Jerry, Jerry, Jerry

[TGJB]

David Patent wrote:
>
> >
> Right and wrong.  I generally favor an open policy.  However,
> what I have witnessed time and time again on the Rag. board
> from TG supporters are unsigned conclusory churlish rants and
> personal attacks, so I can\'t say that I\'m all that surprised
> at their policy.  Additionally, the Rag./TG debate is sort of
> like Evolution vs. Creationism.  Either you believe one or
> the other and Creationists tend not to be persuaded by facts
> so what\'s the point of debating the point further?
>
>

TG--Wow. I guess you haven\'t noticed any unsigned conclusory churlish rants and personal attacks by raggies here, huh. I\'m not surprised at their policy either, but for entirely different reasons--it\'s what they\'re all about. But the question is not whether we\'re surprised, but whether it\'s right to do it, and what inferences should be drawn from the fact they do it.

[JRL]

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Ragozin user.  However, I can assure you that I have never spoken to anyone in the Ragozin and am not making this post in an attempt to secretly tout their product. I do have a few things to say about this exchange.

When you take as a compliment the fact that your winners \"look better\" you are entirely missing the point.  All of your horses look \"better\" because your lines are smoother. That is only a benefit to the unsophisticated sheet user.

In my mind, the sheets are extremely valuable for two things (1) identifying horses to throw out as too slow or bounce candidates and (2) identifying horses with explosive patterns that are likely to move forward.  When you have smoother looking lines, it may make the horses look better, but it makes both of these taks much more difficult to accomplish.    

The fact is when I look at your sheets, several of the horses in every race look more or less the same and each horse tends to have a smooth looking pattern. Nobody is arguing that you go back and tweak individual horses numbers to make them look better.  However, when your overriding philosophy is that groups of horses in a single race do not deviate from the norm -- a proposition that does not comport to my own experience -- then by definition your numbers are going to have far less deviation.

In my view -- and I do not purport to be a variant expert -- there are just too few data points in a single race to make the conclusion that the track must be the reason all horses ran slower or faster than you would expect compared to different race on the same card. While I am willing to accept the premise that sometimes the track changes significantly during the day, I suspect that is far less often than you articulate (mostly it seems to me, in an attempt to distinguish yourself from Ragozin).  

I do not see any valid scientific manner in which to change the variant for a races on the same day based on what you would have expected to occur.  In fact, the process of doing so makes the entire statistical analysis suspect.  On a particular race, you may be right and you may be wrong, but this process moves too far into the realm of guesswork for my taste.  Though all variant making includes statistical analysis with a little guesswork, the idea is to minimize the guesswork, not maximize it.  If that means some of the numbers turn out to be \"wrong\" -- I have certainly seen some suspicious looking numbers in the past --  so be it.  But at least with Ragozin, I have some comfort that the numbers are based on a consistent scientific foundation and not one person\'s opinion.

[Alydar in California]

I tried to do this late last night, but I got disconnected and went to bed, which, as it turns out, was just as well.

David Patent writes: \"My post on the Ragozin site was no different in tone or message than what I put on this site (though it was admittedly shorter).\"

Nonsense, David. Here it is:

\"Len will almost surely not respond--which is entirely proper in my view. Please read my post, if you are interested, titled \'Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.\' The fundamental difference between Rag and TG is that Rag figs are based on observable data from the times run and A BASIC ASSUMPTION [emphasis mine] that a track does not materially change over a 20-30 minute period absent some major intervention. As a result, a horse\'s pattern will sometimes look a little \'ragged\' or ugly. TG believes that horses run in predictable and steady patterns and he will thus change the variant for a race in order to make the horses\' patterns fit his beliefs about what he thought they have run in that race. One thing I did not add in my post on the TG site concerning the turf races was that I\'ll bet a good meteorologist, physicist, or chemist could verify that the rate of evaporation over a 2-3 hour period between the 5th and 10th races could not significantly affect the firmness of the ground. This would invalidate Jerry\'s figures for the 5th and 7th races.\"

The only thing that is invalidated, David, is the above statement, which you made to HP.

Patent writes: \"...my preference is to use factual data for my variant as opposed to one\'s personal assumptions...\"

What about the huge assumption Ragozin makes: that track speed doesn\'t change unless he can see the reason for the change. Isn\'t that all-knowing and altogether immodest? He doesn\'t take soil samples, does he (or should that be He)? Why don\'t you take the next step and claim that Ragozin doesn\'t permit the track to change speed unless it gives advanced, visible warning? And don\'t forget to track down that meteorologist to invalidate JB\'s figures. Did you actually write that, David? Talk about patent Patent crap.

Patent writes: \"...as usual from the TG gang, instead of choosing to engage me on the facts or on handicapping theory, you just fire a bunch of personal attacks.\"

Ask Jake when he\'s going to apologize for calling me a liar. Ask Plever, who is a demented cowardly punk, when he\'s going to apologize for preposterously saying that I made public his private email. Ask Cory, who used to work for Ragozin, when he\'s going to apologize for saying he knew several people who knew me personally (a total lie) and disliked me (impossible, I am reliably told). Ask Howard Dennis, a former Ragozin employee, to explain his latest post on The Derby List (link on the Rags site). And while you\'re at it, be sure to tell him that Ragozin uses the projection method. Quite a gang you have there, David.

 The numbers part of your posts reminds me of that basketball commercial with Larry Bird calling his shot in a game of Horse: \"Over the building, off the billboard, through the tunnel, into the Atlantic Ocean, across, up, off Big Ben, nothing but net.\" Yeah, David, they all bounced. They were all sore. They all hated the distance. They all hated the grass. They all hated soft turf. They all had that Ragozin filly pattern that no one but you has ever heard of. It happened. All of it happened. It had to have happened. Ragozin said it happened. Nothing but net.

Let me leave you with a question, David: When choosing between competing explanations for an event, do you habitually choose the one that is more complicated?

[Anonymous User]

One day the mass figure makers will measure the moisture in the track if they do not already. A probe inserted 2, 4, 8 and 12 inches beneath the surface. The density of the surface materials will also need to be factored.  Until that time it will be a matter of speculation and debate. But anyone knows that a very low humidity day with strong wind can alter a track\'s condition almost hourly. I garden and I have seen the surface and soil change quickly under those conditions. You\'ve got to be very careful with subjectively altering figures however. At the same time, a track surface is more a living, evolving thing than a static mass of materials. I\'m still in favor of the handicapping challenge. Let the best of theirs go up against the best here and see how the results shake out. Do it on a regular basis and I think it will become self evident who makes the better variants. A speed figure really is nothing more than the variant determined with some precision.

Tabitha

[HP]

I would like to thank Alydar, because without Patent\'s post from the Ragozin board I think I look like I\'m nuts here.

Tone is a very subjective thing, but anyone can see the difference between Patent\'s respective posts on the Sheets site and the TG site. This is what I take issue with, not the Rags v. TG method argument.

As for censorship policies, there are basically NO posts on the Rag board that are critical of anything they do, whether it is handicapping related or on any other subject. Nobody is right all the time, and the compulsion to try to create what Jerry Jr. refers to a \'clutter free\' environment is interesting given the obvious knowledge that Friedman and others bring to the table. Every prognosticator has to face the chant of \"you suck\" now and then. The way I look at it, a person who hasn\'t heard that they suck hasn\'t really lived.

This whole \'clutter\' thing is baloney anyway. It\'s not like using a scroll bar or clicking a mouse qualifies as hard work. Click, push, move on. Next case.

As for the figure making method, from what I know, the wild card in this, the one thing that will separate the products (assuming equal trackman input) is the variant, or what you add or knock off the numbers. This is not a scientific formula. The equation for wind resistance is a scientific formula. Variant making is totally subjective, and whether it\'s Jerry or Ragozin doing it, you are paying for their judgement of the vast accumulation of races they have seen on each circuit. No matter what numbers you prefer, no matter what the weight each figure maker assigns to each variant variable, you are paying for an opinion, not a fact. I\'m not that dogmatic on Rags vs. TG since I\'ve seen guys get good results with both. The person interpeting the figures is probably the biggest part of the success equation for both products. HP

[tread]

Alydar, you stole the thought right out of my head before I even had a chance to write it...

Jason L said: \"But at least with Ragozin, I have some comfort that the numbers are based on a consistent scientific foundation and not one person\'s opinion.\"

As Alydar already said, there is no scientific basis for assuming a track stays the same for an entire card, even under \"normal\" conditions.  This is just one man\'s opinion, nothing the least bit scientific about it.  

In fact, a hypothesis that tracks do change daily carries MORE scientific weight.  Are you saying there is no such thing as evaporation?  Or that water trucks are always able to replenish the EXACT same amount of water between races that has evaporated since the last watering?  That the exact same amount of moisture is introduced every time the track is harrowed?  To me, this is sceintifically ridiculous, expecting that to all stay the same. So much for your \"scientific\" argument.

I swear, some of these raggies need to go back and take debate classes, provide facts with your arguments, not opinions or rhetoric!  Here are some of my other recenet faves:

TG: Delaware valley numbers on rags are too slow.  (3 examples from preakness day sited)
Patent: No they aren\'t, I make money with them all the time (no examples sited)

Hmmmm, who is more credible here?

(?? on sheets board): Why are TG and sheets numbers so different?
Jim: Because TG is a \"knockoff\" product. (no factual backup provided)

And raggies are less prone to personal attacks?  You have got to be kidding me.  JB is right, more raggies that post here the better.  They show a fine example of the caliber of people using their product.

[Anonymous User]

Patent, I believe you\'ve got the parties mixed again. In this debate Thorograph is the evolutionist, believing the track evolves throughout the day. The Raggies are the creationists believeing the track is predominately static on a given day. Sheesh, if you\'re gonna ever get to the meat of this debate at least get the analogy right.
Oh, and which group won\'t listen to facts?...lol.

Tabitha

[TGJB]

David Patent wrote:
>
> Jerry,
>
> O.K., here we go.
>
> 1) I didn\'t think that MW looked likely in the Preakness.
> Per my post on the Rag. boards, he was a toss unless he was
> 100:1 or higher.  There were too many other explosive or
> faster horses in the race.  Guess I was wrong.  But you can\'t
> hit \'em all.
>
> 2) The first race.  Again, that filly\'s numbers were x\'s and
> it does not matter whether she won or not.  Horses don\'t get
> bonus points for winning.  She clearly enjoys sprinting more
> than routing.  I didn\'t bet the race because I didn\'t see any
> value but I have seen fillies do what she did (run within 2
> points of a top off of a declining line where the last race
> was way off the top) many many times.
>
> 3) This is a very important race to discuss, because it\'s on
> the turf.  Unlike dirt, where you can come up with any number
> of explanations for the surface getting faster, there are
> only a few things you can say about a turf course over the
> span of 2-3 hours:  a) They mowed it; b) They compressed it;
> c) Evaporation dried it out; d) the action of the horses
> running over the grass made it faster.
>
> Now, I know they didn\'t mow the grass.  I know that the
> actions of horses running two races on the turf doesn\'t make
> the grass 6 points faster (otherwise we would see big jumpups
> in time every time there were multiple turf races in the same
> day).  There obviously was some evaporation but on a cloudy
> day over 2-3 hours, the equation shouldn\'t be too hard to
> figure out.  With all of the experience you have with grass
> races over the years, there is a simple math model you should
> be able to apply to figure out the evaporation effect on the
> ground.  Given my experience with lawns, however, I would
> fall out of my chair if 2-3 hours of evaporation on a 60
> degree day could possibly increase the speed of the course by
> 6 points.  Lastly, I don\'t know whether they compressed the
> grass.  Do you?  If not, then it\'s not a factor.  If they did
> go over the course with rollers, again, calculating the
> impact on the course should be easy calculation based on
> years of experience and lots of data point.
>
> But that\'s not what you did, I\'ll bet.  You figured that the
> race would be won with a \'6\' and so you gave the winner a \'6\'
> regardless of the time and then just backed into the
> variant.  You do that all the time because your method relies
> on preconceived notions of what the horses will do instead of
> empirical observation.  Same comment for the 7th race.
>
> 4) The field in the Schafer was, for the most part, a bunch
> of crippled allowance horses.  Who cares if it\'s a graded
> stake?  The horses don\'t know that.  If you look at the Rag.
> sheets, almost every single horse in there figured to run
> worse than in his last race.  The winning number was almost
> exactly what I figured Tenpins would run (a 6-9).  The only
> horse who surprised me was the horse that ran second.  I had
> him running a 4-6.  But I\'m not going to let one horses \'x\'
> tell me that the whole race is wrong.  There was not \'group\'
> craziness in that race.  Every horse ran to his predicted
> number except one.
>
> 5) My point on WE, and just about every horse on the TG
> sheets is this:  When you have most horses with a pretty
> line, you will almost always be able to say \'He looked good
> on my sheet\'.  But the losers will also look good on the
> sheet.  That\'s the problem I had with your product the couple
> times I bought it -- there is very little mechanism for
> separating horses that have bad patterns and tossing them.
> That to me is the true value of the Sheets -- tossing
> losers.  It\'s very rare that I cash because I nailed a horse
> ready to run a big top.  It\'s almost always from eliminating
> noncontenders.  So, if the product makes most horses look
> likely to pair up or move forward, as TG does, then I have no
> use for it.
>
> I have not suggested that you fudge numbers after the fact.
> What you do, though, usually, is determine before hand what
> you think the number is and if the time does not come back
> what you thought it should be you will often (not always, but
> often) change the variant to make the number fit your
> beliefs.  To me, someone better have a darn good reason that
> has a proven statistical basis before they do that.  And
> saying that \'they watered the track\' or \'it was two turns\'
> does not cut it, unless you have done soil tests or multiple
> races at the same distance to back it up.
>
> It\'s very easy to pull a handful of races from one card and
> jump all over somebody. I could do the same, leading off with
> the 6th race -- Sarava was an absolute lock on the Rag.
> sheets and I put more money to win on that horse than I have
> in the last 10 years.  On the TG sheets, he was just one of 3
> or 4 contenders.
>
> My final comment is this:  The Rag. sheets are more expensive
> and are used by the majority of the people who earn a living
> by betting horses.  That says a lot.  If TG were better, I
> suspect that the top bettors would migrate over here.  But
> they don\'t.  What does that tell you?

TG--1. You weren’t wrong—given the data you were using, you came to exactly the right conclusion. That’s the point.

2. Its not about bonus points. She won by open lengths at the routes—she only “clearly enjoys sprinting” if you believe the Ragozin numbers. The question is whether it’s REASONABLE to believe she won those races running total X’s, since the others behind her ran worse.

3. 6 points = less than 2% difference in final time. Are you saying that a turf course that was soaked with rain earlier can’t have gotten 2% faster as it dried over a couple of hours? Incidentally, the grass actually got less than 4 points faster.

4. I answered this on your other post. Call me next time, and we’ll bet.

5. Uh, David—they don’t all look good on TG. In the Derby, I took a stand by throwing out the favorites—one of whom was Friedman’s pick—and crushed the race.

What is true is that the horses run in a tighter range, and if you knew more about making figures you would know what this means. All those horses on Preakness day are coming from all over the place—different races, different tracks, different distances. That Quixotes Hope gets a sprint number at Pim that ties in with her route numbers at Pha confirms both figures, etc., etc. You can’t make a whole race fit (give lots of horses figures in the range they usually run) unless either:

a. you screw around WITHIN a race, adjusting the relationship between horses dramatically (which the Ragozin office would have pointed out long ago—while we use greatly different approaches to variants, our formulas within the race are similar). We don’t.
      OR
b. the figures are accurate—both the ones you make, and the ones you use to make them.

6. We charge less in order to expand the market, and boy, is it working (this is the same theory Ragozin uses in charging horsemen less than 10% of what we do, despite which they have only had a tiny fraction of the success). LOTS of top bettors have migrated over here.

7. I didn’t “pull a handful of races from one card”. Friedman almost never posts a whole card—when he does, like the Breeders’ Cup, and there are differences (errors), I post a response.

[TGJB]

Jason L. wrote:
>
> In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Ragozin user.
> However, I can assure you that I have never spoken to anyone
> in the Ragozin and am not making this post in an attempt to
> secretly tout their product. I do have a few things to say
> about this exchange.
>
> When you take as a compliment the fact that your winners
> \"look better\" you are entirely missing the point.  All of
> your horses look \"better\" because your lines are smoother.
> That is only a benefit to the unsophisticated sheet user.
>
> In my mind, the sheets are extremely valuable for two things
> (1) identifying horses to throw out as too slow or bounce
> candidates and (2) identifying horses with explosive patterns
> that are likely to move forward.  When you have smoother
> looking lines, it may make the horses look better, but it
> makes both of these taks much more difficult to accomplish.
>
> The fact is when I look at your sheets, several of the horses
> in every race look more or less the same and each horse tends
> to have a smooth looking pattern. Nobody is arguing that you
> go back and tweak individual horses numbers to make them look
> better.  However, when your overriding philosophy is that
> groups of horses in a single race do not deviate from the
> norm -- a proposition that does not comport to my own
> experience -- then by definition your numbers are going to
> have far less deviation.
>
> In my view -- and I do not purport to be a variant expert --
> there are just too few data points in a single race to make
> the conclusion that the track must be the reason all horses
> ran slower or faster than you would expect compared to
> different race on the same card. While I am willing to accept
> the premise that sometimes the track changes significantly
> during the day, I suspect that is far less often than you
> articulate (mostly it seems to me, in an attempt to
> distinguish yourself from Ragozin).
>
> I do not see any valid scientific manner in which to change
> the variant for a races on the same day based on what you
> would have expected to occur.  In fact, the process of doing
> so makes the entire statistical analysis suspect.  On a
> particular race, you may be right and you may be wrong, but
> this process moves too far into the realm of guesswork for my
> taste.  Though all variant making includes statistical
> analysis with a little guesswork, the idea is to minimize the
> guesswork, not maximize it.  If that means some of the
> numbers turn out to be \"wrong\" -- I have certainly seen some
> suspicious looking numbers in the past --  so be it.  But at
> least with Ragozin, I have some comfort that the numbers are
> based on a consistent scientific foundation and not one
> person\'s opinion.

TG--See my replies to David Patent, also my posts Changing Track Speeds (11/17/01), and Figure Making Methodology (5/2/00). You are welcome to post here any time with comments or questions.

[Friendly]

HP, you wrote:

\"Every prognosticator has to face the chant of \"you suck\" now and then. The way I look at it, a person who hasn\'t heard that they suck hasn\'t really lived. This whole \'clutter\' thing is baloney anyway. It\'s not like using a scroll bar or clicking a mouse qualifies as hard work. Click, push, move on. Next case.\"

If you really believe this why don\'t you lambast Jerry Brown for his censorship of posts that are critical of him, even if there may be name-calling (which he has returned)? You think that statement should only be applied to the Sheets?

As usual, seems like TG (and their partial defenders) are playing both sides again.

[TGJB]

I deleted you (er, sorry, I meant Jim) not because they were critical of me, but because they contained nothing of substance--David and Jason have posts critical of me on this string, and I\'m not deleting them. If Rosencrantz (I mean Guildenstern) was as smart as them, or knew enough about the subject matter to contribute, I would have let his (your?) posts stand. But all you (he?) did was rant, and it was annoying the sane people.

[Alydar in California]

JB: Does this mean that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead on the board (sorry, couldn\'t resist)? If so, please reconsider. Treadhead (who has earned my respect) and I want to talk to them (Jim) about their use of the term \"knockoff product.\" Now that Patent has expired (sorry again, but he ignored me, and, how did Glenn Close put it?), it\'s time to bring Jim back. He is effectively out of our reach when he\'s on the other board.

[TGJB]

First of all, anyone who hasn\'t seen the film version of the Stoppard play should rent it--Tim Roth and Gary Oldman are hilarious. I answered Guildenstern\'s last couple of posts, but he will eventually get deleted again, due to his nature and his limitations. Patent \"expired\" (not bad) because he was end-played--he couldn\'t ask Friedman about the 13th race on Preakness day, and he couldn\'t offer a reasonable explanation of why he wouldn\'t, so he disappeared. I\'m guessing you\'ve taken a look at the day, and see how the roof would fall in if they post their figures for that race.
Even more interesting than the figure question is the Raggie psychology (pathology?). Talk about creationist/fundamentalist--David is willing to be partisan WHEN IT\'S AGAINST HIS OWN INTEREST TO DO SO. He can only gain and has nothing to lose by getting them to post the race and explain how they came up with the figures--only they do.
Aaron Sorkin ain\'t Shakespeare or Stoppard, but-- \"you can\'t HANDLE the truth.\"

[HP]

Okay. Jerry, I lambast (lambaste?) you for censoring Jim\'s posts. I thought they were great and they should have been left up.

Although Jim, I think censoring a post by you over here is different than them censoring a post by Jerry over there. You don\'t sell figures and what you have to say is of limited interest, same as my posts. HP

[Friendly]

Jerry can spin his censorship however he sees fit. I certainly don\'t think his opinion is more valuable. If anything, he is less objective than me/Jim, therefore more likely to spin his posts. Look no further than this thread to see the slightest criticism of him is met with sarcasm - talk about no value.