In Case You Missed It

[dpatent1]

Thanks to Alydar for rescuing my post on the Rag. board and putting it up here.  I stand by every letter in that post and by my characterization of it here.

As I said when I first posted here, I did not expect to change anyone\'s mind but I did hope to engage Jerry on some of his assumptions and have thus far been disappointed.  I have heard no response on my question regarding the turf course last Saturday and what basis -- other than his own beliefs -- does he have for changing the variant a full 6 points based on 2-3 hours of evaporation on a cool and cloudy day.

As for dirt variants, I have never claimed that it can\'t change during the day.  In fact, Ragozin does make adjustments for changes in weather, moisture, etc. and they admit it.  But you only do it where you have evidence of some intervening act that could have a meaningful impact on the variant and a wealth of historical information on what the effect is.  And since we\'re talking physics and chemistry here, the effects of moisture, etc. are demonstrable and consistent.  I would wager that Jerry bumps his variants up and down even with the same changes prevailing depending on whether he thinks the horses should have run faster or slower than they did.

One other misstatement by Brown where he says that \'groups of horses\' don\'t do strange things.  Who flunked statistics here?  Groups do strange things all of the time.  It\'s just a matter of probability.  If 6 horses are each 80% to bounce, then they will all bounce about 25% of the time.  When there are approximately 100-200 races being run every day in this country, and over 30,000 per year, you will see a lot of strange results.

And please, HP, stop this nonsense of attacking me for the acts of others.  It\'s a cheap and old trick.

See everyone on the 6th.

[HP]

I have no idea what \'acts of others\' you are talking about. You \"stand by every letter in that post (on the Rag board) and by my characterization of it here.\" Good. I say it\'s dirty pool putting it up in a forum where Jerry can\'t respond. That\'s it. Period.

I\'m sure you\'ll be contacting a chemist or soil expert and posting his response any day now to back up your (and I could use other words) rank speculations on moisture and its effect on grass.

In case it wasn\'t clear, it should be now. I addressed other comments to \'Jerry Jr.\', but there should be no confusion now about what this is about. For a seemingly intelligent guy, regarding this specific point, your conduct is disgraceful. You should really apologize and admit that your post here was enough and you went overboard with your redundant post in Deletedville (somewhere near Margaritaville). To make it PERFECTLY clear, I NEVER would have responded (I\'m retired!) if you had just posted on the TG board, where you had every opportunity to say what you wanted and Jerry could respond.

What\'s really hilarious is when you opened with \"Len probably won\'t respond...\" Why did you have to drag Friedman into it? Can\'t you just speak for yourself? No wonder they took it down. Fight your own battles. HP

[TGJB]

David G. Patent wrote:
>
> Thanks to Alydar for rescuing my post on the Rag. board and
> putting it up here.  I stand by every letter in that post and
> by my characterization of it here.
>
> As I said when I first posted here, I did not expect to
> change anyone\'s mind but I did hope to engage Jerry on some
> of his assumptions and have thus far been disappointed.  I
> have heard no response on my question regarding the turf
> course last Saturday and what basis -- other than his own
> beliefs -- does he have for changing the variant a full 6
> points based on 2-3 hours of evaporation on a cool and cloudy
> day.
>
> As for dirt variants, I have never claimed that it can\'t
> change during the day.  In fact, Ragozin does make
> adjustments for changes in weather, moisture, etc. and they
> admit it.  But you only do it where you have evidence of some
> intervening act that could have a meaningful impact on the
> variant and a wealth of historical information on what the
> effect is.  And since we\'re talking physics and chemistry
> here, the effects of moisture, etc. are demonstrable and
> consistent.  I would wager that Jerry bumps his variants up
> and down even with the same changes prevailing depending on
> whether he thinks the horses should have run faster or slower
> than they did.
>
> One other misstatement by Brown where he says that \'groups of
> horses\' don\'t do strange things.  Who flunked statistics
> here?  Groups do strange things all of the time.  It\'s just a
> matter of probability.  If 6 horses are each 80% to bounce,
> then they will all bounce about 25% of the time.  When there
> are approximately 100-200 races being run every day in this
> country, and over 30,000 per year, you will see a lot of
> strange results.
>
> And please, HP, stop this nonsense of attacking me for the
> acts of others.  It\'s a cheap and old trick.
>
> See everyone on the 6th.

TG--1. Let’s say I grant you for the sake of argument that all 6 horses were 80% to bounce (which is ridiculous—these were stake horses). Problem is, for your model to work, they all have to be 80% TO BOUNCE 6 POINTS OR MORE. There is probably NO stake horse that is 80% to bounce 6 points or more on any given day, but let’s say all were 50% to bounce 6 points or more (which is way, way too high). At that rate THE CHANCE OF THEM ALL DOING IT IS LESS THAN 2%. Incidentally, if you think you can find two older stake horses that are 80% to bounce 6 points in the same race I’ll take even money they don’t, even using Ragozin figures—as long as they are racing at the same circuits and distances as they earned their tops. Let me know.

2. I don’t know what track you were at, but it was sunny for the last few races, and windy before that. Again, ask yourself this—if the card had not included the Dixie or Preakness, what figures would Ragozin have assigned the grass races and the Schaefer? It should be obvious even to you that he would have no reason to believe the track was changing speed, and no reason to have all those stake horses running way off their tops. Which means either:

a. the track figures he assigned are wrong; OR

b. in all those situations where Ragozin doesn’t have (by your own and his standards) enough information—that is, an independent event (another race) to tie the variant to—he must get it wrong.

There is no third choice.

3. If historical information, knowledge of intervening acts etc., were sufficient, all of us would make variants simply by getting a weather report and groundskeeper info. But again, the entire premise of doing figures the way we do is that previous figure histories are predictive of future figures. If that assumption is not valid, we can all go home—because not only could you not make variants, you couldn’t use historical figures to predict outcomes and bet.

You’re an intellectually honest guy. How about posting requesting Friedman put up the 13th race on Preakness day, which they seem somehow to have forgotten? Or at least a post explaining why you won’t ask?

[dpatent1]

Jerry,

1) There is a difference between running 6 points off a lifetime top and bouncing 6 points in a race.  If you take each horse individually in that 11th race, you\'ll see your mistake.  And again, stake, shmake.  The only young, potentially developing horses in the race were Tenpins and Bowman\'s Band and both were coming off of big big efforts.

Tenpins -- Off of his 9 point new top 1- a 6 point bounce is entirely possible if not likely, don\'t you agree?

Lightning Paces -- His prior race was already 6.25 points off of his top, which was an ugly number -- heavily raced 5 y.o. who had been laid up after that 4\" was a huge x candidate.  90%+.

Tactial Side -- Another 5 y.o. who had just run .25 off of a top that was 5 points better than any other race he had run.  Two 4s and a bunch of 9s or worse.  This horse was also 90%+ to run a 9 or worse in the race.

Bowman\'s Band -- See my previous comment.

Ground Storm -- A 6 y.o. who was now two races removed from a 1, which we know is a knockout blow for most horses (save Cigar, Alysheba, Skip Away, etc.).  When this horse ran a 3 at 4 it killed him.  When he ran a 2 at 5 it knocked him out for the rest of the year.  You\'re surprised now that a 1 will set him back in a big way?

Grundlefoot -- Another older horse coming off a layoff.  His average race in 2001 was 5.5 points off of his top.  He had to be at least 65:35 to run no better than 6 points off of his top.

First Amendment -- Yet another heavily raced horse with a very ugly line.  His average race this year was 4 points off his top and he had just come off a major effort (2 points off his top).  Probably 80:20 to run 6 points off his top.

So please stop throwing up the term \'Stake Horse, Stake Horse!! This is my whole problem with your arguments and the people on this site.  Evaluate the specific evidence and give a basis for conclusions.

2)  So I guess the answer to my question whether you have any evidence from past experience that a turf course can firm up 6 points in a couple of hours -- and it was in the 60s Jerry with a lot of clouds -- is \'No\'.  Again, you predetermined the number, so how can anyone argue with you?

3) I\'d love to see the 13th race posted.  Anyone who wants to buy that race for $10 can do it.  I don\'t work for Ragozin and have no idea why it hasn\'t been posted.

To HP -- You need to relax a bit about all this.  In case you haven\'t noticed, my \'redundant\' post that was on the Rag. board is now on this board for the world to see and respond to if they want.  My reference to Friedman was in answer to Tiznow\'s question about whether he would respond to Jerry\'s \'Maryland, My Maryland\' post here.  I was right, wasn\'t I?

[TGJB]

David G. Patent wrote:
>
> Jerry,
>
> 1) There is a difference between running 6 points off a
> lifetime top and bouncing 6 points in a race.  If you take
> each horse individually in that 11th race, you\'ll see your
> mistake.  And again, stake, shmake.  The only young,
> potentially developing horses in the race were Tenpins and
> Bowman\'s Band and both were coming off of big big efforts.
>
> Tenpins -- Off of his 9 point new top 1- a 6 point bounce is
> entirely possible if not likely, don\'t you agree?
>
> Lightning Paces -- His prior race was already 6.25 points off
> of his top, which was an ugly number -- heavily raced 5 y.o.
> who had been laid up after that 4\" was a huge x candidate.
> 90%+.
>
> Tactial Side -- Another 5 y.o. who had just run .25 off of a
> top that was 5 points better than any other race he had run.
> Two 4s and a bunch of 9s or worse.  This horse was also 90%+
> to run a 9 or worse in the race.
>
> Bowman\'s Band -- See my previous comment.
>
> Ground Storm -- A 6 y.o. who was now two races removed from a
> 1, which we know is a knockout blow for most horses (save
> Cigar, Alysheba, Skip Away, etc.).  When this horse ran a 3
> at 4 it killed him.  When he ran a 2 at 5 it knocked him out
> for the rest of the year.  You\'re surprised now that a 1 will
> set him back in a big way?
>
> Grundlefoot -- Another older horse coming off a layoff.  His
> average race in 2001 was 5.5 points off of his top.  He had
> to be at least 65:35 to run no better than 6 points off of
> his top.
>
> First Amendment -- Yet another heavily raced horse with a
> very ugly line.  His average race this year was 4 points off
> his top and he had just come off a major effort (2 points off
> his top).  Probably 80:20 to run 6 points off his top.
>
> So please stop throwing up the term \'Stake Horse, Stake
> Horse!! This is my whole problem with your arguments and the
> people on this site.  Evaluate the specific evidence and give
> a basis for conclusions.
>
> 2)  So I guess the answer to my question whether you have any
> evidence from past experience that a turf course can firm up
> 6 points in a couple of hours -- and it was in the 60s Jerry
> with a lot of clouds -- is \'No\'.  Again, you predetermined
> the number, so how can anyone argue with you?
>
> 3) I\'d love to see the 13th race posted.  Anyone who wants to
> buy that race for $10 can do it.  I don\'t work for Ragozin
> and have no idea why it hasn\'t been posted.
>
> To HP -- You need to relax a bit about all this.  In case you
> haven\'t noticed, my \'redundant\' post that was on the Rag.
> board is now on this board for the world to see and respond
> to if they want.  My reference to Friedman was in answer to
> Tiznow\'s question about whether he would respond to Jerry\'s
> \'Maryland, My Maryland\' post here.  I was right, wasn\'t I?

TG--You haven\'t noticed that stake horses, who are given more time between races, treated better, and less often run with injuries, have different patterns? Please.

1. See my previous post--not one of these is 80% to bounce AT LEAST 6 POINTS. If they are all 50%, the chance of them all doing it is 2%. I said, 50% is way too high, and what does Bowman\'s Band do to the %?

2. The answer is not no, it\'s yes--and the way I (and you) can tell, in this and all other cases, is by what numbers the horses ran. And again, it was less than 4 points.

3. So you\'re going to post on the Ragozin board, right? I mean, it\'s kind of funny they posted all but one race, right? If you request it I\'ll explain to you why they didn\'t post if--which, since you are intellectually honest, is something you must surely want to know.

[HP]

Now I need to relax. I\'m not the one writing dissertations on this stuff. Whatever. It\'s obvious you don\'t think there is anything wrong with what you did. We disagree. I don\'t care what anybody else\'s response is to your post. I speak for myself. It\'s a gift.

See you on the 6th, where you will employ the Rag figures, which are derived from superior variants driven by a greater understanding of the underlying evaporation (or lack thereof) issue. Whew. It\'s hard for a guy like me to keep up with this kind of thing. I\'ve got my hands full with my vocabulary exercises. HP