Belmont 9/15

[Catalin]

David,

TG figures are much tighter than Ragozin figures anyway you measure it (trust me on that).  Lower standard deviation, much flatter top, smaller tails ,etc.

What this tells you or me or anybody else I\'m not sure.  The two sets of figures simply conform to the built-in bias (and I DON\'T mean that in any prejorative way) of the figure makers.  

TG:  Healthy horses can run races of similar quality (i.e. their tops) with some regularity.

Ragozin:  Even solid stakes class horses only run their bests once or twice a season.

Arguing who is right and who isn\'t is like debating the merits of the two major political parties.  It comes down to a difference of opinion.  What methodology seems most \"right\" to you?

[TGJB]

I appreciate that you are not being perjorative, but your statement is not completely true.  On the one hand, yes, if you use the individual horses\' histories (as opposed to broad averages) you will have more horses running back to earlier figures. But as I explained in my post of 6/10/02 (Figure Making Methodology II), you can\'t artificially make the figures fit if they don\'t.
Incidentally, it occurs to me that the sprint/route issue by itself would account for some \"variance\" difference. David, it would be interesting to see what happens if you measure them separately.

[Alydar in California]

    Catalin wrote:

  \"The two sets of figures simply conform to the built-in bias\"

    Is there any chance that the figures conform to the performances of the horses?

   \"(and I DON\'T mean that in any prejorative way)\"
     
  Sure you do. You are saying that the figures conform to built-in biases instead of to performances. And what the hell is \"prejorative\"? Do not pass go, Catalin, and do not collect 200 dollars. (And JB, what the hell is \"perjorative\"?) Let\'s go with \"pejorative.\" It has the advantage of being a word.  
   
   \"Arguing who is right and who isn\'t is like debating the merits of the two major political parties. It comes down to a difference of opinion.\"

   Arguing comes down to a difference of opinion? You are really out on a limb, Catalin. If we could get the damned disagreement out of disagreement, we could make some real progress, right?.  

   \"What methodology seems most \"right\" to you?\"

    Before we answer this question, shouldn\'t we learn all we can about the two methodologies? Isn\'t that what David is suggesting?

[Catalin]

JB:

I wasn\'t implying you made them \"fit\", just that if you subscribe to the theory that horses more often than not run within a tight range of their bests, you will generally feel more comfortable with a variant (or set of variants) for a card that has many horses running in line with what they\'ve run previously.  

Sometimes that means having separate sprint and route variants, or sliding the variant during the day if it appears something physical has happened to the track even on a clear/fast windless day.  For what its worth, when I made my own figures, I never wrestled with the dilemma of splitting variants.  I\'ve always felt that on some days there was so much about a track surface you could observe but not easily quantify with preset equations (effect of humidity, moisture evaporation, watering during the day, harrowing between races, etc.) that the only way to get it \"right\" meant splitting variants.


Conversely, since Ragozin believes horses don\'t run their tops that often, he will find little reason to \"slide\" variants for a day or distance.  On a clear/fast day, if that means that all horses running 9F bounce 5 points off their last, so be it.  If you believe as he does that this happens often, you\'re less likely to question whether something has happened to the racing surface during the day.


The point I wanted to make was that in and of itself, knowing that horses run within a tighter range on one product vs the other tells you nothing at all about their respective accuracy.

[thomas]

Maybe some kind of notation next to \'stand alone\' or questionable numbers would help. By the way if you guys are using DRF times for making  #\'s @ Rockingham be aware there has been some major data entry mistakes over the last 3 weeks.

[Alydar in California]

Thomas wrote: \"Maybe some kind of notation next to \'stand alone\' or questionable numbers would help.\"

  Welcome back, Thomas. You make an excellent point. Unfortunately, this is a case where a monopoly would be better than TG-Rags competition. Neither TG nor Rags wants to admit to weakness in a number. This is war. Ragozin marks questionable days and races and checks on them later--when he has the benefit of more evidence. I\'m sure JB does the same thing (in his own way). In a perfect world, we would know what they know. Damn this unholy competition!

[Alydar in California]

   JB wrote: \"I just did Sunday\'s Belmont figures, and if Ragozin did it the way they usually do (using \"objective criteria\", which really means making an assumption that the track changes speed either not at all or very little, and therefore using what amounts to an average) there will be some of the most extreme differences you will ever see.\"

JB also wrote: \"And, how does Ragozin measure \"physical resilience(y)\"?\"

  JB: This is unfair. In his book, Ragozin says that he sticks with one variant UNLESS the weather has come into play. The weather (and the work crew, I was told by a reliable source) came into play on Sunday. It also came into play on Preakness day. As for your use of \"objective\" and \"resilience,\" \"objective,\" in this case, means \"observable\": as in seeing rain falling on the track. And \"resilience\" means \"realizing that the rain will change the track,\" which necessitates making a separate variant--which Ragozin will base on the performances of the horses, as you do. See page 37 of Ragozin\'s book. And see the writings of Karl Marx. When attacking capitalism, Marx didn\'t make models of capitalism at its worst: during recessions, depressions, etc. He made models of it at its BEST, and he ripped THOSE to hell. Think about it.

[TGJB]

 HE\'S BAAACK...
Unfair? UNFAIR??
First of all, the most important part of your post concerns insults, and probably explains both your absence and (relatively) good mood.
Where I come from, \"objective\" means objective, and \"resilience\" is a physical phenomenom. You and I and everyone informed enough to follow this conversation know that Ragozin doesn\'t use objective criteria any more than we do, or measure resilience(y), and that Friedman\'s use of the terms is marketing aimed at those who don\'t know better. Even in practice they don\'t mean \"observable\", they mean observed-- see my story about the two Belmont grass courses (5/2/00), for one example. Or, \"observed and understood\"--the rail last B.C. day, and the change of track speed that day, were examples
of events they observed but did not understand, at least within the confines of their dogma.
The first major downybrook (and Michael wasn\'t even involved!) on this site concerned the 00 Wood Memorial (the 5/2/00 post was a response to David Patent),and Friedman at that time said they tied that race (only 2 turn race on the card)to the rest of the card, despite rain, sealing and unsealing of the track, and having to give out numbers they never would have given had they cut the race loose. I will guarantee you they did not do that 9/15 at Belmont, so the question is, on what basis (objective criteria) did they make that decision? That is why I brought this up, and it\'s a fair question.
Overall, excellent dialogue between you guys, and I\'m proud to say I can\'t imagine anywhere else it could have taken place.

[Alydar in California]

   Background music: Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians performing Dylan\'s \"A Hard Rain\'s A Gonna Fall.\" Sublime.

 JB wrote: \"First of all, the most important part of your post concerns insults, and probably explains both your absence and (relatively) good mood.\"

    You just had to go and be nice in order to knock me off stride. Yes, yes, yes, and if I can manage to dress her up like a Christmas tree, I will take her picture and send it to you (I\'m serious) so that you can see the uncanny resemblance.

  \"Unfair? UNFAIR??\"

    Yes, unless you think a caricature is fair. Ragozin knows that rain shuffles the deck, and you know that he knows that.

   \"Where I come from, \"objective\" means objective,\"

   Where I come from, \"objective\" means what the dictionary says it means: third definition: \"Based on observable phenomena.\" Where you come from, what does \"wrong\" mean? (I\'m just kidding, pal.)

  \"and \"resilience\" is a physical phenomenom.\"

    It is that and more. There is also spiritual resilience. Friedman wrote \"physical resilience of the track,\" I think. If you want to try to nail him for the sin of redundancy, do it in Texas--where he would probably get the death penalty.

   \"You and I and everyone informed enough to follow this conversation know that Ragozin doesn\'t use objective criteria any more than we do, or measure resilience(y), and that Friedman\'s use of the terms is marketing aimed at those who don\'t know better.\"

   I have a hard time believing that anyone is dumb enough to think that Ragozin counts the raindrops and adjusts his variants accordingly. \"Objective criteria\" are things Ragozin\'s trackmen can observe: rain, snow, etc. \"Resilience\" is Friedman\'s word for what is affected by the rain and snow. Rain = a change in the resilience of the surface = a shuffled deck = cut the race/races loose.

  \"Even in practice they don\'t mean \"observable\", they mean observed-- see my story about the two Belmont grass courses (5/2/00), for one example.\"

    This is a good story, and I would tell it if I were you, but it doesn\'t apply here. Your guy was at the track quite early in the morning and noticed that the courses were watered on different days, correct? On Sunday, it was raining in the middle of the card. Hard to miss, even for night owls like you and me.

  \"the rail last B.C. day, and the change of track speed that day, were examples
of events they observed but did not understand, at least within the confines of their dogma.\"

   You cleaned Friedman\'s clock on the BC bad rail. That was you at your very best. You were fair, too.

  \"The first major downybrook\"

  No. The word is \"donnybrook.\" It comes from a Dublin suburb that\'s famous for its brawls.

   \"(and Michael wasn\'t even involved!) on this site concerned the 00 Wood Memorial (the 5/2/00 post was a response to David Patent),and Friedman at that time said they tied that race (only 2 turn race on the card)to the rest of the card, despite rain, sealing and unsealing of the track, and having to give out numbers they never would have given had they cut the race loose.\"

   I remember reading that and thinking Ragozin made an error. But let me ask you a question. Why would you EVER link one race to another? (Let\'s leave aside races that are full of first-time starters, first-turfers, etc.)

  \"I will guarantee you they did not do that 9/15 at Belmont, so the question is, on what basis (objective criteria) did they make that decision? That is why I brought this up, and it\'s a fair question.\"

   It is a fair question. Why did you wait so long (on this string) to ask it? You buried the lead, pal. You buried it under an unfair caricature.

[TGJB]

    There was not an unfair thing in any of my posts. Friedman said “we only slide our variant when the physical resiliency of the track changes, a practice that produces accurate, objective numbers”. Aside from your putting words in his mouth (and giving him a base on balls), rain does NOT equal a change in the resilience of the surface. It may CAUSE a change in resilience, but even that’s an assumption, which is one of my points. He said they change variants WHEN the resilience changes, and to do that you would have to KNOW when the resilience itself changes, which means MEASURING it. To the degree any of us measure it, it is by the performance of the horses, which is another of my points.
    Once again: “Objective Criteria” are NOT things that Ragozin trackmen CAN observe (and again you have put words in Friedman’s mouth)—the Ragozin trackman could have observed the watering of the Belmont grass courses, but did not—it was observable, but not observed. Did it therefore not matter? Was it not objectively a factor? Further, there are other observable phenomena which may either not be recorded or understood to be relevant, let alone measurable (shade, and other things I detailed in “Changing Track Speeds”, 11/17/01). By Friedman’s own words this took place on Wood day ’00, and the same phenomena existed on 9/15 at Belmont—hence the issue. There are also phenomena that are NOT observable, but still relevant, like the interactions of different soil compositions with the elements.
   You may have been out buying Christmas decorations, so you may have missed Friedman’s Bella Belluci post of last week. Under the circumstances, the “unfair” business is annoying, considering the history, his comments, the fact that I quoted him correctly, didn’t take him out of context, and responded directly. He is spouting tripe in an attempt to make his figures appear scientifically accurate, and to snuff out critical analysis.
    I’m cutting this very short because I have a lot to do today.

[Alydar in California]

Oxford American Dictionary definition of \"unfair\": \"Not impartial, not in accordance with justice.\" Cheap shots from Friedman do not give you a license to caricature the way Ragozin makes figures. This is not just you against Friedman. If it were, you could justify your comments by citing his comments. The problem is that other people, noncombatants, read this stuff. To the extent that you were suggesting that Ragozin doesn\'t take rain into consideration, your comments were unfair to THEM.  

  Here\'s what you wrote: \"I just did Sunday\'s Belmont figures, and if Ragozin did it the way they usually do (using \"objective criteria\", which really means making an assumption that the track changes speed either not at all or very little, and therefore using what amounts to an average) there will be some of the most extreme differences you will ever see.\"

    Translation: Ragozin doesn\'t change his variant even if it starts raining in the middle of the card.

I\'ll deal with the rest of this later. Should be a lot of fun.

[TGJB]

Stop \"translating\" (translated as, putting words in my mouth). For the record, I will repeat again that Friedman-- speaking for the Ragozin office-- said in April 00 that they fit the Wood in with the rest of the day, despite rain, sealing, and unsealing of the track. New York is done by RAGOZIN. This was the infamous \"texture\" post, and it took me two years (and $1,000) to get them to admit that position was B.S. (in the post Preakness battle this year). I would also add that as far as I know, Friedman is now responsible for figures at more tracks than Ragozin.
I know damn well-- as I said-- that Ragozin is going to split the 9/15 variant, especially between the last two races, but probably not to the degree necessary to get it right(he\'ll hedge). My point is that this is in direct conradiction with their previously stated position on this exact situation, as well as reliance on \"objective criteria\", \"physical resilliencey\", and \"
texture\". It\'s not science, despite their attempts to make it appear so.
Yes, non-combatants read this stuff. EXACTLY. That\'s the only reson I\'m responding to this, because it eats up my time-- it\'s NOT fun.

[Alydar in California]

     JB,

     I don\'t enjoy trying to figure out what Friedman means when he uses certain words, but I know of no way around this. As you know, I promised him that I would never post on his board again. Proof that I have kept my promise is that Plever is still there.

    You neglected to answer my question: Why would you EVER link one race to another? Let\'s leave aside races that are full of first-time starters, first-turfers, etc. Let\'s also leave aside races that seem indecipherable for other reasons.

   Here are the questions you put to JimJerryJr:

   \"What are the \"objective criteria\" that Friedman referred to?\"

    Rain, snow, thaw. These things are observable. I don\'t care for \"criteria\" here, but I think these things are what he meant. In the same post, he called them \"physical realities.\"  

   \" how does Ragozin measure \"physical resilience(y)\"?\"

      By looking at the performances of the horses. Your mistake, JB, was confusing identification with quantification. Giving away Ragozin\'s book was also a mistake. Patton didn\'t give away Rommel\'s book. On a dry track, Ragozin will use the same variant for all the races. This is tautological: If nothing changes, everything remains the same. You\'re going to say that there are important changes that Ragozin is unaware of or indifferent to. I agree, but that\'s not the point. I\'m not arguing that Ragozin\'s figures are better than yours.

       Dry track: The first eight races suggest that the track is three points slow. The ninth and final race suggests that the track is six points slow. Ragozin would not cut loose the ninth race. You probably would, and you wouldn\'t require a sudden storm or other observable phenomena before you did it. \"Stranger in a Strange Land,\" right? Circumnavigate the house before you opine on its color. The two sides you can see are yellow.

      Now say we have a rainy day. Since I\'m not inclined to lose to you in a nitpicking contest, I\'ll begin by saying that as little as one drop of rain will change the resilience of the track. It can\'t but be thus. The change will be much too small to detect with the timer, but it will be change regardless--even if it affects only the smallest pebble on the track.

   Now we get to the crux of the matter. Ragozin will use his trackman\'s observation of rain to IDENTIFY this track as one to which his do-all-races-at-the-same-variant rule does not apply. Then he will use the performances of the horses to QUANTIFY the effect of the rain. He won\'t do it in a way that would please you, but I don\'t believe he can breathe in a way that would please you.      

 You wrote: \"I know damn well-- as I said-- that Ragozin is going to split the 9/15 variant, especially between the last two races\"

     You said this on Tuesday. You didn\'t say it when you started this string. Instead, you left people with the impression that Ragozin would do little or nothing to capture the effects of the rain. That was unfair. But you corrected this impression. That was fair. But you corrected it in a manner that once again proves that you are the master of the aggressive retreat.  

\"rain does NOT equal a change in the resilience of the surface. It may CAUSE a change in resilience,\"

   This has to go a bit to become a nice try. As a verb, equal means \"to create something equal to.\" = was shorthand for cause, as you damn well knew.  

   \"That\'s the only reson I\'m responding to this, because it eats up my time-- it\'s NOT fun.\"

    Who started this string?

   \"Aside from your putting words in his mouth (and giving him a base on balls),\"

    Yeah. There I go again. My manifest hostility toward you and TG warped my judgment again.

[TGJB]

I can’t believe I have to do this.

1-  As I have stated here before, variants of surrounding races (and to a lesser degree days) are information bits, to go along with all the other information bits (data points, evidence) you use to make figures. I could walk you through examples, but you made figures, so you know them already.

2-  I don’t care what you think Friedman meant, and not because I don’t respect your opinion—you know I do. I care what he said, and about pointing out contradictions, holes in logic, unsupported hype, etc. If he took the position you describe I would beat his brains out with it (again), and you know it, which is why you agree with my variant methodology (there’s that word again). But doing it here does me no good, and I don’t need the intellectual exercise.

3-  He doesn’t measure physical resilience. He measures track speed, and OF COURSE HE DOES IT USING THE HORSES—THAT’S THE POINT. He pretends otherwise to give his figures the appearance of scientific objectivity.

4-  I don’t care what you say Ragozin has his trackmen do, or how you say he uses it. I want Friedman to say it, so I can beat his brains out again.

5-  I left people with the “impression” that they should ask Friedman what Ragozin did with 9/15 Belmont. I know they had to split it, BUT IF THEY ADMIT THEY DID THEY CAN’T JUSTIFY THE ’00 WOOD FIGURES. They are on record as saying they did not split the variant under identical physical circumstances (rain during the card, sealing and unsealing the track)—so my statement was true, and not misleading.

6-  That equals thing, aside from everything else, was at best what you think Friedman meant. I don’t care. You are giving him a base on balls because if he tries to defend his positions himself he’s dead, and he knows it. Make him earn his way on base.

7-  It’s not my fault you made that ridiculous promise. “I know of no way around this.” I do—knock it off. I don’t need to be in adversarial situations with those who are not my adversaries. Friedman can speak for himself—he chooses not to. Except when he’s taking shots at me, and deleting my responses. I’m unfair? He can post here to defend himself anytime he wants to.