Suspicious Differences

[SoCalMan2]

My apologies if the following has already been discussed.  I was just futzing about checking out the Breeders Cup numbers on the Ragozin Board as compared to the same numbers on the Thorograph Board, and I discovered some alarming differences.  Maybe I just don\'t get it, but can somebody explain to me the following discrepancies --

1) According to TG, Pts Grey Eagle and Clock Stopper ran the same figure, yet,  according to Ragozin, Clock Stopper ran 1 3/4 of a point faster.  In relative terms, shouldn\'t the relationship between how the horse\'s did be fixed?

2) According to TG, Midas Eyes ran 1/4 of a point slower than My Cousin Matt, yet, according to Ragozin, the difference between the two horses was 1.5.  Again, shouldn\'t the differences between horses in a race be fixed no matter what system you are using?

3) According to TG, Champali ran 1.5 points better than Clock Stopper, but Ragozin has them at the same speed.

These are just a few examples.  Now, I understand that the scales used by Thorograph and Ragozin differ, but can the difference in the scales be so great that it makes this much of a difference?  With horses at this caliber, I pay VERY close attention to small differences and these types of differences would completely alter my read of a horse\'s sheet.  I realize this may all seem picayune to some, but small differences can really affect pattern reads if you use a Len Friedman-type approach.

[jimbo66]

SoCalMan,

Jerry should be the one to answer your question, but I haven\'t seen him on the board in the last week or so, so I will give you a reson for the difference, but my answer is definitely the \"unofficial\" answer!

The ground loss calculations are different.  The distances apart at the finish are fixed, but the \"sheets\" figures also take into consideration ground loss and weight carried.  Presumably, T-Graph and Ragozin use a similar formula for weight carried (although I don\'t know this to be true), but their ground loss adjustments can certainly vary and I guess they do.

[TGJB]

Alydar, presumably. But either way--

We had three different guys look at the BC and do ground, as usual, because the races are important, the fields are big, and it\'s possible for someone to miss something. But I\'ll take a look at those horses myself if I get a chance at some point. Meanwhile, since you evidently use Ragozin, why did you post the question here instead of there?

And since you bring it up, did you look at the differentials between Ragozin and TG for this year\'s Derby? Did you catch the error Ragozin made in the beaten lengths that resulted in wrong figures for most of the field?

[SoCalMan2]

I am not Alydar. I am a customer of yours but also use Ragozin from time to time (I first used Ragozin in the 1980s but now use Tgraph more than I use Ragozin). I have no dog in the fight between the two entities. I am happy to reveal myself to you but do not want to do it on the board (I will try to email you separately). I used this board now because it is simply more user friendly than the Ragozin board (I can access your board from my office and am blocked from using Ragozin\'s by my office\'s surf block).  


I did see the beaten lengths issue on the Derby (I think it involved Limehouse and the horses behind him). In general, errors give me the heebie jeebies, and I prefer for them to come to light and be corrected rather than have to live with the uncomfortable feeling that sheets (of either company) are suspect.  I also appreciate the fact that you are more open to people raising these sorts of issues and honestly and openly discussing them.

[TGJB]

Got your e-mail, okay. The combination of Southern California (\"Alydar from California\") and invoking Friedman\'s name got me.

I\'ll take a look at it when I can. Problem is that on RaceReplays.com it\'s a small screen and a big field.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

SoCalMan2 wrote:

I also appreciate the fact that you are more open to
> people raising these sorts of issues and honestly and openly
> discussing them.
>

True words. I think in the end it boils down to the courage to discuss these issues due to the confidence in their convictions. By confidence, I don\'t mean arrogance. They do hundreds/thousands of races a day. Each race is analyzed with human imput. The horses don\'t have sensors on them to scientifically mark their precise location both in beaten lengths and paths wide.

CtC



Post Edited (12-06-04 16:26)

[NoCarolinaTony]

The sad thing is that the technology to put sensors sililar to GPS technology (ie see Keeneland experiment this year) is there. I would suspect the intial start up cost is prohibitive to most small tracks.

[TGJB]

Okay, we reviewed the BC Sprint to look at the horses SoCalMan2 asked about.

1-- Pt\'s Grey Eagle got beat a head, a neck, and 3 pounds by Clockstopper. Assuming equal ground loss that would give him about 3/4 point the better figure, so the only way Clockstopper could have gotten a much better number (as Ragozin gave it) would be if he was significantly wider. But as all 3 of our guys who did the race, as well as the DRF/Equibase trackman (see the chart) found, Clockstopper got a RAIL trip-- he actually SAVED ground slightly relative to Pt\'s Grey Eagle (who started the turn 2 and dropped to the rail late). Ragozin has a gross error (about 1 1/2 points) in the figure for Clockstopper.

2-- A similar situation exists between Midas Eyes and My Cousin Matt. MCM beat ME by 3 1/4 lengths, so assuming equal trips he would get 2 1/2 points the better figure. But ME was wide (our guys had 456, 33456, and 3345, the chart says \"raced four wide on the turn, was floated six wide leaving the turn\"), while MCM got a RAIL trip according to all 4 sources. Using 4 wide for ME you get a ground loss differential of 3 lengths, slightly less than the margin, and very similar figures for the two horses. The only way Ragozin could have MCM running a much better figure is if he has ME significantly closer to the rail, or MCM well off it. In looking at the relationships within the race on Ragozin, it looks like they got ME wrong. By a lot.

3-- Champali was 3 wide according to all 3 of our guys and the Equibase chart. As seen above, the problem is that Ragozin had Clockstopper 3 wide when he was actually rail, so he ends up giving them the same number, when Champali should get a much better figure.

Look-- this is the big leagues, and you guys are paying serious money for the data, and betting serious money based on it. You have a right to a serious, professional effort. There is no way it is okay to make these kind of errors for an event the magnitude of the BC. That\'s why we had 3 guys look at it-- it is beyond unlikely that all 3 would blow the same horses the same way. Clearly the Ragozin operation did not place the same importance on getting it right, and there is no excuse for that.

And maybe more importantly-- it is clear that the Ragozin office reads this board. How they respond to the information that they got it wrong will tell a lot about what they think of their customers-- as it has with similar situations in the past.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Very methodical TGJB. I know you have to be. What does the following in regard to wide paths mean? I know what 4w, 3w means, but I don\'t have a clue about 456, 33456, 3345:

TGJB wrote:

>(our
> guys had 456, 33456, and 3345, the chart says \"raced four wide
> on the turn, was floated six wide leaving the turn

I know your big races are sterling.

CtC

[TGJB]

456 means 4 path first third, 5 next third, 6 last third. The good ground guys (all are not created equal) break the turn up as needed-- it might be 45, 455, or 4445. They all have idiosyncracies-- the world famous Joe Monahan, who did ground for years for us and Ragozin, would have every horse something like 2232345567. That\'s overkill.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Let us know here how the Derby and Breeders Cup \"paths\" issue is reconciled over at \"The Rags\" board. They won\'t let me register over there. I think they see the I.P. coming from Chicago, don\'t have a serious Chicago clientele and they don\'t want a clown questioning their findings.

I do have to say, the only interesting things I read on that board came from those posting there using your product.

By the way, where is Silver Charm?

CtC



Post Edited (12-07-04 16:53)

[TGJB]

I think you can pretty much count on more on this subject. And since Eric made that bold definitive statement that they got the Derby right, I think we\'ll revisit that question in the days to come as well. Those guys are in for some well deserved scrutiny of their work-- and these are the kind of errors that anyone should be able to understand, whether they have made figures or not.

[Michael D.]

TGJB,
if i watch the races in question on the NTRA site, am i getting the same view as you get on racereplays.com (i don\'t subscribe to that)? i would imagine all sources get the same view for the BC? i think it\'s worthwhile to take a look, important stuff.

[TGJB]

I didn\'t go look at it again-- I just checked to see what 4 pros who did it indepently had, and saw they were all on the same page (and I\'m sure the Equibase coments are done by a group for the BC and checked). I would imagine NTRA, Racereplays.com etc. are all using a similar pan shot, and it shouldn\'t matter which you look at unless they don\'t show the whole field.

[Michael D.]

ok , thanks