Razzle and the other board

jimbo66 · September 05, 2005, 08:14:51 PM

It was good to be at Saratoga and have no computer access this weekend, so I didn\'t have to see more ignorant posts on the other board by Len and now on this board by Razzle. Sorry to the serious handicappers here and I promise to drop this after I respond to Razzle\'s comments.

Razzle, you and Friedman both refer to me as an anonymous poster. Can you read? I posted my name on the other board. I explained that Beyerguy gave me his userid a year ago. I gave my personal email address on that board, which has the company that I work for in the address. Which means my work address is available. I could not be less \"anonymous\" other than to list my home address, wife\'s name, children\'s names. etc.etc. My name and email address are available when you click \"jimbo66\' on this board. Funny how when I click \'razzle\', no information is available. Who is the anonymous one?

As for name-calling, gimme a break. Yes, I said \"attack dogs or pigs\" on this board. Probably not necessary and a little insulting, but not directed at any particular person on the other board. In all of my posts over there, I was on the \"receiving end\" from a few regulars and I tried to stick to topic, which was comparing the products and verifying which set of figures were better. I had no luck. Got dumb responses from Len, and since then I stuck to my word that I wouldn\'t bother to post over there, it was a waste of time. But the name-calling and character assassination is mostly one way. There were a slew of postings over there attacking Jerry about the lawsuit and on a more personal level. My original post over here was that it is amazing how the topics on a supposed handicapper\'s board over there are centered around character assassination of Jerry and thorograph. You would think there would be better topics for them to discuss and you would think Len would monitor the board a bit better if he cared about handicapping or horse racing.

I know nothing about the lawsuit other than what I read on the other board and since it is none of my business, I don\'t have an opinion on it (and I shouldn\'t since it is personal to the participants). The only thing that perked my personal interest was the mention of a software program\'s use in handicapping, so I did ask Jerry about that.

Razzle, your posts here are so typical of the other board, you should have put them there. Distort the facts, twist the story to the point where it seems up is down and down is up, and then fight any attempt by anybody to report the facts correctly.

Does Len run a class that teaches that behavior?

razzle · September 06, 2005, 09:47:37 AM

Jimbo66,

Below are some excerpts from your post which I would categorize as personal insults,

\"ignorant posts\"
\"Can you read?\"
\"Got dumb responses from Len,...\"
*****************************
The following excerpt from you is just mistaken,

\"Razzle, you and Friedman both refer to me as an anonymous poster.\"

Jimbo, I don\'t regard you as anonymous. I appreciated that you identified yourself. I took issue with you saying, repeatedly, that you are unable to figure out how to get your own password over there. Especially since you \"supervise 100 programmers\" and are facile with \"probalities, algorithms and the interface with batch betting.\"
*******************************

\"Razzle, your posts here are so typical of the other board, you should have put them there. Distort the facts, twist the story to the point where it seems up is down and down is up, and then fight any attempt by anybody to report the facts correctly.\"

The facts, Jimbo, that I referred to when I mentioned your name:

\"I liked your posts...\"
\"you got what you deserved in response from Len F\"

You asked for a comparison of the products. You were given the results of a prior study. It didn\'t meet your needs.

You attacked LF\'s marketing response.

You apparently became offended that LF took your posts to reveal an underlying ulterior motive.

*****************************************

\"Funny how when I click \'razzle\', no information is available. Who is the anonymous one?\"

Jimbo, JB has my e-mailaddress, as is required for this board. The following is what I received from him at that address last week(my home).

\">
>
>So, it took me a while to find your e-mail address, \"Raz\".
>
>You were the guy who wanted me to tone it down, right? Not be confrontational?
>
>And yet you were also one of the ones who made the unprovoked
>personal attacks on me on the Rag board recently, right?
>
>Same guy? Right?
>
>Aside from completely misrepresenting everything about the situation
>(it is a suit about a business dispute), you helped raise the
>temperature quite a bit between the two boards. Wouldn\'t you say?
>Especially since I had mentioned those guys almost never recently,
>and then only in connection with figure making issues-- not personal attacks.
>
>But I expected no less. You are a f---ing hypocrite-- but you knew
>that. Just wanted you to know that I knew it too.
>
>JB\"

So, Jimbo, as you can see, there are some justifications for people attempting to protect themselves. ( Of course, he had no way of knowing whether children would have access to that e-mail) Isn\'t that awful? That was the entire post. I hadn\'t contacted him. I haven\'t even mentioned it until now, nor have I responded to it.

*************************************

Jimbo,

I apologize to you for dragging you into this by naming you in my original post, and commenting on your exchange with LF. It really wasn\'t my place. I have no bone to pick with you, other than my confusion about your inability to get a password over there? My e-mail address is carissell@yahoo.com.

jimbo66 · September 06, 2005, 10:25:35 AM

Razzle,

I guess what I don\'t understand is why things get so off subject when somebody from that board posts to somebody on this board. I was talking about comparing the products and doing a current study, using the Fall Belmont meet. Somewhat selfish, since I bet the NYRA circuit, but nonetheless this would have taken up a lot of my time, so I picked the circuit I am interested in. Len did fax me a study, which I thanked him for. It was a little dated and was focused on Hollywood (at least the breakouts of the stats were only given for that track, the other tracks used were grouped into a composite). I didn\'t discredit the study, but the fact is that since it was 1994 and no specifics were provided as to the horses used, figures, etc.etc, I still felt that it would be relevant to serious gamblers who use either product to compare numbers and results currently.

I posted on that board an invitation to attack the study jointly with a Rags user, and I SUGGESTED a methodology, although made it clear that I was open to suggestions as to how it should be done.

Len responded by taking shots at my methodology and asking for an apology because I wanted to know who did the 1994 study. Impartiality should be important in any study, which is why I asked a Rags user to join me in the study I proposed.

The responses I got on that board were wisecracks, potshots, etc.etc, except for Steve Plever.

Now, you post on this board and instead of talking about any real issue, you keep reiterating that I couldn\'t get a password from the Rags board. Why is that even relevant. Last summer, at the same time I asked for one here, I requested a password to the Rags board. I got a message saying that the password would be emailed to me shortly. I never got it. I don\'t know why, maybe it was blocked as spam when they emailed it. I didn\'t care enough to investigate. I mentioned in passing on this board in a different thread that I never got my password and beyerguy was nice enough to send me his. I didn\'t use it right away, because I didn\'t have the need. But I remembered it because it happened to be the name of a horse I bet in the Haskell about 20 years ago. So, when Indulto challenged me to join that board and defend my comments, I used it. Clearly stating in the subject that it was jimbo66. I gave my name again in the postings there.

So, yes, I find it disingenuous when Len posts over there this weekend about the anonymous posts and specifically says \"he wishes he wasn\'t the last to know that beyerguy was actually jimbo66 and not the former beyerguy.

And why is the topic of choice of Len, yourself and others over there to discuss anonymous posts, Jerry\'s lawsuit, Jerry\'s character, Jerry\'s emails, etc.etc.?

Did you notice the response over here to this? About 10 people chimed in with their own views on how a study could be done and how they would like the methodology to work. That is an interesting topic, at least it should be.

I am going to pass on the veiled comments you made about my inability get passwords considering what I claim is my job, and also your implications about algorithms, interfaces and probabilities. Maybe I am stupid, unemployed and don\'t know a thing about technology. It is irrelevant to any of the discussions about either board and your views posted here.

TGJB · September 06, 2005, 10:28:27 AM

Raz-- First of all, quotation marks have meaning. It\'s pretty bad form to use them when parodying someone, after quoting them directly-- someone like Indulto might get confused.

Second, CTC is right. I\'m going to leave your silliness up there, and anyone who can figure out your point (or even get through it all) is welcome to it. I can\'t.

But I\'m pretty sure they\'ll understand what I was saying in that email, thanks for posting it-- I like it even better now than I did when I wrote it. And by the way, nice logic-- you\'re upset because a child might gain access to your private email (?) and read a curse, then you go and post it intact with the curse in a public forum (you could have modified it, as I just did). Nice. Also, you should have provided context by making it clear that you e-mailed me first, months ago, unsolicited, to try and get me to tone it down-- I didn\'t just pull your e-mail address from the data base, I had it from YOUR e-mail. And that e-mail to me is also why you are a hypocrite for those completely unprovoked, completely personal attacks about the lawsuit.

Anyway, if I could figure out what your specific point was, I might respond to it (and if anyone else wants to take a crack, in 10 words or less, like a telegram, go for it).

Meanwhile-- I\'m going back to doing what I was before the eruption of personal attacks over there a couple of weeks ago. If there are significant figure making issues to address I will do so, and I\'ll take the attacks on a case by case basis, but there really is nobody home on the other site anyway. Who cares.

September 06, 2005, 10:58:53 AM

Jimbo,

The last thing in the world I want to do is get involved in this. I\'m enjoying not being the focus of controversy. The only thing I am interested in is the potential figure study.

I just have one small somewhat irrelevent comment. I think Len legitimately did not realize that you were Jimbo66 posting under the beyerguy name over there when he complained. At one point there were so many long attack posts and threads, it was easy to miss if you were just skimming through them looking for something worthwhile.

jimbo66 · September 06, 2005, 11:13:22 AM

Class,

Then Len isn\'t really doing his job, if one of his tasks is to manage the board. The very first post I made was \"To Indulto from Jimbo66\". And it was replied to with that subject many times.

I spoke to Len on the phone, using my name.

If he still didn\'t know I wasn\'t beyerguy than he has more serious problems than the accuracy of his figures..........

razzle · September 06, 2005, 12:17:59 PM

Jimbo,

\"I am going to pass on the veiled comments you made about my inability get passwords considering what I claim is my job, and also your implications about algorithms, interfaces and probabilities\"

They aren\'t \"veiled\". Nothing I\'ve done or said is \"veiled\"; nothing you\'ve said is unacknowledged, as it relates to me. I believe you about the programmers and the math and the computers. Your statements just didn\'t jibe with being unable to get a password on the Ragozin board?

\"I never got it[password]. I don\'t know why, maybe it was blocked as spam when they e-mailed it. I didn\'t care enough to investigate. I mentioned in passing on this board in a different thread that I never got my password and beyerguy was nice enough to send me his.\"

That speaks directly to what I asked about. Thank you for the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. I accept that. I read it when you originally posted it some time ago. It\'s just that then you couched your statement in language making it sound like it was so difficult for you to do. I like your ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that it was because you didn\'t care enough.

\"Now, you post on this board and instead of talking about any real issue,\"

I have no position on the contest/study/methodology you propose. That has never been the topic of my posts. You are free to say what is a \"real issue\" for you, not for me. My posts are about COMMUNICATION as it relies on the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of anothers\' point of view. That is missing from JB. I took some shots at him on the other board, I came here so he would have opportunity to face his accuser(a human courtesy) and to clarify my concerns about his omission of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

Further, in assessing which product to use, one can do a study, challenge the methodologies, or, one can make an assessment about the credibility of the person of the purveyor . You are interested in the methodology. I\'m assessing the person. How does he sound to you?

Oh, you didn\'t even acknowledge my apology? That\'s truly a shame as they(apologies) are indeed a rare commodity on these boards.

Also, you made an accusation about identities and e-mail addresses. I ACKNOWLEDGED that, and provided mine, with a note about the justifications for protection. You have selectively ignored that.

\" Did you notice the response over here to this? About 10 people chimed in with their own views on how a study could be done and how they would like the methodology to work. That is an interesting topic, at least it should be.
\"

Jimbo, again, this is about your topic of the study. As I said, I have no opinion about it. I do think you\'ve stirred some interest in others for doing such a study. More power to you. Regarding the nastiness and personal attacks that creep into these posts, on both boards, I think they are adolescent. I AGREE with you. I can\'t take any responsibility for what others chose to do. However, if, in responding to a post, one goes to the trouble to ACKNOWLEDGE what the other is saying, the personal attacks dissipate(Seek first to understand, then to be understood-- from the 7 Habits of Highly Effective [Handicappers]). Thanks for making my point from another direction.

\"Maybe I am stupid, unemployed and don\'t know a thing about technology\"

Please, Jimbo, having one guy over here manufacturing his own insults to reply to i s quite enough. I know you are not stupid. I believe you supervise 100 programmers. I\'m sure you know far more than me about technology.

\" I guess what I don\'t understand is why things get so off subject when somebody from that board posts to somebody on this board.\"

I agree with you, again.

jimbo66 · September 06, 2005, 12:49:10 PM

Alright Raz,

I acknowledge your apology. Thank you. It is clear from your posts that you and I have different interests and objectives. As I said on the other board, I am a gambler. I would like to do it as well as I can, since beating the takeout, guessing which trainers are cheating, and handicapping better than the other people betting into the pools, is a very very difficult task (at least for me). Gambling on horse racing is \"the issue\" for me on these boards.

I acknowledge that my interests don\'t interest you and you obviously have issues with Jerry that pre-date my involvement on these boards.

Good luck,

Jim

razzle · September 06, 2005, 01:02:22 PM

\"But I\'m pretty sure they\'ll understand what I was saying in that email, thanks for posting it-- I like it even better now than I did when I wrote it. And by the way, nice logic-- you\'re upset because a child might gain access to your private email (?) and read a curse, then you go and post it intact with the curse in a public forum (you could have modified it, as I just did).\"

I apologize to anyone who read JB\'s language(as I quoted him) on this board and was offended by it. I thought this board had the same screening feature that the Rags board has for foul language. My error. You needn\'t worry about hearing more of that kind of language from me, not here, not on the other board, not in any e-mails you get from me. I will be more cautious in the future when I quote JB\'s foul language, but I cannot rescue him from himself(he sent me that e-mail last week, by the way, before any of this exchange started).

Also, there\'ve been several references to the e-mails that JB and I exchanged last December. I\'m happy to supply those to anyone interested.

\"Anyway, if I could figure out what your specific point was\"

And this from a guy who can nail down something as elusive as a \"cut loose\" variant.

Well, here we go, back to square one. I\'ll repeat my points, as stated in the earlier posts, I\'ll put it in brackets here to avoid confusion.

[ For the record, personal attacks/name calling(as you\'ve displayed here), the absence of acknowledgement of anothers\' point of view, and the intellectual integrity issue of \"taking false credit\" are the essence of my objections.]

Have you ever seen anyone create so much confusion around such a simple set of issues as JB has here? That\'s a big part of why I poke fun at him.

As it does not appear fruitful to continue this with JB, I\'ll let it go here.

razzle · September 06, 2005, 01:08:14 PM

Jimbo66,

Thank you. That post is what makes all this trouble worthwhile. I look forward to hearing more of your study. Best wishes,

Raz

TGJB · September 06, 2005, 02:04:02 PM

Raz--

1-- I sent the e-mail before you posted on THIS board, but I sent it in RESPONSE to your personal attacks a few days earlier on the Ragozin board. Don\'t play games.

2-- Okay, I\'ll play. EXACTLY what point of view am I not acknowledging? Spell out EXACTLY what I have not addressed, and I will.

When you do, also show me the \"acknowledgment\" by Friedman of the beaten lengths error I demonstrated they made in the 04 Derby, ground loss errors about TOTB in the BC Mile, and others in this year\'s Florida Derby, etc.. Also show his \"acknowledgment\" of my lawyers letter, posted here after being sent to them with a transcript of two taped conversations with Ragozin employees (one from their office) telling a potential customer we didn\'t have trackmen doing ground loss, and telling them to knock it off. Also his \"acknowledgment\" of my arguments about changing track speeds, and all the evidence I provided, much of it from scientists who had actually studied track surfaces.

Failing that, show me any indication you reproached him for not \"acknowledging\" my public points. Because that\'s a big thing with you.

3-- Ah yes, the issue of intellectual integrity, and taking false credit. Tell me EXACTLY what you want me to \"acknowledge\". When you do, show me where you took Friedman to task for his false claim that Lava Man was claimed off their data (see article in the L.A. Times, where Steve Kenly said he claimed it using ours, over the objections of someone using Ragzoin). Also for Jake\'s false claim of Ragozin involvement with the management of Musique Toujours, proven false in two publications.

Show me where Friedman acknowledged ANY of this, even after they got caught lying publicly.

To say nothing of Ragozin NEVER giving any credit or ACKNOWLEDGING those who made figures long before him, incorporating wind, ground, weight etc. Or giving credit to Connie Merjos, for explaining to him about run-ups, and showing Len how to get live (as opposed to airport) wind, and live (as opposed to from chart) ground, and clock from the gate using a run-up chart. None of which Connie invented-- he got it all from earlier generations of figure makers.

I must have missed the part where they ACKNOWLEDGED all of that, or you called them on not doing so. Again, because that\'s a big thing with you

But go for it. Tell me specifically what you want me to acknowledge.

bdhsheets · September 06, 2005, 08:14:46 PM

Memory is cloudy about who did the study. The name was something like Sportsform, Sportsline, Sportsinfo....

If memory serves the study wasn\'t very flattering to either camp. The DRF + variant finished barely behind. Factor the cost of the sheets the ROI wasn\'t so hot....

HP · September 07, 2005, 05:50:24 AM

Bdh,

I think you are right and I think it was \"SportStat\" or \"Sportsline.\"

Also, I vaguely remember the terms of the study and I\'m pretty sure it was based on how the horse with the best number in its last race did. In other words, if there were six horses in the race and the one horse had the best fig on TG and he won, TG got credit. I just remember thinking it had very little to do with how most people really handicap. I wouldn\'t necessarily expect that the horse with the best figure going in last out would be a winner. I\'d be hoping he\'d be overbet! I didn\'t think the study really measured anything in terms of the quality or accuracy of the numbers... I\'m sure JB will remember the specifics better than me.

I don\'t know if there really is a purely mechanical way to measure the quality of figures, since so much of it is based on patterns, back numbers, development, etc.

HP

HP · September 07, 2005, 05:51:24 AM

Actually it was either how the horse did in its last race or some kind of \"average\" of the last three numbers...(?) HP

bdhsheets · September 07, 2005, 07:52:57 AM

HP:

As you, I recall something about it dealing with the last three numbers. Best number of the three, regardless when it was earned??? I think that sounds right. The DRF + variant did quite well and neither camp has anything to crow about...We know simplistic approaches, without reads doesn\'t work too well, especially back in the day when 0-2-X had meaning :-)

BTW: Didn\'t the great Len Ragozin, not that long ago, partake in some meeting long contest and when including the cost of the figs, wound up with a negative ROI? Something like that....