Repost from 11/12/01: Regarding the Texture of the Track

[goofything]

Here is the entire original thread:

I Repeat: Regarding The Texture Of The Track

Posted by TGJB on November 12, 2001 at 17:45:07:

I posted this a few days ago, expecting it ti be a lightning rod. The silence has been deafening, considering it deals with questions a lot more relevant than most of what appears here. So I\'m posting it again. There are related issues to discuss as well, but I\'m saving those for what I hope will be the upcoming dialogue.

: I suggest to all that they read Friedman\'s hilarious post of 11/9 (BC & Track Bias) where he says that although no horses that raced inside on BC day ran tops, and 11 of 21 horses that ran outside did, that the overall \"texture\" suggested that there was no dead rail.

: On a related subject: take a look at the figures Ragozin posted for the BC Distaff. This goes to a point I have raised several times: Ragozin\'s dogma does not allow for a track changing speed through a day unless he KNOWS of a reason why it should. He has the Distaff collapsing, with Unbridled Elaine and Spain going back 3 points each, but running 1-2, and the others running poorly as well. The way he covers himself is by putting a G (gusts) in front of the figures--meaning, well, take this figure with a Grain of salt.

: What he has clearly done is have the whole day at the same speed--I had the track much slower earlier in the card. Ragozin players, see how the Distaff looks if take 3 points off Len\'s figures.

: I predict that at least 75% of the horses in those 3 races--the Distaff and the two non-BC races--will go forward in their next start, on Ragozin, and that almost all the horses that ran on the rail will go forward in their next start--on both.

: Which is why we have marked them with an X. TGJB



Posted by Paul on November 13, 2001 at 10:14:13:

I made Figures for many years for N.Y. and Ca.. I encountered occasions several times where the results weren\'t \"in line\" with the rest of the card. I found that the races were many times Filly and Mare races. Always unusually slow, without a logical explanation.



Posted by John Del Riccio on November 13, 2001 at 07:08:22:

Races 1 & 2 on BC day at BEL were disjoint from the rest of the card. The Distaff was unusually

slow, but Spain & Elaine were really the only ones running much from the 1/4 pole to the wire.



Posted by bj on November 12, 2001 at 20:25:14:

*** You are preaching to the converted here JB - if i didn\'t think your numbers were any good i wouldn\'t pay almost 40 bucks Canadian to buy them . Your posts are meant to be provocative to Ragozin players who interlope on this board . My experience in reading these guys over the years is that you won\'t win them over no matter how compelling your arguments may be . A valid comparison done by a third party such as the one contemplated by Sport Stat would not be so easily refuted . bj



Posted by TGJB on November 13, 2001 at 20:56:43:

TG--My experience is that you can win some Ragozin players by engaging the fundamentalist ones in a public dialogue, about the methodology itself. And especially when there are truly stark examples that can be looked at, as in this case.

You don\'t have to prove to me you\'re not a sycophant. TGAB



Posted by Marc on November 13, 2001 at 10:57:57:

:A valid comparison done by a third party such as the one contemplated by Sport Stat would not be so easily refuted .

I\'d be fascinated to hear how a third party can \"prove\" that any speed figure is superior to another.



Posted by Da winner on November 13, 2001 at 01:33:40:

BJ is right. I\'ve used Ragozin Sheets for years. When you attack their approach as \"hilarious,\" it feels like an insult to me too -- it implies that my winnings have just been lucky since they came from readings of bad figures. Your contemptful language just gets me pissed and makes me take your pokes at them personally. If the Ragozin operation is such a joke, how come you and half of your staff are alums? If you started the discussion with some respect, you might get more \"dialogue\" and less bs.



Posted by Prol on November 13, 2001 at 21:05:31:

:agreed....I\'ve never posted hear, but it\'s this type of dialog initiated by you and your staff that won\'t even allow me to purchase your product...I\'d use the word \"classless\" to describe your post, tho I\'m sure your figures are competitive with those given out by Ragozin



Posted by TGJB on November 13, 2001 at 20:45:28:

TG--As I pointed out on another thread, the reason it is hilarious is that their dogma forces them to defend an indefensible position when examined in the light of their own data--no horses on the inside running tops, more than half the ones on the outside running tops. Think about that for a minute.

As I said, I meant this to be a lightning rod. I recently complimented Friedman here when he deserved it (which he has never done me), and I treat this silliness the way it deserves as well. There are also far reaching implications about what they did with that day, which I\'ll be getting into when I have everyone\'s attention. TGJB



Posted by Marc on November 12, 2001 at 18:16:43:

He has the Distaff collapsing, with Unbridled Elaine and Spain going back 3 points each, but running 1-2,

Unbridled Elaine-- big trouble line makes sense for the backwards number. And though Friedman reportedly liked Spain\'s line, I thought she was awfully likely to regress off of the two big efforts (they were big on Ragozin\'s numbers), then another effort 3 weeks later. So both of those numbers made sense.

:and the others running poorly as well.

Once you get past the first two, the rest in that race are pretty easy.

:What he has clearly done is have the whole day at the same speed--I had the track much slower earlier in the card.

I thought is was quicker earlier, no? Just based on the Juvy filly time...

Not in any way disagreeing that the rail was dead. OTOH, don\'t horses react to efforts made on dead rails? Isn\'t it more taxing to run on them? If so, why are they almost all a lock to move forward next time?



Posted by TGJB on November 13, 2001 at 20:50:56:

TG--I\'m going to say it again, advisedly, since I have in front of me Ragozin figures going into the Distaff, and what he gave them--see what happens if you take off 3 points. The question is not whether you can come up with a scenario explaining why the best filly race of the year TOTALLY collapses, but whether it is right. Do you really believe that in the biggest race of the year every single horse ran well off its top? And you\'re not even getting to see what doing the day that way means in terms of the first 2 (non-BC) races. It is completely, definitely, wrong. TGJB



Posted by AT on November 14, 2001 at 11:31:03:

I guess I don\'t really understand what your point here is. You really can\'t \"prove\" your charge until these horses run back. It\'s you against them at this point. Why would someone who has had success with Ragozin respond favorably to your argument?

Point out examples BEFORE the next race with these horses and you might be able make some inroads but when you start a post out in the insulting manner that you did here, it\'s pretty hard to take you seriously.

If you\'re able to identify instances where RAgozin numbers are inferior prior to a race, I\'ll listen. But until then, I can\'t take these comments as anything other than an attempt to increase your credibility with your own users and to appease the blood-thristy TG crowd on this board.



As for comments in this string talking about Ragozin players having an axe to grind, that\'s laughable. The majority of us welcome the T^G players. We\'re betting against each other and if we believe the numbers we\'re using are more accurate, then we have an advantage. I never can understand why TG players don\'t feel the same way. If any group seems to have an axe to grind, it would be TG players judging from this BB.

The TG product is high-quality IMO, I just prefer Ragozin. I have won quite alot of money using their figures. In order to get me to switch products, you\'d need to demonstrate to me that I can win MORE money using your product. You can\'t do it by making claims that are purely speculation at this point.



Posted by HP on November 13, 2001 at 12:16:35:

So it wasn\'t a lightning rod as you expected. Come on, you read this board. First off, most of the people who post here really don\'t have a clear idea of how these figures are made, EVEN IF THEY THINK THEY DO (including myself). Furthermore the people you are talking about, the diehard Rag guys who really have an axe to grind, could care less what you have to say and you should know this by now.

I believe you should try to gain ground with new users and direct all your marketing efforts this way and never mention Ragozin again. As Bill Clinton would say, \"I feel your pain\" and respect your efforts to raise this to a real examination of methodology, but as you initially said \"the silence was deafening.\" You\'re not going to get any satisfaction and you might as well accept it already and stop beating your head against the wall. Push your strenghts and improve and refine your products and make it digestible for a new audience. Your product is unique. Raggies are Raggies. Case closed. HP



Posted by TGJB on November 14, 2001 at 17:24:56:

TG--We have picked up LOTS of Raggies. It is much easier here than at the track, where they have to endure peer pressure. TGJB



Posted by HP on November 15, 2001 at 08:50:24:

I would hate to see you squandering much-needed energy. Best of luck and keep it up. HP

[Jim]

Wow, that was great. Is Jerry Bitter twisted or what?

Jerry, let me help you out... http://www.psych.org/

Serenity now, Jerry!

[HP]

Jim, still waiting for your PRE-RACE handicapping insights with those dynamite figures you use. Your post-race comments on the Coolmore were great. I especially like the part where you used a 3/2 shot all over your tri tickets (but not on top!). You needed The Sheets for that play, huh? And you had Dianehill at 5/2? Big day. Was that you behind me at the IRS window?

These dynamite TG spring numbers have me swimming in cash. Come on Jim, strut your stuff. HP

[Jim]

Uh HP,

I never promised any pre-race handicapping insights. But if you are looking for some, check out the Derby thread I started - I gave my opinion there. Though, it says nothing of how I will play the race. I\'m not looking for a contest, not bragging, and couldn\'t give a flying whoop what you think of me.

By the way, you missed my 5-1 shot in the last that day. I love how you guys pick and choose things from my comments to put your spin on them - talk about insecure. What is so difficult about my comment supporting the TG analysis, saying I lost on it too, then telling you where I won a couple of races on the same card? You guys are something.

Sorry you took my comment that the Sheets were having a good Spring as bragging. As I have explained several times now, I said it to see if the same were true for other players. With all this whining I guess I have my answer.

[HP]

\"Sorry you took my comment that the Sheets were having a good Spring as bragging.\"

Jim, it was bragging. After reading your posts, I think you\'re just flat out lying. How can you make money playing this way? 3/2 and 5/2? Even if you hit at 5/1 you\'re still losing! I\'m sure some people do make money using the Sheets. I\'m just as sure this group does not include you.

Too bad you can\'t demonstrate the power of The Sheets with a pre-race example. Would probably kill your massive 5/2 prices.

\"By the way, you missed my 5-1 shot in the last that day. I love how you guys pick and choose things from my comments to put your spin on them - talk about insecure.\"

Didn\'t miss it. I don\'t believe you. It\'s called past-posting. Lots of people do it. Since you have to resort to talking about scores that may or may not have happened, I think regarding insecurity you should look in the mirror. What\'s your point? You don\'t like Jerry and you use the Sheets. Lots of people don\'t like Jerry. I hear ya.

You used Ethan Man at 3/2. You didn\'t \'support the analysis\'. There was no analysis that said to use him at 3/2. At this point, I\'m not even sure you can read. You and Scott should have a powwow.

Dianehill was 5/2. Fabulous. This is why you pay for The Sheets? Post some more. Jim, you can get these plays from the Form and save yourself a few bucks (to lose).

As for your Derby comments, of course you\'re not talking about how you will play the race. You don\'t do that. Keep it up. HP

[Jim]

Jeez HP, what is it with you kiss as*, Jerry Bitter lackeys?

You guys are so paranoid and insecure. Now you are calling me a liar too. I\'ll never say I support any TG analysis again on this board. I wonder if YOU can read? The analysis did support Ethan Man. As Jerry likes to point out, the analysis doesn\'t tell you who to bet (but somehow my Derby analysis should, what a crock!). However, if you didn\'t read the Lexington analysis and come away thinking that Ethan Man was the best of the group then you need to take some reading comprehension remedial courses.

I agreed with it, and like the analysis, thought there was a degree of vulnerability with him. In a short field like that I have made many, many big scores by catching the favorite third over two nice prices on top. It would have happened here if EM could have limped into third. I\'m sorry this wagering strategy offends you. Seems like your problem to me because I like it.

I\'ll also never tell you about anytime I ever make a score at the track. I wouldn\'t have done it here (and certainly didn\'t brag about making a score), but I only told you I won by prefacing that I lost quite a bit on the Lexington first. But, you guys are way too paranoid and insecure to hear anything like that.

The more I think about it, it\'s laughable. You think I was bragging by telling you about two small wins? Too funny. You don\'t believe the 5-1 shot in the last? You slay me! Think I give a rat\'s as*? LOL Bragging would be my telling you I made thousands or hit several tri\'s and super\'s. That didn\'t happen, but see the difference? But you are just too ignorant to realize that. So, I\'m done with you HP.

Get your last shot in (like the singing wacko, Excitable Boy) because I\'ll ignore your foolish rants from this point forward. Me? I\'ll stick with my analysis and trying to have normal conversations and an exchange of opinions and information with handicappers.

What a couple of lunatics! :0)

[HP]

That\'s a long response from a guy who doesn\'t care. That\'s you, Mr. Normal Conversation.

You\'ve been a wiseguy and an instigator from the word go over here. You\'re doing it in this email. ROTW does not give plays. The analysis that you pay for does. Again, reading is fundamental, and you are deliberately mixing in nonsense to attack TG. I\'m an asskisser. Your material is as \'dynamite\' as the spring figures you cite.

Bring your A game to the hoop. I\'m tired of swatting away your vague and lame post-race comments, and this last email detailing your \'strategy\' for the Lexington is hilarious. I\'m thrilled to have knowledgable guys like you pounding Ethan Man so you can catch the \'nice\' watered down tri when he makes third. Keep playing those tris and stay out of the exactas. You\'re a sharp one. Thanks, HP

[TGJB]

You got a big kick out of saying that about me, didn\'t you. Life must be boring in the suburbs.

[HP]

Man I\'m just so tired of kissing your ass.  These devastating insults are brutal for a sensitive Brooklyn guy like me. This Jim guy is a hoot.

Wait, let me pucker up. Here it comes.

These figures have been DYNAMITE this spring! I\'m buying a new car. Thanks. Everybody loves you around here. HP