Question for TGJB on Figure-Making Philosophy

[derby1592]

I know that I am in danger of starting yet another angst-ridden string but I think the message from Friedman on the Sheets board (I pasted it below) hints at the basic philosophical difference in the way the two of you (Ragozin and Thoro-Graph) approach making figures. I will characterize it in the following way. I will try to be unbiased. I do NOT want to imply any value judgment but rather just capture the essence of each approach so that we can all understand the basic differences at a fundamental level.

Thoro-Graph: All else being equal and assuming that a horse is in decent condition, it is likely to run close to its best effort. If you have a race where most of the horses (that obviously put out an effort) run within a few points of their recent figs, then you have probably got the variant right. Use all the data but don’t be afraid to challenge the numbers and exercise personal judgment when the results don’t seem intuitively correct.

Ragozin: Horses run their peak efforts infrequently and are continually cycling in and out of form. Even the best horses will run their tops only about once in every four or five races. Try and collect as much data as you can and trust the process and the numbers even if sometimes the results might not seem very intuitive.

Would you say I have summarized this accurately? If not, how would you characterize it? If so, I would be interested in hearing what led to this philosophical rift and why you now approach things the way that you do and what you think are the advantages and disadvantages of your approach.

I know this is a busy time of the year for you but I did not want to miss this opportunity after seeing the Friedman post, which I think actually does a pretty good job of framing the argument if you get past all the sarcasm and not-so-subtle jabs at Thoro-Graph. If you are inclined to respond and would like to wait until some future date, that’s fine. I am just interested in getting past all the personal/political \"history\" and gaining a better appreciation of the figure-making \"philosophical history.\" It is interesting stuff and I think it would be useful to many of us.

Thanks

Chris

**************
Friedman message:


\"Would you like some help with \"0\" times to compare distances, wind corrections, turf rail adjustments, history of how tracks react to different levels of moisture, tracks with distances that have short or long runups, and all the other special pieces of info that are necessary to make good variants? I don\'t see our edge in helping others produce better numbers so that they can better compete with us (and I speak more as a bettor than anything else). Our customers deserve the most careful, painstaking and disciplined effort in making numbers and I think that this is what we give them.

As for what you should do, I would recommend making different variants for each different distance. I wouldn\'t worry too much as to whether the times of each race are exactly correct as you will be able see clearly what the horses in each race must have run and will be able easily to adjust your variants for each race accordingly. Most important don\'t tie yourself into a straightjacket of consistency--each race and each day is an independent judgement that you are best qualified to make on your own unhampered by any restraints of a physical nature. If you follow this approach, I hope that you have many disciples that will expand the mutual pools in a way that I certainly look forward to. Good luck.\"

[tread]

Amen to that Chris.  I don\'t understand all these people who say, \"if you don\'t like the numbers, don\'t buy them\".  How can I even pass judgement on whether or not I like the numbers when I can\'t get an explanation on how they are made?  I\'m not asking for the actual formulas, I understand those are proprietary.  I\'m not asking anyone to give away the business, just and general overview, just like you have done above.

Anyone who thumbs their nose at a comparison or says they don\'t care which ones are better is a moron, plain and simple.  Why in the world would you not want to use a better product?  Even if you are hitting 1 out of 4 races and turning a profit, what if you could hit 1 out of 3?  

Personally, I will always be looking for the right combination of handicapping techniques to always improve my game, whether it be TG, Ragozin, BRIS pace, or even examing stool samples if I have to.  I want to be armed with as much beneficial info as I can to be successful.  Anyone who doesn\'t, thank god for you, you are keeping the pools stocked with money for the taking.

[TGJB]

Chris-
What you talk about comes as a RESULT of a difference in methods. It\'s not a cause, it\'s an effect. There is no way to artificially have LOTS of horses run in a tight range unless you mess around with the relationships WITHIN an individual race, which I don\'t(and which the Ragozin guys can tell by seeing the relationship of horses WITHIN races is the same as theirs). As any serious figure maker will tell you, having lots of horses run in a tight range is not only evidence that the figures you gave out for that race are right, but that the figures you based them on are right- in the Wood, MDO paired a number he ran at Santa Anita, Saarland paired a number he ran at AQU, etc.
My theories for figure making are basically summarized in the 5/2/2000 post. Ragozin\'s are strictly dogmatic, that certain relationships are fixed, and established by averages. When you get a look at both sets of figures for the Wood, which we\'ll be getting into more, you\'ll see what happens when you do that. They have MDO going 6-1, Sunday Break going 11-0. Seriously.

[TGJB]

We\'re working on the stool sample thing. We can\'t figure out where to put it.