more important at 5f than it is at 10f. (Can\'t appear to be playing favorites, you know.)

[HP]

Weight will cost more lengths at longer distances, but a length is more important at 5f than it is at 10f.

This is purest bunk. There\'s no such thing as a \'more important\' length.

The whole point is that it will be harder to get that length at 10f based on the fact that you carried the weight that much further. At 5f you have less time to make up the length (I guess this is what you are driving at when you put a premium on this 5f length) but at 10f you would be less likely to make up the length and progressively less likely to make up the length the further you go, based on tiring out from carrying the weight over time. So the proverbial \'length\' we are talking about is of equal value at any distance, and the only adjustment for weight/distance is that the longer you run, the more \'lengths\' it costs you (based on tiring out from carrying the weight).

This is the concept entirely, and if you got it, you couldn\'t possibly have written that awful sentence. Think it over. It makes more sense that anything else I\'ve heard on the subject (Quirin, weight/class, etc.). The only thing I add to it is that I do not consider weight differences of less than 5 pounds. I guess I could call this the \"HP 5 Pound Minimum\" theory.

I won\'t be able to bat this around for a few days, but I think this qualifies as another Last Word anyway.

Go make money. HP