Leaving 11th Street

[tonyk]

Well like I say ,it all comes down to taking scores no matter how you do it.I really do not know much about figure making ,however I know a whole lot about the bottom line.I see your point sometimes on TG I find it difficult to differentiate between rival horses .Value is always the key .That is what makes up most of my decisions ,that, post position and likleyhood of decent trip.

[HP]

Can\'t help notice, supe and Jerry Jr., that there is no way in hell they are going to post those Belmont Day numbers except for those in the Belmont Stakes. This is kind of a surprise, given Patent\'s amazing performance that day, and the fact that they would simply delete the kind of discussions that would take place over here. You would think they would want to highlight their product. Maybe they could make up a sheet for that McLaughlin horse to make Supe look good too.

This, by the way, is true, unlike Jerry\'s Jr.\'s slanderous points on trackmen above. HP

[tonyk]

A good example of this was the grass race Sat. @ Bel .Both of Clement\'s horses had similar #\'s to VM ,Mott\'s horse off a layoff ran good #\'s last year ,had a license to improve ,but VM could also improve ,looked likely to stay out of the early mix,and hailed from a barn who\'s runners were doing well recently especially on the turf.Bottom line you have to go with value and not be afraid of the big bad stables of Mott & Clement.

[TGJB]

Yep, the Model T Ford and the Porsche both have 4 wheels, an engine, a steering wheel...what a rip off.

[superfreakicus]

the reason they look like that, is because jerry has the weird idea that repeating identical efforts is \'normal\' for a racehorse, while deviation from one race to the next is \'abnormal\'.
you can see this attitude in his constant harping on his peter pan #\'s.

he likes to say that horses do strange things, but groups of horses don\'t\'.
for the moment, just overlook the offensive inaccuracy in that --- the point is, groups of horses pairing up WOULD BE strange, but he feels it\'s the norm.

next, you might not make figures, but you may have read jerry\'s methodology on this board.
when I came here, I had no idea how he made his #\'s, and had no real opinion on them.
but, apparently, he adjusts the variant for each race until it fits his projection of what \'horses SHOULD run\', and we already know what that is.

the result is what you see.

as a sidenote, what he does in the process of making numbers is almost identical to day to day handicapping.
he looks at each race individually, and projects a number for the horses in each, based on his own judgement.
in the real world, when he takes these projections to the windows, there\'s a teller there to tell him that he\'s wrong.
when he\'s making numbers in his secret laboratory there\'re no tellers around to comment.

[tonyk]

JB ,I pay you the highest compliment any horseplayer can offer ,the respect of your opinion .I fully believe in the edge TG offers,and it is always first on my list of things needed for a sucessful day at the track.

[TGJB]

I did have some arguments about making figures with Ragozin when I was there, but you have to remember that when I was there no-one else was publishing any ready to use figures, let alone ones using ground and weight, on a graph. Beyer figures in the paper were 15 years away, and Ragozin didn\'t even have a copy machine--the figures didn\'t have to be that good in order to give a tremendous edge.
 
When I began making my own figures I had no idea what to expect--I believed all the stuff Ragozin said about his own ability, much as the Raggies do now. After about a year it became clear the figures couldn\'t be as accurate as he claimed--the underlying data (ground, wind etc.) wasn\'t accurate enough for it to be. I had already begun to question a lot of his approaches when the famous Belmont turf course incident occurred, and that crystallized a lot of my thinking. Since then I\'ve been much less dogmatic.

[superfreakicus]

\"You would think they would want to highlight their product. \"


no.

apparently YOU would.
based on the posts you\'ve made, I\'d appreciate it if you wouldn\'t project your thoughts onto other people.
that is really the height of vanity....


\"Maybe they could make up a sheet for that McLaughlin horse to make Supe look good too.\"

while you were apparently handicapping that one horse, I was handicapping the whole race.
try that next time --- maybe you\'ll come out on the plus side.

[TGJB]

Yeah, that\'s why I\'ve done so well since, and why I spend all this time pointing out flaws in his methods, and why his employees spend so much time lying about me--because he\'s so good and I\'m not. Without meeting Ragozin I would have been a total failure.

[superfreakicus]

\"Yep, the Model T Ford and the Porsche both have 4 wheels, an engine, a steering wheel...what a rip off.\"

good analogy.

those 2 products are so identical it\'s creepy.

[HP]

So they put up the numbers for Derby Day and Preakness Day and they\'re going to leave out Belmont Day. Even though some of their pets did so well. Hmmmm. I wouldn\'t want to project anything onto that. Where\'s the \'spin doctor\' when you need him. I guess they want to let Patent\'s drubbing die down. I can\'t wait for the next contest, where for an encore Patent will get a zero return with his contest wagers and tell us he wiped out Saratoga for good by winning every wager on the card. I must say, as clever as you are, you are second rate compared to the top guns. Patent and Plever could talk a hungry cat off a fish truck. You\'re nowhere near as much fun.

That\'s the power of Rags, Dave, play the horse with no sheet and you\'re all set! That Slew is a pisser.

Nice defense there on the \'vanity\' thing. You have completely turned it around on me. HP

[TGJB]

Anyone who has followed the discussion here knows that the post above could only have been posted by someone with an agenda or an idiot (or both). Anyone who has not followed the discussion should go to the dialogue between Jason Litt and myself (Figure Making Methodology II, 6/10/02) for a discussion between intelligent adults.

Factoid Man, you\'re still a lot smarter than all those who followed the discussion--so smart that you don\'t have to know what you\'re talking about. I await your wisecrack.

[TGJB]

So are these. Again, you are so much smarter than all those who see those imaginary differences--huge differences in figures, additional info--you know layout is everything.

[TGJB]

Jim, it\'s getting to the point someone is going to think that you\'re an invention of mine to make a point.

1- Our trackmen not only watch the races, they watch reruns, and sometimes Steward\'s tape.

2- How many people do you think Jim has said this to at Gulfstream and Calder, when there is no-one there to refute it?

3- Why do you suppose he said it?

[superfreakicus]

\"huge differences in figures, additional info--you know layout is everything.\"

if layout is nothing, then I\'d think you\'d have come up w/your own when you came up w/\'your own\' product.

and yes, I\'m quite sure there are huge differences in the #\'s.....