Suspicious Differences

[TGJB]

No problem. Let me know what you find.

[miff]

Equally important is the seemingly low figs given out to many B/C runners that didn\'t pick up a hoof,IMO and interestingly, none of them to run back have picked up a hoof in their subsequent start. Doesn\'t that beg questions regarding the overall figs assigned on BC day?? JB, what do you think?

[TGJB]

Tell you what, Mike. After we get done discussing the stuff I want to discuss (BC ground, Derby beaten lengths) some time next week, if you can find a way to CLEARLY make your point, I\'ll address it. That means defining and proving several things you put as givens in that post, not making general statements. Think about it a few days and get back to me.

[Josephus]

Apropos BC Ground, my epiphany was the Volponi BC. Since then I\'ve been a TG user and quite selfishly,  I\'m very happy that there are Raggies who still haven\'t seen the light.
Anectdotal evidence: this past summer at the Spa I was sitting next to a very pleasant guy who had Rags.  He told me he used to work for them 10 or so years ago.  Of course I had TG, we were comparing the figs.  I remember extolling the virtues of horse I think it was Philadelphia Jim (I\'m not sure)who had a great negative fig that made him a must use on TG.  He poo-poohed me because his fig for the horse on Rags was something like 6 lengths slower a non contender.  Anyway if I remember correctly the horse ran a big race filling out a nice exacta with a Pletcher horse.  The guy was flabbergasted, and I told him that was just another example of why I made the switch from Rags to TG.  You just can\' trust their figs.

[Michael D.]

hey josephus,
anybody can redboard any racing product to the point of making it look brilliant. why not a pre-race post or two to prove your point? most of us who give our opinions on TG and TheSheets post pre-race opinions. why not give it a shot?

[kev]

I\'ve got the BC races on tape and on a 55\" tv so I will check it out later.

[kev]

I\'ve been looking at TG,beyer and DRF+Var. figs, and have found TG and DRF alot closer than the beyers have been. I think I have the Rag\'s sheets for the derby and the DRF and I guess TG has the 2004 derby up, I might check those out later. The problem with the DRF figs is at oddball distances where there way out of line.

[Josephus]

Hey Michael D.

I wasn\'t red-boarding.  I was just conveying an experience I had where I gave my opinion BEFORE THE RACE IN QUESTION.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Josephus wrote:

I remember extolling the virtues of
> horse I think it was Philadelphia Jim (I\'m not sure)who had a
> great negative fig that made him a must use on TG.  He
> poo-poohed me because his fig for the horse on Rags was
> something like 6 lengths slower a non contender.  

I\'ve lost some data, but I think I know the race Josephus is talking about. Philly Jim did have some TGraph numbers shedding nice light on him.

[Michael D.]

josephus,
ok, no pre-race opinions coming from you. no prob, many others don\'t like that course either.

[miff]

JB,

My point is very clear. The numbers for many runners on B/C Day (ESPECIALLY THE SPRINT) seem way to fast considering the performances. Clearly, all of the following runners raced back against much lesser horses and looked to be \"LAY OVER\'s by your figs. NONE won and only ran deceent.

Clearly I have to question the figs you awarded these runners when MANY do not come close to  their previous performance. Please don\'t tell me they all bounced I\'m doing this as long or longer than you.

Check out the latest performances of KELA, OUR NEW RECRUIT, MY COUSIN MATT, CHAMPALI,MIDAS EYES, Better TALK NOW ,SILVER TREE.I may have missed a few more.

Is that clear enough, we seem to be back to  this \"tieing back\"problem that I and other TG sheets users believe is causing numbers to be way to fast relative to the performance visually and adjusted for pertinents.

I can\'t imagine that BC Ground and beaten lengths in the derby are NEARLY as important as the explanation you will give for the above.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

miff wrote:

> Check out the latest performances of KELA, OUR NEW RECRUIT, MY
> COUSIN MATT, CHAMPALI,MIDAS EYES, Better TALK NOW ,SILVER
> TREE.

One of the \"key\" concepts in handicapping, and I lose on it too though, is that you must try to determine \"trainer intent\". This is especially so in cheaper claiming races. (I tend to avoid them like the plague unless I have some solid insight.) In other words \"what was the objective\", \"what is the objective\". Horses are not machines. You can\'t wind them up and send them out and expect that they will always run the same effort. The best trainers point horses for specific races. The trick is to ascertain for what was the horse \"intended\". (This can be done with TFig patterns certainly) I do it a little different I think.

For example I was looking very close at A Huevo in the DeFrancis, until I realized he\'d been started in a Grade I in New York. That was Dickenson\'s \"intended\" target and A Huevo wasn\'t up to it. The DeFrancis was more of a secondary goal and so I discounted him on the New York effort. Dickenson is very much a \"target\" trainer.

The intended race for the horses in the Breeders Cup was the Breeders Cup. I wouldn\'t expect them to be at their peak with many of these trainers four weeks later.

CtC



Post Edited (12-07-04 23:23)

[SoCalMan2]

FYI, I just provided a few examples I easily noticed because they were so stark.  I think if you compare the figures between the two sites for this year\'s breeder\'s cup, you will see additional differences of the same nature (although perhaps not of the same magnitude).  

I am also still not Alydar From California.

[Silver Charm]

Our Terminator dogs have been barking wildly since you first showed up.

You\'ll have a tough time convincing them.

If not then maybe Marc ??

[SoCalMan2]

Nobody cared about me when I first showed up.  It is only since this thread that anybody cared.  My other posts have simply been innocuous I guess.  Sorry to disappoint, but I shall continue trying, technology willing, to remain anonymous.  Also, I am not Marc.

(This message was edited to add last sentence. I did not want my seeming avoidance (in my post as orignally posted)of the question put to me by Silver Charm to cause errant speculation).



Post Edited (12-08-04 10:38)