First 3 Of 124 Questions

[TGJB]

As many of you know, Alydar has been barred from this site for life-- anyone wanting to know why should read my post (\"Re: Silence\"), below. In several of his thousands of posts on the Ragozin board he challenged me to a debate and likened it to Lincoln/Douglas, and I informed him that  Ragozin and I would be Lincoln/Douglas,  Friedman and I would at least serve the purpose of Lincoln/Douglas, but that he and I would be Lincoln/A Guy, so he doesn\'t get to \"debate\" me. But I offered him the chance to e-mail me questions which I would post and answer under certain guidlines, and he has sent me the first three, so here they are, unedited.

1-- \"Who is Mandown? What did you think of his comment on David Patent\'s lack of \'objectivity\'?\"

This is an Alydar special-- an arcane point that only Alydar, in the whole world, cares about. I\'m not going to out Mandown, but he has an affiliation with this company (does some work for us), which Alydar only knows because I told him so in an e-mail, and Alydar thinks this info is the missing gap  on the Watergate tape.

Mandown\'s point was not that David Patent worked for Ragozin (as far as we know he does not) or even that he had a bias, but that he ACTED on his bias. There are those that don\'t-- I have even heard that there are some Republican and Democratic members of Congress that occasionally vote their consciences, although I find that hard to believe. You can have a partisan interest and try to act in an impartial fashion-- I have done so on those occasions when I have congratulated Friedman on this site, like for his win in that handicapping contest.

Mandown was correct about Patent, and you don\'t have to take my word for it-- you might be able to dig up David\'s original comments, found on the Rag board right after the Preakness, but you can DEFINITELY find my response destroying it on this site (\"Okay, David\", 5/20). The evidence that I destroyed it, and that it was full of crap, is this-- what you won\'t find is even a WHISPER of a response to my post from Patent on either board, even though he must have seen it, since he posted in the days immediately following. Regardless, David, you are not barred, so feel free to respond to it at any time.

So in the real world, Mandown was right, David was playing games with the truth because of his bias, and I proved it.

2-- \"Why did you say in your seminar that you came up with the weight correction on your own? It\'s not true, as you knew at the time. Any chance Ragozin\'s people hear stories of this type?\"

So I had two guys listen to the audio intro tape, and I watched the video version myself (quite an experience-- it was made 10 years ago, and I hadn\'t seen it in 8. I had more hair then, and in general it held up pretty well. The audio one, found on this site, has Chip Vinai\'s voice-- he wrote the script, I edited it). Neither one says we invented the weight correction, or were the first to come up with it, or even that we came up with it on our own.

When I first started to make figures, as I have said here several times, I used a lot of what Ragozin did as a starting point (not the wind formula, we came up with that on our own). As I worked with the data and looked at an awful lot of races I checked out the premises, to see if they worked-- you do this by trial and error. I ended up changing some things, like the ground loss formula, and the way I handled lots of variant making situations.

There are two problems in coming up with an accurate weight correction:
a- horses don\'t all weigh the same, and their weights are not made public. 10 pounds will not have the same effect on a 900 pound 2yo filly as it will on a 1200 pound older male.
b- the way the game itself is constructed would make it close to impossible to come up with an accurate large population study even if you had the weights of the horses. Horses add weight with success, not just in handicaps but in allowances and claimers-- being in good form (recent success) carries a penalty. If someone does have an idea of a study we could do, I would love to hear about it.

So what we do is to try to come up with something close, that works for the average size horse, so that the distortion won\'t be too great on either end. You do this by trial and error, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT RAGOZIN DID AS WELL.

 What we said in the intro seminar was: \"To answer the question of how much (weight matters), we have studied tens of thousands of races to measure how much effect weight has\". That is correct. We started by using what Ragozin used, looked at an awful lot of track days, and unlike some other things, found the correction  was about right, and that there was no way to come up with anything better.

As an aside, I love Friedman\'s defense of the weight correction as being absolutely accurate. He always points to the Fall Highweight, a race run once a year, with a field consisting of only mature male horses, as proof. And he says the proof is that the figures in that one race come up tight, despite every Ragozin guy pointing out that there are few pairups on their sheets. One race, with maybe 10 horses and maybe 2 pairups, is proof of a correction used thousands of times a year.

3- \"Rising Graph: You are not an owner. OK. What are you called? Do you feel at all strange solicting money from people, choosing their horses, managing their horses, telling the rider how to ride (save ground at all costs) their horses, and then betting against their horses?\"

This is a reference to a post I made recently on the Rag board about a Graph racing horse. I boxed 3 horses, including that one, and they ran 1-2-3. Alydar originally tried to make it look like I was violating the rules by betting the race in such a way that I would cash even if the filly I managed didn\'t win (she ran second), then found out I am not an owner so the rule does not apply, and he is trying this. He is trying to make it look like I did something dishonest, remeniscent of Friedman\'s slimy insinuation that I was advising Graph racing to sell a filly while telling another client to buy her (in  reality, the buyer was not my client).

a- In dealing with stables I am generally referred to as a stable manager, but there is no official designation, and I am not licensed, so I am breaking no rule.
b- I don\'t always tell riders to save ground at all costs. If there is a dead rail I tell them to avoid it, in two turn races with a closer I sometimes tell them to save ground on the first turn and not be too wide on the second, and with some riders (Pat Day) I usually don\'t say anything.
c- I ALWAYS manage horses, which includes the rides, in such a way as to benefit my clients the most-- I have now been doing this for more than half my life, and while some have accused me of screwing up, no one has ever suggested that I have not done that. Until now, by a guy who has no direct dealings with any horses I have ever managed, and is just throwing crap against a wall to see what sticks.
d- When I BET a race, I make a judgement of what every horse\'s chances are, including my own, and bet accordingly. Often that means betting on my horses, sometimes against them, but it NEVER means that I am managing AGAINST my horses to cash a bet. I am doing nothing ethically wrong, and everyone who has ever dealt with me knows it.

Okay, Alydar-- since I have answered your first 3 questions, I would like you to answer 3 of mine, on the Ragozin board, since you said in your e-mail to me \"I will reply on the SHEETS board.\"

1- Do you have INDEPENDENT information about Ragozin employees lying about me or my company, or doing other things to us that you consider nasty or unethical? By this I mean information not gained on the two boards, about activities taking place in the real world, at racetracks. If so, I don\'t need you to reveal your source-- but what were the activities?

2- You are a very serious race watcher. Did you watch the last Breeder\'s Cup Mile, and did you see where Touch Of The Blues was on the second turn? Did Ragozin\'s trackman get it right? After I brought this up, did you believe Friedman\'s response on the Ragozin site was accurate and truthful? If they did get the ground wrong, and since they didn\'t change either the ground or the figure, does that tell you anything about the ethics of the Ragozin operation, the accuracy of their figures, or the degree to which they care about accuracy vs. PR?

3- This one only requires a one word answer-- Since you are definitely not known to have a bias in my favor, I would like to know whose figures you think are more accurate, Thoro-Graph or Ragozin?

A GUY once posted on this site 3 rules about getting involved in a civil war. He should have paid attention to the last one. There is a similar rule about getting involved in debates-- make sure the position you will be defending is defensible.

I look forward to your responses to my questions on the Ragozin board, and your e-mail to me with the next 3 questions. I will give you answers here, along with my own next set of questions. Forgive me, but I think there is a tiny little chance you might not answer my questions (\"You DIDN\'T answer my questions...I\'m NOT going to answer your questions on the Ragozin site...I DIDN\'T agree to that...\"), but of course, your not answering, or evading (which I have not) will be an answer.

[Marc At]

JB,

I don;t want to get into most of this, but one part does bug me--

\"I\'m not going to out Mandown, but he has an affiliation with this company (does some work for us)\"

This is a weird one. This guy works for you (he is paid by Tgraph in some capacity for his work, so he benefits from Tgraph doing well), yet posts negative stuff about the competition on a board populated by your customers-- and he posts on the Ragozin board, too(?). By not acknowledging the professional affiliation, it\'s ethically crappy territory. Are there any other guys who you pay for their work who post on your site or others not acknowledging they work for Tgraph?

[dpatent]

Jerry,

For the record I finally stopped laughing at your \'Okay David\' response just in the last couple of days.

At some point we all have to just stop -- like after \'closing arguments\' at trial -- and that is why I did not respond to \'Okay David\' nor will I.  Anybody who cares -- and I hope that there are not many of them -- can read my posts and yours and make their own decisions.  I\'m comfortable with that.  Too bad you are not.

As I have said on numerous occasions in the past -- all this time you spend battering people cannot be good for the quality of your product.

Finally, shame on you for having Mandown carry your muck without disclosing his \'bias\' which he has acted on on many occasions.

[TGJB]

Marc-- If truly necessary I will address this when I have some free time, but you have to be kidding-- you read that post and THAT was the part you found ethically crappy?
Who\'s the one with the bias? And if you want to play that game, are are you just an objective observer, or are you friends with any of the principals in this show?
Read the part again where I said it wasn\'t an issue of having a bias, but of acting on it. Are you?

[TGJB]

Please tell the people where they can find your post on the Ragozin site. I have told them where they can find my response (\"Okay, David\", 5/20 this site), and we will indeed let everyone judge for themselves.

Nice try, though.

[dpatent]

Title:  \"Let\'s Clear This Up\"
Posted: 5-18-03 at 10:53:46

Complete Text:

For anyone tempted to believe that Brown \'gave out\' winning tickets in the Preakness, below is his analysis -- verbatim -- of that race.

Note that if you bet along with this you would have cashed exactly $0 worth of tix. Oh, and for the poster on TG who wondered \'who\' the analyst was and why he said these silly things (after the fact, of course), nice try. If you guys are going to take credit for the wins, you need to take responsibility for the losses. The analysis is not signed and there is no disclaimer from Brown. It is his product and he needs to stand behind it.

Now I have criticized Friedman in the past on his reads and I have said over and over again that anyone who bets based on what either Friedman or Brown says deserves the heavy losses that they are sure to incur; but please TG posters, be honest when you tout your tout. We can all look this stuff up.

\"Funny Cide drew a bad post, and shouldn't get the dream trip he got in the Derby. Peace Rules is better on his best anyway, and should get a much better trip—he's at least even money to win the race. Midway Road's last was excellent, and he doesn't have to bounce. The livest ones to use underneath are Cherokee's Boy, Kissin Saint, and Ten Cents A Shine. Midway Road to Win at 8-1 or more, big exacta under
Peace Rules. Trifectas Peace Rules Over Cherokee's Boy, Kissin Saint, Ten Cents A Shine, Midway Road. B+.
Pick 4's—Races 9, 10, 11,12—Sky Soldier, During with Del Mar Show with Full Brush, Tempest Fugit, P Day with Midway Road, Peace Rules. Double up with P Day, Triple Up with Peace Rules. A.\"

Posts on this Site:

re: Hey David Patent
Author: dpatent
Date:   05-19-03 15:38

Jerry,

I\'m not biting. Sorry.

My post speaks for itself and has nothing to do with comparing your analysis to Friedman\'s analysis (I posted my own response to his analysis prior to the Preakness, which also speaks for itself).

My post dealt specifically with two disingenuous comments that your boosters posted on the Ragozin site. I simply cut and pasted, verbatim, the analysis and betting strategy posted on this site to clarify exactly what the results would have been for somebody wagering according to the recommendations given. Again, anybody who follows either or Len\'s or TG\'s \'picks\' deserves their fate.

Glad you did o.k. I did a little better than o.k. but not much more.

AND. . .
 
Re: Hey David Patent
Author: dpatent
Date:   05-19-03 16:13

Jerry,

Briefly. I did not say that I \'just\' posted your analysis. I said I posted your analysis. Of course I had comments of my own, which were completely fact-based.

These were the two posts from Midway Road TG on May 17, 2003 at 22:34:44:

\"Like who cares about your personal vendetta against JB? And typical of you badmouthing him when his analysis made Midway Road his key.\"

And by: Brant-o-rama on May 17, 2003 at 23:03:19

\"He singled out Midway Road as a win bet at 8-1 or more in his analysis product.
And don\'t forget the $123 horse they gave out with the 2nd and 3rd place finishers at Belmont on Friday.\"

Notice what these posters do not say -- i.e. that MR was a key win bet but used only with PR in exacta -- and that is disingenuous because it leaves out crucial facts about the analysis -- which yielded a $0 return.

Your comment on the $1000 bet with Friedman does indeed remain unchallenged and will remain so -- at least from me. I\'m not into defending a betting strategy based on either yours or Len\'s analysis.

[Marc At]

>If truly necessary I will address this when I have some free time,
 
Great, thanks.
 
>Who\'s the one with the bias?
 
I didn\'t think this discussion was about me.
 
>And if you want to play that game, are are you just an objective observer, or are you friends with any of the principals in this show?
 
Ok, I guess you\'ve changed this discussion, hopefully quite briefly, to being about me. I\'m not friends with anyone who works for Ragozin. I\'m not friends with anyone who works for Tgraph. I\'m friends with the writer of the 124 (or at least 3) questions. I do not benefit financially in any way if this writer succeeds in raising a variety of interesting questions about Tgraph/you, nor do I have any idea whether I\'ll even care about most of the questions he raises.
 
Ethically, I think, that\'s a better place to be than pretending like one is merely an observer when in fact one is being paid by Tgraph for other services rendered. If the writer of the 124 was in some way compensating me financially, that would be a different story. But he\'s not. In fact, we haven\'t ever even discussed these questions. I\'m merely responding to what I see.
 
Looking forward to you addressing the questions I\'ve raised. It\'s pretty creepy if/when anyone paid by Ragozin posts anonymously pretending to be something other than someone paid by Ragozin. If you want to make the argument that you are somehow more trustworthy or believable, I\'m hopeful you\'ll get any further Mandown-style revelations out of the way immediately.

[TGJB]

Marc-- I hope to get to this today, but I\'m unbelievably busy and have to leave early, so it might not be until Sunday. Either way, my answer will be contained in a larger (but not large) response to Alydar, whose responses to me were deleted from the Ragozin board, for reasons that will be obvious-- he sent copies of the posts to me via e-mail, and we will post them here. Something to think about in the meantime-- your good friend has independent knowledge of Ragozin employees lying about me, and can give you specific information about their bad acts. Do you care? Does that affect their credibility with you?

[Marc At]

\"Ragozin employees lying about me, and can give you specific information about their bad acts. Do you care? Does that affect their credibility with you?\"

I hesitate to respond to this, for a variety of reasons, but let\'s just say there are reportedly two sides to the story. It\'s so muddy that it\'s pretty impossible for me to take a side on it. I realize that\'s a less than satisfying answer, but the finger pointing is such that I find it impossible to view these issues in such a way that it would ruin anyone\'s credibility with me.

It doesn\'t help anyone\'s credibility with me, that\'s for sure.

[TGJB]

Marc--
Nonsense. I didn\'t ask you to take my \"side\" of the story at face value-- I said you could get independent, factual verification from someone you trust. More on this to come-- I\'m working on my post right now, hope to have it up before I leave.