Comments from a Ragozin User

[TGJB]

All right, I just got in and saw this string. One of the problems with dealing with this the way it is presented here is that there are a lot of issues that range from related to semi-related to unrelated that have already come up in this discussion, and they have to be sorted through so the discussion can stay focused. As many of you know this is the stuff I\'m always most eager to talk about, and I am more than willing to host a general discussion of this subject over the next few days. I\'m going to start by making a few points now, and then I\'m going to try to find some earlier posts that apply-- there are a lot, and I would be very happy if others can list some of them so the new guys can use the search engine on the site to look them up.

1-- As George (Mandown) pointed out, the only way to make figures is by using the previous figure histories of the horses. (By the way-- for those who don\'t know, let\'s establish George\'s credibility-- he co-founded the Racing Times with Steve Crist, among other things, and manages our data base. He knows what he\'s talking about, although it remains a mystery why the English can\'t speak English).

When you begin creating a data base, you create figures based on large population studies (par times, class levels etc.). Once you have a rough data base, you get rid of the pars (which aside from being non specific to the small group of horses you are measuring, usually are based only on the winners of the races), and start using ALL the horses in ALL the races to make your figures. This is true of all serious figure makers-- Beyer, TG, Ragozin. It\'s what is called the \"projection\" method, I think Crist came up with the name, but I could be wrong.

Also keep in mind that the figure relationship between horses in a race that has been run are fixed, by beaten lengths, ground loss, and weight-- we can\'t give one horse a figure we \"want to\" without firmly fixing all the other figures in the race in place.

2-- Anyone who has not already done so should listen carefully to my presentation from the DRF expo, which can be found on this site, and examine the scientific evidence I presented. You will come away understanding that for a lot of reasons, track \"speed\" does not remain constant throughout the day. So the question becomes how to evaluate the speed of the track as the day goes along-- making the ASSUMPTION the track stays the same is dead wrong, and results in creating and applying an AVERAGE variant for the day, which will give some horses figures that are too fast and others figures that are too slow. If you have one foot in a fire and the other in ice, on average you are nice and warm. Much more on this can be found in other posts.

For starters, take a look at my post of 6/28, \"Friedman/Change of track speed\", a lot of which applies here. LF had posted a response to a question by Class Handicapper, and this was my critique. Also, Jim-- point me to my exact quote about making the Derby figure, so I can see the context, and what I said.

More to follow.

[jbelfior]

Asfuth---


These \"magical\" trainers are not in every race.

It certainly would be \"silly\" (better word to use than stupid) to try to guess who\'s using that day and who\'s not when handicapping a race they have a horse in.



Good Luck,
Joe B.

[asfufh]

Joe B, If I\'m not mistaken, I\'ve noticed you commenting on your bets in races with a magical trainer(s).
Asfufh

[miff]

Asfuth,

For as much as you would like not to believe it, certain guys are using performance enhancing drugs, not nutrution, to move horses way up, they just haven\'t been caught. I never said the whole game was crooked, just certain trainers.

I assume from your post that you believe there are no trainers using drugs, none, zero? How long have you been playing/watching the game? Everyone associated with the game KNOWS that illegal drugs exist and represent the greatest threat to the game as we know it.What do you know that nobody else knows.Honestly, I\'d love to hear.

[miff]

Joe B,
For many years I have also noticed that the juicers do not work their magic at the SPA.I don\'t know why and except for Pletcher( does he or doesn\'t he) no one seems to have horses consistantly running their eyeballs out, race after race.

>making the ASSUMPTION the track stays the same is dead wrong,<

Can you clarify this a bit please?

Absent evidence of the types of changing conditions that could/would impact track speed (moisture, track maintenance, sun, wind, etc...) do you start with the assumption that the track speed \"probably\" wouldn\'t change?

or

Do you immediately assume your analysis of the race results is correct and apply a different variant despite the lack of evidence for a track speed change?

I realize, that each set of circumstances is different and there are no hard rules. I\'m just trying to get at your general thinking.

Second, do you agree that it make sense to give greater weight to races with older more consistent and experienced horses when trying to determine the track speed because of the often surprise and excessive improvement from lightly raced and younger horses?

[TGJB]

First of all, yes, I place far more weight on proven horses who run in tight figure ranges.

The point of the expo presentation is that any combination of factors can cause a change in track speed-- if they harrow it between races, if they don\'t (which happens at some tracks), if they water it at a pace faster than it evaporates (gets wetter), at a pace slower or not at all or intermittently (gets drier, or drier then faster when watered again-- or maybe not, depending on soil characteristics and moisture content at the start of the day).

You can use any working hypothesis at all-- that it stays the same, or that it doesn\'t. But then you test it out by looking at the figures you end up assigning using that hypothesis-- and it is wrong to ignore that step because 1) the scientific evidence says so (see the expo presentation) , 2) the basic premise of doing figures this way is in fact that past figure histories are a good guide to what they will run-- if that\'s not true not only can we scrap the entire method of making figures, but it would make no sense to use them to bet, and 3) I say so. At this point I\'m pretty sure I\'ve done more track days than Ragozin, Friedman and Andy combined ( about 10 tracks a day for 22 years), and it is absolutely clear from working with the data that the data base comes up much tighter when you do it this way. Andy, by the way, came to the same conclusion independently. -- the only one who insists upon a totally dogmatic approach based on assumptions completely unfounded in science is Ragozin. And if you don\'t want to take my word for it, you still have 1 and 2.

And this brings us to the question of tightness, or \"pairing up\". There are a lot of guys who have made their own figures who post here (I\'m only aware of one guy who uses Ragozin who made his own, and he only switched because he\'s pissed at me for throwing him off the board), and every one who has made figures knows that the tighter your range-- the more horses run back to previous numbers-- the better, in terms of evaluating your accuracy. Again, the relationships within a race are frozen-- so if you have a way of doing the race that gives lots of horses figures in the range they usually run, it is far more likely to be correct than doing it in such a way that  5 horses, who were only 20% to run a number much better or much worse than usual, do so-- work out the parlay on them all doing it at the same time.

Which in turn goes to a comment that Friedman made at the expo, which I only caught when I recently watched the DVD. He said in effect that it was wrong to \"give them what you want\" because over the course of time, all random distributions are possible, and will appear. Aside from the fact that you can only give one horse per race \"what you want\" (the relationships being prescribed, see above paragraph), he\'s right-- but only BEFORE the race. After the race, when we sit down to do the figures, there is only one \"distribution\" possible, and we can only move the WHOLE thing up and down (faster/slower), looking at the various possible scenarios trying to figure out what happened. In practice, once you have a tight data base, the right one usually jumps out at you for about half the races in the card on your first pass, and the others have only two scenarios, occasionally three. Once you have done the obvious races, though, you have some idea of the \"shape\" (LF called it \'texture\") of the day, and it helps in working through the other scenarios.

I had math (among other things) forced down my throat when I was a kid, and although I skipped a couple of grades I eventually rebelled and dropped out of school, so my formal math background is limited. I have been told what we do is regression analysis, and if you want to hear a great description of something similar in a completely different context, check out the last act of Tom Stoppard\'s \"Arcadia\". When I heard it the hair on my neck stood up.

[asfufh]

Miff, I believe there is a certain (low) amount of cheating in racing as there probably is in most human endeavors especially those that involve cash. The difference between you and me on the amount of cheating going on in racing is in degree. It appears you think it is rampant (i.e. at least 10 or 20 percent of the races at the better tracks involve cheating) while I prefer to think the percent is much lower (1 or 2%) until proven otherwise. To me, Oscar would fall in the 1 or 2% ( even though they never nailed him with anything specific).
BTW, I said that the \"magical\" trainers may be using better nutrition OR training methods (like using the TG numbers to make their claims and place horses in races). Has anybody done an objective study on these trainers to see if they are doing (legal)things uniquely different from the competition?Asfufh

>Has anybody done an objective study on these trainers to see if they are doing (legal)things uniquely different from the competition?<

IMO....

1. Some trainers spot their horses better.

2. Some trainers aren\'t as financially pressured to run horses that have physical problems hoping to get any piece of the purse. They can give a horse some extra time and run when ready. I was a hotwalker (in what seems like another life) and I can tell you for certain (100%) that there are horses running in the claiming ranks that shouldn\'t even be on the track training let alone racing.  

3. Success tends to generate the type of enthusiasm that leads to harder work that then leads to greater success.

4. Success tends to attract new owners with better horses.

Call me naive if you want, but I think the drug problem is somewhat overrated. There is almost certainly some abuse, but even a drugged horse has to run at its proper level, at the right distance, when fit enough to withstand the rigors of racing without breaking down etc...

You can give me all the drugs you want, you might make me a little faster runner, but I\'m still not going to win any medals unless you put me against the right opponents, at the right distance, and when I am feeling well enough to perform. Some trainers don\'t even do that much.



Post Edited (09-17-04 22:27)

[TGJB]

I don\'t want to get trapped into an extended discussion of this, because I want to focus attention on the other string, and this is a TG board. But winning isn\'t the test-- those who use accurate figures (and even just decent ones) and handicap a circuit regularly, can tell who is doing SOMETHING extreme (whether it\'s drugs is another story) pretty easily. And there is a lot of it going on.

And this is aside from more direct evidence, like a lot of them using the same vet, and him shooting off his mouth to everyone in sight.

[miff]

Asfufh,

I believe there are many modern brilliant trainers who use the tools you have identified to improve a horse they take from an inferior horsemen/trainer.

That aside, there is no explanation for the incredible  performances of horses trained by Mullins,Frankel,Dutrow,Asmussen, Oscar,Richey, Amoss, Shulman,Pletcher and a host of others, especially the claiming trainers.

After 40 years in the game, owning horses,watching 80k races,enjoying good friendships with several prominent trainers,
I have to believe there is much more than 1 or 2 % cheating, although I do not have a percentage in mind.The leading trainer in NY for many years told me to my face, 7 years ago, that the game has become a \"VET\" game and it was time to get out, he did.

It is interesting to note a study made by Mark Hopkins and Andy Beyer where they traced the rapid sudden increased win percentage of certain trainers to the early 1990\'s. Coincidence, I think not, but I respect your right to differ.

[derby1592]

Just one recent data point - 10% of horses were using milkshakes at dmr this summer. This is the premiere CA race meet. That means just about every dmr race probably had at least one horse that had been \"shaked\" and this is just one way to try and get a \"chemical\" edge. There are many, many others and some may be even more popular. Then you can throw in all the other \"non-chemical\" ways to cheat as well (take a look at the latest British racing scandal).

Add it all up and you are fooling yourself if you think most races are run cleanly.

As a bettor, I can manage around it in various ways but as an owner or a trainer or a rider, I would be very concerned. I would like to believe that a large percentage of them want an open, level playing field and they must realize that they are not getting it today. I am surprised that there is not a stronger groundswell of support but the backstretch culture is very unique and works against any sort of reform. Despite that, I think we are starting to see signs of it from all sorts of different angles. Let\'s hope so anyway.

Chris

>especially the claiming trainers. <

IMO, this is where the majority of the \"suspect\" performances occur.  When semi-crippled older horses magically improve several lengths over their lifetime best after one week in some else\'s hands, you know something freaky just happened.

If a competent trainer has a barn full of  choice well bred babies and only runs those that show something in the morning, it should really be no shock if he compiles a very good record. If he is also patient, rarely spots his horses poorly, and has the benefit of taking his time with them, he should be able to compile a really outstanding record. Select trainers have been doing that for decades.  

If an excellent horseman takes over the training of a talented horse from a more average horseman, it should be no shock if he improves it several lengths after he has for a couple of months. Sometimes, that means first time \"new trainer\" off a layoff.

I think it\'s a mistake to lump all the trainers with outstanding records into the drug category. Some guys get great stock - which feeds on itself - and they are also very competent at placing that stock.

Why should horse training be any different than any other sport?

Is Phil Jackson a drug trainer?  
He turned the Lakers on a dime when he took over.

How about Parcells?

How about Riley?

Some guys are simply better coaches (trainers) and better coaches (trainers) tend to attract better players (horses) which creates a cycle of success.

JB,

>But winning isn\'t the test<

I agree. That\'s the point I am trying to make also. There are guys out there with outstanding records because they are getting a ton of high quality stock and they developing and spotting the horses very well.

They shouldn\'t be lumped together with guys that are moving older horses up several lengths to new peaks in a week.

I think some trainers that are being tossed into the \"suspect\" category are just terrific horsemen.

[derby1592]

Until it gets cleaned up, everyone gets lumped together. Unfortunately , every outstanding performance (equine or human) now comes under suspicion - just or unjust. If the innocent ones they don\'t want to be falsely accused then they should be screaming for reforms and should be volunteering to be tested.

Chris

P.S. It is definitely not just the claimers...