I'm really busy and I shouldn't...

[TGJB]

...but I can\'t let this go by. To those who actually care about the accuracy of figures (and how they are made) it\'s important.

Friedman posted on the Rag board about horses running better at one turn routes than around two turns, giving possible explanations. He missed the most obvious one-- they have a problem with their figures. As I point out in Changing Track Speeds (Archives here), they are the only figure maker who doesn\'t split one and two turn races when doing the day.

When the two have different variants, usually (though not always) you have to take off from the two turn races. If you do not, you either will have them too slow, or the one turn races too fast. Ragozin\'s dogma results in a statement in his book (co-written by Friedman) that if he takes 1/4 point off a sprint early in the day he has to take 1/4 point off a mile and a quarter race later-- the single most ridiculous statement ever made by a figure maker. The net result is that you will see lots of horses on Ragozin figures who run a lot better at one turn routes than around two turns. While there are certainly individual cases where it is true, the large number of them on Ragozin has nothing at all to do with any lack of ability to handle two turns.

[SoCalMan2]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...but I can\'t let this go by. To those who
> actually care about the accuracy of figures (and
> how they are made) it\'s important.
>
> Friedman posted on the Rag board about horses
> running better at one turn routes than around two
> turns, giving possible explanations. He missed the
> most obvious one-- they have a problem with their
> figures. As I point out in Changing Track Speeds
> (Archives here), they are the only figure maker
> who doesn\'t split one and two turn races when
> doing the day.
>
> When the two have different variants, usually
> (though not always) you have to take off from the
> two turn races. If you do not, you either will
> have them too slow, or the one turn races too
> fast. Ragozin\'s dogma results in a statement in
> his book (co-written by Friedman) that if he takes
> 1/4 point off a sprint early in the day he has to
> take 1/4 point off a mile and a quarter race
> later-- the single most ridiculous statement ever
> made by a figure maker. The net result is that you
> will see lots of horses on Ragozin figures who run
> a lot better at one turn routes than around two
> turns. While there are certainly individual cases
> where it is true, the large number of them on
> Ragozin has nothing at all to do with any lack of
> ability to handle two turns.

This may not go to the issue, but I always thought that horses could run faster on a straightaway than they could on a turn.  For example, all things being equal, I would expect a straight 6f to be faster (raw time basis) than 6f with a bend.  Similarly, I always thought the Charles Town 6.5 and 7 furlong times seemed so slow (raw time basis) because they had two turns in such a short period of time instead of one turn like most non-bullring tracks.  However, I would expect that to be a variable that you guys adjusted for (like you do for ground, weight, run up, wind, banking, whatever else).  That is why I sort of ignore raw times and rely on what you guys come up with.  Am I off in right field?

Separately, there was a time when this could be solved (there was a control).  For a long time, Laurel had a strange dog leg chute (they would run 7 furlong races out of the normal chute and then run one mile races (and ever so occasionally 1 1/16 miles races) out of the dog leg chute).  There was a period when they were running 1 1/16 miles races with two different configurations...sometimes one turn and sometimes two turns....it was a weird situation and only lasted for a brief period.  Unfortunately, I do not remember what the comparable raw times were back then -- but I think everybody just assumed that the same horses would go slower (raw time basis) on the two turn configuration than the one turn configuration (all other things being equal). Anybody remember what year they got rid of the dog leg?

Apologies if I have completely missed the boat here.  I dont look at the Ragozin board, so I have no idea what the discussion is over there.

[TGJB]

You are correct, we (and everyone else who makes serious figures, as well as Ragozin) has a turn adjustment.

That Laurel stuff was a pain in the butt when they were doing it.

[mjellish]

I know I have mentioned this exact point before on this board.  This is one of the primary reasons why I have said that the Rags figs are often not very good.  They don\'t split their variants between one and two turn races or between early and late races on the same card even when faced with obvious, irrefutable evidence that they should (like a strong wind in one direction, or a drying out track, or when the track crew changes maintenance from sealing to harrowing, or adds water, etc.)

And to compound matters, if you are using the projection method and going off of the horses, which you pretty much have to do to come up with variants and accurate figures anyway, when you make a mistake and work off that bad fig later you are going to make an even bigger mistake unless you get lucky.  To come up with accurate figs you not only have to have a sound method, you have to willing to introduce some subjectivity into the process when the number just doesn\'t make sense.  And you have to be willing to go back and correct a fig (or in most cases all the figs for the horses in that race) later when you have solid evidence that an adjustment is needed.  That usually doesn\'t help you make money in the race you just missed, but it will hep make sure that your figure database is as accurate as possible and you don\'t wind up with a Junk in = Junk out scenario.

Not trying to schmooze anyone, just throwing in my two cents worth of agreement for whatever it\'s worth.

Looks like some nice betting opportunities this weekend and to talking shop with the Board.  It\'s been a while.

[TGJB]

MJ, that is dead on.

If you can, see if you can find a post titled History Lesson II that I put here a couple of months ago. Turns out there were figure makers who knew this 60 plus years ago. Seems Ragozin cut school that day.