Ahem...

[TGJB]

Not that I had her (or that she looked like a contender in the race), but guess who just won the third at SA at 35-1. You all might remember the discussion on this board about my splitting the variant on Strub day, right before the maiden claimer-- which I took off more from than any other race. Well the winner of that race (Dee\'s A Legend) just came back to win, and as tough to have her as it was, it would be a lot tougher if you did the 2/4 race with the first three races on that day-- and add 6 or 7 points to her last.

There\'s never proof in this game, but there is evidence. And this is one step in that direction.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

She was actually about 40-1.

Today she won a 3YO filly 25,000 claimer by a head.

The race time was 1.12.95

In the next race 4YO 25,000 claimers won in 1.11.08

One great angle for cheap maiden winners is to play them back in their age group vs winning claimers. When they finally hit form theres generally not much running in those cheap 3YO claimers either.

If you extrapolate her fractions to a final 7 furlong time, it comes close to about a 1.27

Is it evidence that shes in form and game for her cheap class? Yeah, it probably is. Is it evidence her race Strub day was signficantly slowed by nature? I\'m not sure theres much evidence of that in her race.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not that I had her (or that she looked like a
> contender in the race), but guess who just won the
> third at SA at 35-1. You all might remember the
> discussion on this board about my splitting the
> variant on Strub day, right before the maiden
> claimer-- which I took off more from than any
> other race. Well the winner of that race (Dee\'s A
> Legend) just came back to win, and as tough to
> have her as it was, it would be a lot tougher if
> you did the 2/4 race with the first three races on
> that day-- and add 6 or 7 points to her last.
>
> There\'s never proof in this game, but there is
> evidence. And this is one step in that direction.

[TGJB]

CTC-- you have been known to frequent our redboard room. Tomorrow, look at the figures of the fillies she was running against, and tell me how you think a 27 would look.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Ok, I\'ll try to remember to have a look tomorrow. Though it doesn\'t sound as if you\'ve given much probability to a slight move forward. Tomorrow I\'ll look and weigh in.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CTC-- you have been known to frequent our redboard
> room. Tomorrow, look at the figures of the fillies
> she was running against, and tell me how you think
> a 27 would look.

[miff]

JB said,

Not that I had her (or that she looked like a contender in the race), but guess who just won the third at SA at 35-1. You all might remember the discussion on this board about my splitting the variant on Strub day, right before the maiden claimer-- which I took off more from than any other race. Well the winner of that race (Dee\'s A Legend) just came back to win, and as tough to have her as it was, it would be a lot tougher if you did the 2/4 race with the first three races on that day-- and add 6 or 7 points to her last.

There\'s never proof in this game, but there is evidence. And this is one step in that direction.


Jerry,
The same day you had Greelys Galaxy 7-8 lenghts faster than Bob and John,( GG ran 1 and B&J Ran 5) Greeleys Galaxy just got beat by a block at Golden Gate at 7/2.What is that evident of, if anything. Maybe he didn\'t outrun Bob and John  by 7-8 lenghts afterall on 2/4.

[TGJB]

Miff--

1-- GG has a few good numbers and several worse ones. And we already know there\'s something wrong with him, since he hasn\'t been able to get back to his top. The fact that he ran a stinker on short rest is no surprise.

2-- As I have said here before, it\'s generally more significant (in figure making terms) if a horse runs well, than if one runs poorly. Horses can always run an off race, but they can only run as fast as they can run.

3-- You keep focusing on a couple of horses out of a couple of races. There were a lot of horses that ran on that day, in lots of other races. One of them is the filly I mentioned-- look at her in the RBR. This is an example of 2 (above)-- ain\'t no way you can think she has any chance if she\'s off a pair of 27\'s, as opposed to the forward move to a level that put her at least in some range. If I hadn\'t split the day, she would have had to move forward 10 points or so to contend yesterday.

4-- The right way to do this is by looking at large numbers of horses from the day coming back. Here\'s what we\'ll do-- remind me of this around March 5th or so, when lots of them have run back. We\'ll split them into two groups (before and after where I split the day), and do a count of how many from the day have gone forward next out, and how many have gone back. Since there were 4 maiden  races that day (lightly raced horses), I think it will come out that slightly more will have gone forward than back, in each group. We won\'t use ones that were making their first starts that day.


Len F.-- re your comment about GG: you are the master of the red-board. I notice that in your Thoroughbred Times pieces (where it calls Ragozin \"the modern father of speed figures\", which I guess means you could call a twentieth century president the \"modern father of his country\") you have even stopped talking about races in advance, and now just give out figures that stakes horses ran after the fact. This goes along with your posting of sheets for races retroactively on your site, but just occasional ones that make your product look good-- not all sheets, for all tracks, every day, like we do in the Red Board Room.

If you want to be a mensch, post sheets for last year\'s Jockey Club Gold Cup, and the last two dirt races from 7/27 Saratoga, with the figures the horses have run since. Then we can have a conversation. Come on, surprise me.

[miff]

Jerry said

\"3-- You keep focusing on a couple of horses out of a couple of races. There were a lot of horses that ran on that day, in lots of other races. One of them is the filly I mentioned-- look at her in the RBR. This is an example of 2 (above)-- ain\'t no way you can think she has any chance if she\'s off a pair of 27\'s, as opposed to the forward move to a level that put her at least in some range. If I hadn\'t split the day, she would have had to move forward 10 points or so to contend yesterday.\"


Jerry,

With every TG figure I have questioned there has been strong disagreement amongst fig makers also. You do NOT have to be a fig maker to have an informed opinion about a race, assuming you follow the game closely.


On this occasion, I feel strongly that the speed of the track did not change by as much as you have it.In looking at multiple(credible) sources, it seems almost unanimous that the track slowed down on 2/4 but by how much is where the disagreement lies. I asked you to comment on whether it is realistic to believe that Greelys Galaxy outran Bob and John by as much as your figs indicate. I have looked at every possible scenario and cannot come to a reasonable conclusion for the difference in the figs( remember I look at your figs all the time for about 20 years).All I am looking for is something that makes racing sense and fig sense.

Mike

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Well, I just wasted one of my alloted \"Red Board\" visits for Santa Anita\'s 3rd from Monday regarding winner \"Dee\'s a Legend.\" The horse that finished second (Sugar Deputy) was second choice and was in my opinion the horse to beat on pattern. She had run well in the past fresh and had never regressed or bounced in consecutive races. She appeared due for a good one, perhaps in the \"13\" range. The Question is did she run it?

Purrfect Vixen had run 19\'s, if she repeated that means that Rushin Conductor jumped to a new top.

However the third race was clearly the slowest race on the card again. What is it about 25,000K 3YO fillies?

I don\'t know what to say. Yes on analyzing the overall figures it seems unlikely that a 27 won that race. However, it seems unlikely that a 13 won it also. A 20 may have won it, which was a number that most of the field had run to at one time or another. (Including Dee\'s a Legend, even if you give her 6-7 points slower for her winning effort Strub Day.)

Have to conclude by reiterating what was said in the Strub string:

 \"Its extremely hazardous to try and evaluate these things on this quality of animal.\"



> Miff--
>
> 1-- GG has a few good numbers and several worse
> ones. And we already know there\'s something wrong
> with him, since he hasn\'t been able to get back to
> his top. The fact that he ran a stinker on short
> rest is no surprise.
>
> 2-- As I have said here before, it\'s generally
> more significant (in figure making terms) if a
> horse runs well, than if one runs poorly. Horses
> can always run an off race, but they can only run
> as fast as they can run.
>
> 3-- You keep focusing on a couple of horses out of
> a couple of races. There were a lot of horses that
> ran on that day, in lots of other races. One of
> them is the filly I mentioned-- look at her in the
> RBR. This is an example of 2 (above)-- ain\'t no
> way you can think she has any chance if she\'s off
> a pair of 27\'s, as opposed to the forward move to
> a level that put her at least in some range. If I
> hadn\'t split the day, she would have had to move
> forward 10 points or so to contend yesterday.
>
> 4-- The right way to do this is by looking at
> large numbers of horses from the day coming back.
> Here\'s what we\'ll do-- remind me of this around
> March 5th or so, when lots of them have run back.
> We\'ll split them into two groups (before and after
> where I split the day), and do a count of how many
> from the day have gone forward next out, and how
> many have gone back. Since there were 4 maiden
> races that day (lightly raced horses), I think it
> will come out that slightly more will have gone
> forward than back, in each group. We won\'t use
> ones that were making their first starts that day.
>
>
>
> Len F.-- re your comment about GG: you are the
> master of the red-board. I notice that in your
> Thoroughbred Times pieces (where it calls Ragozin
> \"the modern father of speed figures\", which I
> guess means you could call a twentieth century
> president the \"modern father of his country\") you
> have even stopped talking about races in advance,
> and now just give out figures that stakes horses
> ran after the fact. This goes along with your
> posting of sheets for races retroactively on your
> site, but just occasional ones that make your
> product look good-- not all sheets, for all
> tracks, every day, like we do in the Red Board
> Room.
>
> If you want to be a mensch, post sheets for last
> year\'s Jockey Club Gold Cup, and the last two dirt
> races from 7/27 Saratoga, with the figures the
> horses have run since. Then we can have a
> conversation. Come on, surprise me.
>
>

[TGJB]

Ahem, again.

See the Satrurday DRF, page 5, for discussion of figure making for the 2/4 Santa Anita card. Pay particular attention to the comments from track superintendent Steve Wood.

Alternatively, just believe Ragozin/Friedman\'s comments about how the track doesn\'t change speed except when there is rain, snow, or thaw.

Also of interest there-- they have added an inch of cushion since last year to make the track safer, which also makes it slower, and variable during the day because of changes in moisture content.

[TGJB]

From Brad Free\'s column, \"Different Figures Lead To Dilemma\", on the subject of the track at Santa Anita changing speed:

\"It was not the first time it happened this winter. The start time for the Sham was 1:32 p.m.; start time for the Strub was 3:39. It makes a difference, according to track superintendent Steve Wood. He said new maintenance methods have created a track cushion that is an inch deeper than last winter. He said the track is slower and safer, but admits \'With more depth, it\'s harder to keep consistent\'.
   Wood pinpoints the time of day when the track changes: \'Around 3:15, the moisture rises and the track becomes wet and gets dead, and people say, he changed it\'.
   But Wood said he changes nothing. The harrows that change the track between races remain constant.
   \'The depth cannot change, but THE MOISTURE DOES CHANGE (emphasis added),\' Wood said. \'It changes all the time\'.
   While the intention of the deeper surface is safety, it creates chaos for handicappers who use the clock-- speed figures-- as a tool\".

[davidrex]

     Is steve wood presently employed by any of your numerous corps? Has he ever been in your employment?!(may as well fess now cause raggies\' will sniff it out)
     Is he married to a close relative..do you know him personally....does he owe you money?

Been in the greenhouse business for looong time...put a one inch top dressing on any surface and these are the results you\'ll come up with on occasion.

       

[TGJB]

Steve Wood is not and has never been employed by us, etc. He is, however, one of the guys I talked to when I was researching track surfaces a couple of years ago. When I asked why (at that time) the track was getting faster later in the card, he said it was because better horses were running then.

[davidrex]

     After reading the column and then listening to your lone encounter...tell me,what was your opinion of him when he gave up the comment\"better horses running later in the card\"?

[TGJB]

I had trouble not laughing out loud when he made the original comment. The possibilities are

1-- He has the same understanding now as he did then, but understands what happens physically with his track better than its effects on the time of races.

2-- He knows more about it now.

3-- During the conversation (and in this article) he indicated people always accuse him of changing the track. It\'s possible he felt he had to defend himself to me about making changes himself, rather than them ocurring naturally, as he says here they do, and wanted to maintain that nothing was changing.

My guess is 3.