Peace In Our Time

[TGJB]

Recently Mall and Tegger expressed what I\'m sure are the sentiments of many here in asking that I shut down the Raggie Lunatic Fringe. While it has been very productive (on-line sales are up 50%, and we\'re doing virtually no other marketing) I do agree it\'s become unpleasant, as well as taking an awful lot of my time. I need Jim to help me with one more thing, which should be coming up soon, and then I\'ll end this, at least for a while--when Ragozin starts selling on-line there are going to be a lot of \"virgins\" around, and I\'m going to need to get information to them.

[superfreakicus]

and to think you just posted this yesterday:

\"Factoid Man! You\'re back! Just so we\'re clear--I want you to stay, and if you didn\'t have a few screws loose you would know how much good you\'ve done me already. The other guys are reacting because you are incredibly unpleasant, but that\'s one of the reasons I want you here. I know you want me to bar you (get to leave and save face) but I\'m not done with you.\"


I can see I was way off w/the \'wishy washy\' comment.

you are one of the goofiest dudes I\'ve ever run across.

[tegger]

Jerry,

It\'s your company and your board and I have to respect your agenda since you have succeeded for over 2 decades in a very tough business.  However, I think TG\'s online sales are way up because more people are learning that they are available, your pricing policy and your additional statistics.  I was a diehard user of TG in NY but stopped using them (and stopped betting the ponies) when I moved to Vegas because I could not buy them locally.  Once I found out they were available online I became a very regular user as you well know.

I have to admit that sometimes these arguments have made me curious about purchasing Rags to see if their numbers are superior.  This probably works both ways and since Rags has more customers (due to being first in the market)it probably benefits TG more when there are dual crossover sales.  Your addition of statistics, legible format and more logical arguments for figure making have kept me with the TG product.  The arguments have allowed me to understand that figure making while basically logical when done correctly is also somewhat subjective.  I have always questioned races where 3 or 4 horses in a cheap to mid-level claimer have all jumped to 3 to 5 point tops and now I understand that it is not necessarily correct and may have occurred to make a race fit with a changing variable for races around it.  I have adjusted my handicapping accordingly.

However, I am confused by those such as David (sometimes G) Patent that claim that you force horses into smooth patterns.  Statistics tells us that patterns within 2 standard deviations are the most common.  Rags would seem to make the statistical anomalies that are outside this 2 standard deviation range more common which logically does not make sense.  The asymptote figures becomes almost as common as the 1 standard deviation figures and this defies logic.  Also, assuming that you could ignore your convincing argument that horses in forced tight patterns would be exposed due to horses travelling from track to track, how do the detractors explain instances such as War Emblem or Proud Citizen where you have the horses exploding to new tops?  I cashed War Emblem in the Derby because of the big top to the one (I figured that fair odds on the horse were about 6-1 based on a possible bounce or another horse running a new top)and he then ran another 2 races that were very tight with that number.  How can the Rag agenda boys argue that you are forcing the tight cycles no matter what the evidence when there are daily examples to the contrary.

[superfreakicus]

I can\'t do it now, but if you REALLY want, I might answer some of your questions later.
but, before I waste my time w/that, please answer a couple quickies for me:
is there any point to this masturbation?
what is you background in math, and/or statistics?

[nunzio]

With all due respect JB, I feel I must quote Andy Sippowitz regarding Superfreakicus\'s
latest comment.

Have you always been a douche bag ?

Nunzio

[tegger]

Jerry,

This is my exact point - Soup n\' Nuts has posted his circular and one-sided arguments 166 times in a short period and his other Rag buddies have probably posted another 300 to 400 times.

He then has the nerve to ask about my background and to ask if there is any point to my \"masturbation\"!  What is your background oh genius of the boards that has all this free time to post?   Between undergraduate and graduate school I took 1.5 years of statistics and a year of logic along with many other finance/analytical classes.  Obviously I am not in your PhD/Stephen Hawkins league but I hope to at least try to tag along and understand your thesis like arguments by breaking them into small pieces and studying and diagramming them for hours!

I now find myself going to the Sheets board where there is more conversation about actual handicapping.  At least I might learn something new about handicapping from the discussion there.  No handicapping string can survive the Rag attacks on this board!

Perhaps, you might consider that the Rags have won since they now officially own this board!

[JRL]

I am not sure how you can conclude that the vast majority of Ragozin\'s numbers are not within 2 standard deviations, as you do not know the mean and you do not know the standard deviation.  Further, you certainly cannot conclude that JB\'s numbers are within 2 standard deviations because, as many have told me on this board,  TG users do not believe in averages in relation to figure making, so I don\'t know how they can believe in standard deviations? (I don\'t recall JB making such an extreme statement, but other\'s certainly have.)

Speaking of exaggeration, nobody ever contended that JB \"forces his numbers into tight patterns.\"  That is a straw man argument invented by the TG folks to attack the actual criticism.  The actual criticism is not that JB goes back and forces tight patterns. The criticism is that everytime JB senses an \"anomoly\" he makes the numbers come out the way he subjectively thinks they should have come out based on the patterns of the horses in that particular race.  On this point, I don\'t think I am exaggerating.  This necessarily results in tighter patterns, particularly with horses who have run few races, such as young 3 year-olds.  If you have faith in JB\'s ability to do that, you should be a TG user.

Go to JB\'s sheets of the Wood that he posted.  Then subtract a few points from the Wood number that he claims Ragozin got wrong.  If you do this, you are likely to conclude that this debate is kind of pointless because there can be no \"proof.\"  I can make the case  that based on the numbers that followed to the end of the year and subsequent years, the numbers make more sense on several horses if you did subtract the points. What does that prove?  Not much. To me, it proves what I have always contended, that there is no way to determine the truly \"correct number\" and there is really no way to tell whether an incorrect number would make a sheet fall apart in the long run, so you should go with who uses a methodology you trust is correct the majority of the time, not on one particular race.

[superfreakicus]

\"He then has the nerve to ask about my background ...\"

well, exCUSE ME!

I was about to do you the courtesy of typing up an answer that, while certainly not thesis quality, would have been thesis length, and you can\'t even be bothered to answer a couple short ones for me.

in the future, I\'ll try to keep my impudence in check, lest I incur your wrath.

jason covered the \'standard deviation\' nonsense already, so you can bring your grad school brain to bear on that, for now --- apparently, this IS a complete waste of my time.

by the way, were you bringing up war emblem for a pat on the head for cashing a ticket (ala dick powell), or are you using some of that logic 101 on me?
if the latter, you could have bet war emblem off his last beyer and saved yourself $25.

ps

\"...and to ask if there is any point to my \"masturbation\"! \"

actually, I\'d really prefer you keep that to yourself.
I was referring to the \'masturbation\' of this endless (and pointless) debate --- \'who\'s got the best figures?!!!!!!!\'
you seem to have already figured it out, and I agree ---- you should use TG.
what\'s to talk about?

[Alydar in California]

Jason: Since you ignored JB\'s reply, I\'m doing it this way: These are statements you have made over the past two days. One didn\'t  necessarily follow another. Look them up:    

Jason wrote: \"...TG users do not believe in averages in relation to figure making...\"

 I did not write that. Document your statement, Jason. If you have something to say, say it. If you have someone in mind, name him. If you can prove something with a quote, prove it. If none of the above, keep doing what you have been doing, but expect to be challenged, and expect it to be a persistent challenge.

Jason wrote: : \"...nobody ever contended that JB \'forces his numbers into tight patterns\'.\"

Explain this statement, Jason. It\'s from a Raggie: \"...[JB] manipulates the variant to achieve a tighter range of results.\"

Jason wrote: \"The criticism is that everytime JB senses an \'anomoly\' he...\"

Ask your secretary to fix the errors here. They are beginning to get on my nerves. OVER AND OVER you do this, Jason. It is at least six times now on one of them. I\'m beginning to think that...forget it. By the way, do you work in Encino? You ducked my earlier question on this.

Jason wrote: \"JB\'s assertions that Ragozin must be guilty of slander ...\"

This sounds serious, Jason. Surely you can tell us where we can find this statement of JB\'s. You had better.

Jason wrote: \"No lawyer would ever advise a client to answer such allegations, as it could only be used against him in the future.\"

This is ludicrous on its face. I know you don\'t believe it. Why did you write it, Jason? Don\'t you know a lawyer who could tell you how \"stupid\" (to use a word you have been using) this statement is?

Jason wrote: \"My point in this is not to accuse JB of anything.\"

You would NOT say that under oath, would you?

Jason wrote: \"Is it immoral? Well, that is for each individual to decide.\"

Indeed. I will be back on Sunday night. I would very much like to talk to you about the morality of what you have been doing here.

[TGJB]

You know, a couple of weeks ago there was an in-depth discussion of figure making on this site, featuring a pretty sophisticated back and forth between Jason Litt and myself. Some have suggested that Soup didn\'t jump in then because he couldn\'t keep up, but I think it\'s because he has been making figures for so long, and has such a thorough knowledge of the subject, that it\'s become boring to him.

[TGJB]

Jason-
I\'m getting this weird sense of deja vu--there was this guy David Patent, and when he first started posting here I actually had a lot of respect for him. He seemed interested in having a serious discussion, and posted lengthy critiques that on the surface sounded meaningful. But then, when I broke down his arguments point by point, he would simply end the string, and start a new one starting with the same stuff I had just shot to hell.

Now, aside from the points Alydar makes there are other examples of your cutey-pie stuff (like changing the question to whether I GO BACK to force tight patterns). And, of course, you know I destroyed your \"anomoly\" argument on another thread--Figure Making Methodology II, 6/10/02. Anyway, I hate to accuse anyone of being David Patent, but I\'m starting to wonder.

[superfreakicus]

From TG -

This post linked to a tasteless and insulting picture on another site.

[JRL]

Okay Alydar, here is your quote, \"Ragozin makes use of claiming race averages when trying to determine how fast horses were EXPECTED to run today. Do you trust these averages?\"  Now, was it an exaggeration to say that you don\'t believe in averages for figure making?  Maybe a little, but not much (if these averages don\'t work then what averages do work?).

Look, both sides have been guilty of exaggerating the other\'s position, and I will try to put a stop to it on my part, as it really does not advance the discussion.  The point was that we cannot seriously discuss standard deviations in regards to JB\'s numbers, when JB acknowledges that many of his numbers are generated, not based on a statistical analysis of a large number of data points, but based on assuming that horses tend to pair up their numbers in a particular race.

I have never said that JB is necessarily \"wrong\" in his methodology. If we all accept that there are \"some\" races that cannot be accurately determined by establishing a variant through statistical analysis, then JB\'s method is as good as any, maybe better for those races.  I am just skeptical at the number of times these conditions exist, and that it works in the long run.

I am sure the tight line issue has given everyone a headache by now.  I guess JB believes he has \"destroyed\" my argument.  I don\'t seem to recall that.  But, in any event, everyone\'s position is clear, so I don\'t see a lot of point beating that dead horse on a theoretical level.  I do think it was helpful seeing the Wood and what happened afterward.  For one thing, part of the tight line issue comes from the pure visual presentation and difference in scales between the products, which has absolutely nothing to do with figure making.

Alydar, I don\'t really understand your problem. Do you really think I am trying to harm JB\'s business?  (If you need assurance, I am not.)   Is this some epic moral battle?  JB has seemed to be able to handle his own in defending his actions and decisions relative to Ragozin.  I think it is a little disingenuous for him to compare his actions to Porsche improving on the Model T, when he previously worked for Ragozin.  I stand by that.  But, based on what he has said, it seems pretty clear that he did nothing unlawful (and even if he did, the statute of limitations ran out long ago). So, personally, I don\'t plan to discuss that issue anymore.

[TGJB]

Cutey-pie, cutey-pie. Do they teach a course at Harvard Law in not answering directly? You had lots of chances to do that on several strings, but always chose not to.

Incidentally, cutey, horses tend to get faster after April of their 3yo year, so you will almost always be able to say that later numbers confirmed a too-fast number. You are right about the visual presentation.

[Alydar in California]

Jason Litt wrote: \"Alydar, I don\'t really understand your problem.\"

My \"problem,\" Jason, is that I think you are despicable. If you want, I will go through your posts line by line. Do you want that, or are you gone forever?