Moving On

[dpatent]

I was driving back after spending a nice weekend in San Diego and happened to tell my wife about the message board \'battle\' being waged here.  I told her that I was going to post a \'brief\' detailing all of Jerry and Alydar\'s past sins.  She looked at me like I was insane.  Then she said something about being a geek and I got that feeling that if things ever went South with us I\'d never see my son again.

That said, I was very glad to see the topics of conversation move on to other things over the weekend and I think that\'s what I will do as well.

I said everything I needed to say in past posts and don\'t really have the desire to redredge all of the posts and further kill the herd of dead horses we have slaughtered.  

I am also reminded by my first post on May 23 where I stated that \"there will never be a true and final answer as to whether TG or Rag have it right.\"

I think that the best thing anyone can do if they want to contrast the different approaches is just to read the posts on this and the Ragozin board surrounding the 13th race at Pimlico on May 18.  I can\'t think of a clearer differentiator of product and mindset than the posts of Friedman and Brown on this subject.

I am very much looking forward to the handicapping contest with HP and any other takers.  My understanding is that it is a $1,000 bankroll to be bet on any or all of the 12 races on June 8 at Belmont.  I may be posting my picks early since I will be flying to NYC on the Thursday night redeye.  If not, I\'ll post Friday afternoon or evening.  Since I won\'t have seen the TG sheets I won\'t know how the lines compare.

I think ultimately it would be fun and informative to make picks where one sheet clearly has a horse faster/slower/worse pattern/better pattern and see how those horses do over a long period of time.  But that is not what we will be doing this Friday.

I think that this, and perhaps future contests will stimulate the right kind of discussion about handicapping and we can avoid some of the diatribes (of which I authored a few) of recent posts.

[HP]

Right on David Patent. It\'s actually The Belmont Stakes Day Handicapping Challenge. Future versions may be Contests and have prizes. Your terms sound fine. Hopefully both boards will post the post-Belmont versions of the sheets for Belmont day so we can all compare.

The Big Horse, War Emblem, makes for an interesting comparison. On TG, War made the big leap in his Mar. 17 race. I\'m stuck on this race given the fact that I think it really kills the argument that Jerry makes the horses fit the previous races and that the resulting patterns are smoother. In my opinion, the only way you can make this argument is if you said Jerry Brown was Kreskin and knew he would run a 1 in the Derby, or if he went back and changed the Mar. 17 number later. Maybe he really is Kreskin and did this on this one horse that he knew would eventually provide him with a high-profile refutation.

War Emblem looks (to me) like a bounce candidate on both products. On TG, he looks likely to continue to back up off four straight monster races, and on Rags, he looks like he might bounce off his more isolated Derby top. If he really bails in the Belmont, he could be an 0-2-x on both.

Even though it\'s only Monday and I don\'t know you from a hole in the wall, I\'ve got to believe you see WEmblem the same way I do, at 2-1 he\'s a total \'bet against\' or the race is a pass. The other races may provide more comparative interest.

Might be interesting at some point if you used TG for a day and I used Rags for a day and we compared that too.

Have a nice trip and catch you later. HP

[dpatent]

HP,

I will resist the temptation to bite on your first WE pattern point and move on to the second.

Having seen his TG and Rag. sheet my personal view is that WE looks a lot worse on the Rag. sheets than on TG, which is not to say that he\'s not a bounce candidate on TG, but on Rag. he\'s a complete toss unless he is Secretariat, which we won\'t know until the race is run but I\'ll go against him at 4:5 every time.

[TGJB]

A wise decision. I would add that if anyone really wants to contrast the different approaches, they should examine the Preakness day sheets, with numbers the horses ran that day, still posted on both sites.

[Michael D.]

In races like the Belmont, where all of the horses are trying something for the first time, isn\'t the \"bounce theory\" a bit less relevant than usual. Does it matter if a horse has a 1-0-3 pattern or a 3-2-1, or any other combination? If WE has the heart and stamina to get the extra quarter mile, he will run well. I am guessing that the horses who show a few fast figures (in any pattern) and relish the extra distance will be competitive. Can a firm \"bounce\" believer tell me how they can handicap the race based on a pattern, without taking into account the huge change in race conditions.

[superfreakicus]

I\'ll tell you later, if I remember --- gotta run.

so, if you get no bites, bump this back up later.

[Point_Given_Gal]

I have an interesting story re TG and Rags.  I\'ll keep it short.  

Preakness Day: my father was using Rags and I Thorograph.  One of the races (I cant remember which track - I think Pimlico) had a minor stakes race.  The TG sheets definitely indicated a filly named \"Running Pam\" to be in the money while the Rags did not have \"Running Pam\" looking very promising.  \"Running Pam\" placed and was a nice include in my tri.  The other horses we had were the same but Running Pam looked better on TG than Rags - for whatever thats worth.

I personally like TG better because I find TG easier to understand and I love the Jockey and Trainer stats.

[dpatent]

Michael,

My experience with the Belmont is that pattern analysis holds up fine.  The one caveat is that horses coming off big new tops are extraordinarily likely to bounce and bounce big, especially if the distance breeding is not there.  I also think that there is a slightly greater risk that horses will run poorly relative to their top given the distance, but I don\'t have enough data behind that conclusion to make a sweeping generalization.

In the past 10 years, using Rag. sheets, the winners of the Belmont did the following off their last race (this is off memory but I think I\'m pretty close):

1992 -- AP Indy -- 5 point move up (3 point top)
1993 -- Colonial Affair -- pair up or 1 point forward move
1994 -- Tabasco Cat-- within 1 or 2 points of top
1995 -- Thunder Gulch -- within 1 or 2 points of top
1996 -- Editor\'s Note -- pair up or 1 point forward move
1997 -- Touch Gold -- 4-5 point bounce
1998 -- Victory Gallop -- 1 point bounce
1999 -- Lemon Drop Kid -- 4 point forward move
2000 -- Commendable -- Big jump forward off an X back to old top
2001 -- Point Given -- Slight new top

I don\'t think that any of these horses was a big shock in terms of the result off the pattern, though LDK did run much faster than any one could have predicted (he ran a 2 off a 6 top).  Commendable was the biggest surprise but simply ran back to an old top.  The last time we had a favorite with a pattern similar to WE was Unbridled, who had run 5-2-4 (Blue Grass, Derby, Preakness) coming into the race and then \'X\'d to finish off the board at 4:5.  I wouldn\'t get too excited over this comparison since it\'s such a small sample, but my theory has always been that running a 1 at this time of the year is very bad for a 3 y.o.\'s short and medium-term development.  I think WE is probably 80% to run a 5 or worse and 60-70% to run a 6 or worse.

Since there do not appear to be any pattern standouts or horses that are consistently running 3s and 4s, WE could still bounce and win or finish in the money.  But at likely 4:5 odds, he is a toss as far as I am concerned.  I will probably just leave WE out completely (except as a possible use for 3rd or 4th in spread tris and supers) and use the horses in exotics who have a reasonable chance to run a 6 or better.  I don\'t have enough faith in the nuances of predicting horses that will run 4s as opposed to 7s on Saturday to be more surgical.  Besides, if you can throw out a 4:5 shot and be right, you should make money.

[HP]

In my mind, the \'change in conditions\' (the extra distance) will make the bounce even more likely, provided that\'s what the pattern indicates. Isn\'t it harder to run further? More tiring?

I have no doubt War Emblem has the heart and stamina to go 1-1/2 miles, certainly as much as anyone I\'ve seen this year. But the real issue is, can he do it after four huge races in a row, the two of which immediately preceding this one were two weeks apart? With each huge race he runs I think it becomes more likely, unless he gets a freshening.

The real question for me is, even if War Emblem bounces, who will be fast enough to capitalize on this? In this case, I think there will be some candidates, but I will refrain from any further comment until I see the TG. Sign me, firm bounce believer (this time). HP

[TGJB]

Actually, since I’m sitting here with a whole stack of stuff I can’t use because you’ve made that wise decision, I’m just going to ask two questions, and since you’ll never answer them directly anyway, I’ll make them rhetorical.

You quoted yourself, above. The actual quote from 5/23 was, “While I admit that there will never be a true and final answer as to whether TG or Rag have it right, my preference is to use factual data for my variant as opposed to one’s personal assumptions so that my numbers make a nice clean line.”

Now, it cost me $1,000 to get there, but Friedman finally admitted they did Preakness day on a slide.

Here’s my first question:  What was the “factual data” that was used to make the decision as to what variant Ragozin used for each race throughout the day?

We posted the Peter Pan, first as ROTW, and then with the numbers the horses ran. It would be tough to find a race where horses have nicer, cleaner lines than that. Any time you want, David, you show me how, as a practical matter, I could have made that happen without it being right. Don’t give me a general “If you decide it will be that way it will happen”—show me how to do it with these horses without fudging the relationships within this race, or retroactively fudging the figures from previous races. And if these figures are right, it goes an awful long way in confirming the figures they were based on, including the disputed Wood figure.

My second question is in two parts – You and I first made contact when you posted about the ‘00 Wood. At the time, Friedman defended their giving out huge tops to several horses on the basis that if fit with the rest of the day, despite the fact it was raining, the wet track was being sealed and unsealed during the card, and the Wood was the only 2 turn race run after work began. Now, last week, Friedman admitted that track maintenance can change the relationship between the distances.

A) When the realtionship does change, how do they know? (What’s the factual data?)
B) Since they did that work on Wood Day, and since Friedman admits that work can make the relationship change, aren’t Friedman’s defense of those figures, and your comments to me at that time, preposterous?

Anyone who wants to see the original discussion can find it in the archives at 5/2/00—Figure Making Methodologies.

[TGJB]

David--why don\'t you see if you can get Friedman to post the top 3 finishers in the above races, so we can have a real discussion. Seriously.

[dpatent]

Jerry,

Good for you for egging me on.  Too bad I\'m not going to bite -- much.

I will say this in response.

First -- the \'slide\': The only thing revealed by the 13th race discussion was that you have a tremendous ability to not admit that you are wrong, no matter how glaring the facts  -- Ragozin \'blew\' the 13th race, they did route/sprint variant split, there was an 8 point variant change after the Preakness in the opposite direction of the trend during the day, etc.  

Adjusting the variant for a drying surface is something that, to my knowledge, Ragozin never denied doing when conditions are appropriate.

Second, seems like there is a good argument they got the 2000 Wood right given that FP paired up in the Derby and bounced in the Preakness and later went through that supposedly ridiculously fast Wood number in the Jerome that fall.

To your questions:

1) I don\'t know.  I don\'t work there.  For good background, though, \'The Odds Must Be Crazy\' is a good read.

Re: The Peter Pan, in general you don\'t need to fudge anything other than the variant.  From what I can tell, in most races you have a horse that is a key \'pair up\' or \'move forward\'.  You project ahead of time the number that horse will run and then, after seeing the time, key the variant to whatever that horse was projected to run.  

Keep in mind that you and Rag. probably agree on 80-90% of the numbers out there (within a point or so) -- with the caveat that the TG scale is 2-3 points faster.  If you are wrong on a race it will initially appear as an abberation in a horse\'s pattern.  The pattern will collapse only when you are wrong repeatedly on races in which a particular horse runs.  Then the numbers for those horses would appear to drift out of a reasonable range.  But being \'wrong\' on 3 of a horse\'s numbers would occur only 8/1000s of the time (assuming that Rag. and TG agree 80% of the time) and one in 1000 times if Rag. and TG agree 90% of the time.

Again, this kind of debate isn\'t helpful, in my view.  Your position is that pretty patterns prove that you are right and Ragozin is wrong.  I\'ll leave it to the readers of this board to decide whether that passes the smell test or not.

2a) Like I have been saying, I would look at similar repeatable conditions in the past and for times that are now appearing to be getting faster or slower than the expected time for the type of animal running.  Then it\'s a question of judgment.  There\'s no way to know for sure (I admit figure making is not an exact science) but you can get a decent directional on the variant that way.

2b)No.  See above.

Re: your last post -- For all the reasons stated above and as evident by the fruitlessness of prior discussions, I\'m not going to act as your errand boy on this.  I would prefer to be forward looking (e.g., the handicapping contest with HP).

[TGJB]

You are absolutely unbelievable--you never answer a question directly, ever. I\'m not going to get sidetracked into a general discussion--not now. I want to stick to narrow questions that define the entire argument.

The answer to my first question is, there is no \"factual data\" used by Ragozin--only the histories of the horses, period. I read the book, I worked for and with him, it\'s a load of crap.

In the Peter Pan, I specifically told you I didn\'t want a general answer. Show me how I made ALL those numbers come out \"pretty\". If you don\'t understand by now that fudged a variant won\'t do it, you either haven\'t read carefully, or you\'re an idiot, or just plain disingenuous. I don\'t think you\'re an idiot, and I think you read carefully.

On the question of our numbers being similar, you are completely wrong (check out both sets of sheets for Preakness day, not just the numbers they ran that day), which shoots down whatever that nonsense was suppose to mean.

On 2--what repeatable conditions? The exact amount of rain, at the exact intervals, as measured how? With the exact soil composition, the exact water added (and rain) recently? The track work EXACTLY the same? Are you kidding me?

The question is ENTIRELY one of judgement. The answer to the first part of the question is they don\'t have factual data, and they know the relationship changes (when they do know it) by the figures the horses run, same as anyone else who makes figures.

On the second part, you ducked completely--the question wasn\'t whether the Wood number held up (you might recall I said at the time it would screw up future figures, and, sure enough, the only horse in that Derby who Ragozin paired up, magically, was FP) but whether Friedman\'s defense was logical. Since they concede now the relationship changes, and since we know the moisture/maintenance changes that day were extreme, his defense of his figures based on the relationship being constant is indeed preposterous. And all your dancing around makes you is a dancing partisan.

[JRL]

On the first point, I think it is you that is being a little disingenuous here.  Ragozin\'s \"factual data\" is a statistical analysis of the prior history of all horses that have ever run.  The difference is that you give primary focus to the previous history of horses in only that particular race. It may be fair to say that Ragozin makes certain assumptions, but the making of a variant is not purely a judgment call.  Ragozin\'s assumption is that the speed of a track stays more or less the same throughout a day (except in defined situations), and that certain types of races can be predicted based primarily on a large database of prior races.  It is that assumption that you attack, but if you accept it, then variant making is not a pure judgment call.  For you, it is a pure judgment call because you believe that track conditions are infinitely variable and the only way to tell what a horse ran is to predict what each particular field should have run and go from there.  That is a judgment call.  In fact, if you think about it, you have no variant at all.  Each race is determined entirely independently of another.

[superfreakicus]

I wouldn\'t say he has NO variant.
apparently, he\'s got 9 variants on 9 races for each card.
he bases each variant on what #\'s he projects for each group of 5 or 6 horses.
which is why I find it so odd that he gives out terrible picks using his own data, and invited him to the contest.
in handicapping any given race, he must simply project the #\'s each runner produces on that day ---- the exact same thing he\'s doing 100\'s of times a day already.
the only difference is, instead of using this process to pencil in new #\'s, he\'s crafting wagers w/it.
you\'d think a guy who could create such \'tight\' peter pan #\'s would be like nostradamus at the windows.

anyway.....
let me get back to the original question that guy asked about the bounce thing in the belmont.

first, let me present my philosophical \'credentials\'.
a few years back, I was as much into breeding as anybody you could find.
I picked horses in dec. and jan. based on breeding (sea hero, go for gin), I was into dosage, the whole deal.
I even used the t-bred register to create this bigass family tree of all t-breds back to the 1800\'s.
I was a huge fan of breeding and the triple crown.
now, along comes len friedman, and while I won\'t put words in his mouth, he was a little skeptical of all that extraneous stuff, and relied mostly on sheet patterns.
I think he mostly looks at the derby as just another race, as opposed to some back breaking distance --- and after all, the derby is also at a distance these horses haven\'t run at (like the belmont).
in particular, when he spoke positively of a horse like Dance Floor, I scoffed.

as the years have rolled by, I notice more and more that these triple crown events DO play out like any other race.
the patterns hold up, and the breeding angles don\'t --- after all, are these horses really bred so differently?
just take a look at Came Home in the derby, as example.
the fact is, that before the derby and belmont everybody\'s got breeding angles.
the ones that pan out are remembered, and the many failures are forgotten.

I think the belmont distance makes little difference, other than as a handicapper\'s bogeyman, and as an exacerbating factor in expected x\'s, as mentioned in other posts.