Just For The Hell Of It

[TGJB]

Michael-- you say that most or all Ragozin guys know and understand the differences in methodology between Ragozin and TG. Just for the hell of it-- why don\'t you (and any Ragozin guys that want to jump in) tell me 1) what the primary differences are in methodology, 2) what the reasoning is behind each approach, and 3) in general terms, what the evidence is that backs up that reasoning.

[twoshoes]

This ought to be entertaining.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

This is a moment when I wish for the old days on this board when I was able to put on a costume like \"Ragboard Bob\" and launch into a tirade upon how I loved my sheets even though I didn\'t understand them.

lol

CtC

[Michael D.]

the last post got to you  ehh? (despite your \"rest your case\" line, i thought it just might, especially the part about northern dancer). evidence comes from my observations using your product for about three years, and the other guy\'s for a shortly lesser period. the main difference in methodology involves using changing variants throughout the day. from my observations, you are more willing to change a variant if you think most of the horses in a race ran contrary to what their current form and pattern would suggest, while ragozin is less likely to change the variant unless he can point to a specific change in the track. i do not save old sheets, and would not dig them up if i did, it\'s just not important enough for me to prove anything here. when the good racing starts up again, however, i will gladly pop in an give the evidence i see (aqu inner is not my thing, and the good crc racing has ended). in all due respect, the ragozin people i know have no interest in posting on your BB. you can trust me, or go on assuming \"most\" of them are idiots (assuming your competitors customers are idiots, and questioning their IQ?? hmmm, an odd business practice). i\'m sure you will go with the ladder, but i really don\'t care.
and for full disclosure sake, i use both products. more so ragozin now, but overall more experience with TG.

[Michael D.]

although, i must admit, i am worried that i could just be wasting my time..... you basically refer to \"most\" ragozin customers as idiots, and make jokes about their IQ, i come back and call that stupid, and i get the ban threat. if i make a point that you don\'t like, will i get the same?

[twoshoes]

Yeah JB - take the ladder.

[Michael D.]

and TGJB,
i don\'t like stating this without giving the evidence, but my final retort will most likely be that there are times when ragozin misses variants, and there are times when you go too far in tying races together. i think in both cases the mistakes are rare, and i think that both products are excellent (that is why i continue to give my hard earned money to each operation).

[TGJB]

Michael-- the ladder thing is great. And no question, you hone in like a lazer.

So I asked 6 questions-- 3 each for both TG and Ragozin. You answered the first one for each, and got them both half right-- I don\'t look at patterns, and Ragozin\'s position is a lot weirder than that-- in his book he limits the things that can change track speed during the day to rain, freezes and thaws, eliminating man made things like track maintenance. But you knew that. And you knew that Friedman, on his site, said in regard to Wood day (when FP won) that the track being sealed and unsealed during the card made no difference-- it was right to tie the races together.

The second and third questions for each are a lot more interesting and informative, and if you could focus well enough to really think them through you might see why. And you know what? You probably did better on the questions than most guys who buy Ragozin would.

Meanwhile, I wonder if you have noticed that no one has asked on the Rag site about the BC ground or the Derby lengths. Including you. Now, why is that?

By the way, I rested my case about focus and reading through the points because you proved it for me. Which everyone who reads this board except for you got.

Look, we appreciate your business. But I was pretty precise about my choice of words, as you will see if you go back and look, and I don\'t want you characterizing me or anyone else or calling people names unless they really have it coming. In fact, I don\'t think most Ragozin guys are stupid. But I think they are very lax in their thinking about some very important issues, and let Friedman get away with murder. Because, after you get past all this nonsense you have posted, which has served (unintentionally) as a diversion, the issues with the BC and Derby remain, and remain unanswered.

[Michael D.]

after reading thousands of posts on this board, i have noticed that the guy who says \"i rest my case\", then comes back after just one post, has most likely not proven his case.

[TGJB]

Michael-- I was resting a very specific case, about your not focusing and reading through the point, because your replies bore me out. As I have said before, you respond to general subject matter, not specific points. Go back to my original comment about Ragozin customers again, and read it carefully this time.

Which brings us AGAIN to (drum roll)... where we started. Not ONE Ragozin guy, including Michael, who uses both,  has asked Friedman where those horses were on the turn, or what beaten lengths they used in the Derby. Fellas, you are PAYING THEM for that data. They owe you an explanation, and if I were paying them I would be screaming for it. We get called on that kind of stuff all the time (remember that this conversation started with such a query, to us), and we don\'t take it as an insult.

\"Stupid\" we do take as an insult.

[Michael D.]

you inferred that they did not have the ability to grasp your methodologies, and you made a ridiculous joke about their IQ\'s. and by the way, nice move there in shifting this whole thing to a different string, so some would not see your remarks. also, the guy who writes \"i rest my case\", then comes back with TWO more posts, most definitely has not proven his case.

[TGJB]

If anyone really cares (unlikely), they can see what I actually said in the \"Derby Figures and Evidence\" string, 12/8 at 17:46.
I\'ll let my words and your reading speak for themselves.

[kev]

Ok but what if those who are using Rag\'s and winning you think they care if they blew the ground loss?? I\'ve used both products in the past and done well and not done so well with both.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Kev wrote:

> \"but what if those who are using Rag\'s and winning you think they care if they blew the ground loss?? I\'ve used both products in the past and done well and not done so well with both.\"

Well, consider that a minute. I knew a mentally disadvantaged couple that loved to bet the races on weekends at Calder. They loved it. They had a technique and it was flawless. I never saw them have a bad day when I was there with them. If I tell their technique here, I should contract for some kind of compensation for them, but I\'m not sure where they are any longer so I\'ll just let it out. This is their secret....

They bet greys. Thats right. Grey pays. I\'m not kidding. They utilized that scientific formula and won consistently. I never copied them because even if it is statistically true, I\'m not betting like that, but I couldn\'t argue with their success.

My point being, theres different ways to have success, but does that success hold up in the long run? Suppose Rags got the ground loss wrong and handicappers which use their product still won on races problem figure horses were reentered in. Can anyone explain that anomoly away? Theres about a million ways to explain it isn\'t there? As a matter of fact, if someone is making bad figures theres a certain \"built in\" insulation for error in figure making isn\'t there? Form, Track, Trouble, Path, Injury, Bounce, Jockey Decisions, Juice...I could go on and on. But there is a constant. Its simple really and its this...

\"You can\'t even begin to analyze past efforts if you can\'t ascertain what is readily ascertainable in them\" and that of course is path and distance.

TGJB talked about pattern reads. Assuming Rags puts more stock in determining a figure irrespective of past efforts, how can you do a pattern read when efforts within it are points off? You may be able to, but is starting with error the way to beat this game?

CtC

Jerry Wrote:


-- Yes, most of the differences in figures have to do with differing methodologies, although I don\'t think it\'s simply a matter of opinion. I have gone to great effort to point those out and explain them, but they still go over the head of most of those who have not made figures. So I try to find examples where anyone with eyes and a minimal IQ can see that those guys have screwed up-- which would not be that big an issue except that a) they won\'t admit it and fix the errors, because b) they make claims for super accuracy, and pattern reads based on it, claims that would be blown to bits if people actually understood what we\'re really talking about here.

2-- Which means, yes, they have made business decisions, of the most cynical kind. The vast majority of their customers still buys hard copy and never hears about this stuff (not true of us-- 2/3rds of our business is now on-line), and it would cause the Ragozin office more of a problem with them to admit a mistake and change a figure than to look bad here. Aside from which, they cynically (and unfortunately correctly) calculate that their on-line customers won\'t call them on it on their board-- there has not been a whisper about any of this over there in the last couple of days. The most extreme example of this cynicism came when they blew the ground for Touch Of The Blues in the Mile a couple of years back, I pointed out that he was wide (not inside), and Friedman came back and posted that he had checked the tape himself and the horse was inside. Much later, when everything had quieted down, they made the correction.

And obviously, a similar situation exists with this year\'s Derby, and the bad BC figures. In one case they flatly denied without explanation, in the other they will just wait for it to blow over without commenting.

TGJB

[Michael D.]

CtC,
the biggest waste of energy ever put into a BB post. why? if you were really interested in grey horses and crc racing, you would have posted a pre-race opinion on the big crc races last w/e. why would you waste so much time on a post that said so little? refer to my pre-race crc posts from last week, you might learn something. if you continue to make wiseass comments on circuits that you don\'t have the balls to make pre-race predictions on, you will surely lose any credibility you had on any BB. you are better than that, what made you drop so low??