Davidowitz

[Silver Charm]

I read thru it briefly myself.

He appeared to be implying that horses need to be pushed less as two year olds (shorter distances) and less in their pre-derby preps (only the last prep be 1-1/8). He provided no basis of either fact or science, just his opinion.

The bounce theory came under attack and Sheet Forum personalities and users were characterized as \"Jim Jones kool-aid drinking\" wacko\'s. Believing everything their maniacal \"priests\" tell them.

I put the following post up the the night before the Preakness regarding a very scientific study performed by TG regarding 31 year olds who had gone negative before July. There were three, not counting Barbaro, who had past performance data subsequent to their negative efforts to make a \"highly subjective judgement or conclusion\". Now Barbaro can counted as four.

Certainly making for more interesting provoking thought than devoting a chapter of a book on how to BET TO PLACE. And I\'m not talking about the one Crist is releasing this week. Or maybe I am, I guess I\'ll have to buy it to find out.

Re: Answer for MO regarding 31 horses (153 Views)
Posted by: Silver Charm (IP Logged)
Date: May 19, 2006 11:31PM


Mo,

Birdstone did. He ran in the Lanes End, though very poorly, waited five weeks then ran in the Derby, was ok, then ran a big one in the Belmont beating Smarty Jones. However his pair is a little misleading because his next race was the Travers, three months after the Belmont, so he went in on good rest.

The other two Lion Heart and Egg Head, are also unique. Lion Heart paired with an excellant effort in the Derby, regressed in the Preakness, won a suspect Haskel and pulled up lame in the Travers. Career over.

Egg Head was much worse, he followed his pair with a game second to Lost in the Fog in the Riva Ridge and about a month experienced the ultimate bounce.

He dropped dead.

[xichibanx]

It was Davidowitz who had the chapter to bet to place.  It was about his wife teaching him to learn to bet to place and calculating place and show payoffs.

[Silver Charm]

splash....

[TGJB]

So anyway, about 15-20 years ago I was sitting in my living room, watching a Stanley Cup game and minding my own business, when the phone rang. It was some guy named Steve Davidowitz, whom I had never heard of, and he started screaming in my ear. He was down in Florida and someone had shown him our sheets, and all our theories were wrong, wrong, wrong. At length, and loud.

I never spoke to him again or met him face to face until a couple of years ago at the DRF Expo, where I reminded him of the conversation, and we quickly got into an argument about something else. Might have been rebates, not sure, but not about handicapping. I cut it short, never spoke to him again. And I\'m going to mostly leave his piece alone, because a) he doesn\'t know or understand enough about what I or other sheet people believe to have a conversation about this stuff, and b) I\'ve had this conversation too many times before.

Steve, have you actually seen our data recently? We don\'t say horses are sure to bounce-- the very existence of the Thoro-Patterns should indicate we think it is a question of percentages, probability. It\'s why I coined the term \"bounce CANDIDATE\".

1-- We predicted publicly that Barbaro was very likely to be seriously set back by his Derby effort based on a study of 31 horses. It was a question of probablity.

2-- On the question of what causes horses to break down-- it is very unlikely that Steve or anyone out there reading this has had a close working relationship with as many trainers as I have, and some of them were very good. Many agree with me in general terms, and you don\'t need to take my word for it-- just look at the current trend of spacing races further apart.

3-- As was pointed out to me via e-mail, Koufax pitched in the 60s, not the 70s. And yeah right, players are not stronger physically-- McGuire, Sosa and Bonds are the same in terms of size and strength as Aaron, Mays and Robinson--not. (And note, I\'m not talking about better). Steve, if you actually want to read something in-depth on the subject you shot your mouth off on, try \"Are Racehorses Getting Faster\" on this site.

4-- Nobody is talking about making the TC easier to win. We are talking about making it easier to survive. We hope to have some studies to show you soon to highlight what we\'re talking about here.

[marcus]

Jerry , Some nice points made +  I\'ve never seen or heard of a wagering menu that include\'s  a wager ( future or otherwise ) for A HORSE TO WIN THE TRIPLE CROWN . And  on top of the Speed Figure French Inquisition , somebody doesn\'t like Stanley Cup Hockey  ?

[imallin]

I feel that people who \'knock\' T-graph or the sheets are people who are just possibly jealous they can\'t afford the 25 a day.

Steve is an old time handicapper who\'s probably set in his ways and was handicapping long before T-graph became popular, so to people set in their ways, any \'change\' is considered a threat to the way they always did things.

Its in some people\'s best interest to knock this type of speed figure because if it is found out to be very effective among the masses, than the conventional handicapping he\'s been preaching for years doesn\'t look as good.

Mostly, when a horse handicapper criticizes something its just a person looking out for their own best interest.

For example, anyone who is critical of rebates is either a) not getting one b) a track GM or some other suit who\'s best interest is to have people bet at his track with NO rebate.

Lastly, i believe that Davidowitz is wrong to knock thorograph/the sheets simply for the fact that these speed figures are handipping \'tools\'. They are not the end all of end alls, they  are just a handicapping supplement to what is already (hopefully, for the user) strong handicapping. Every top handicapper has every tool he can get his hands on, whether its workout reports, par times, pace times, speed figs, etc. so i can\'t see someone knocking a certain way of doing things. There\'s no right or wrong way to win money betting...any way you can win is the right way.

[P-Dub]

Are Chuckles and Davidowitz related??

[JJP]

Like him or not, \"Betting Thoroughbreds\" is one of the best handicapping books ever written.  There\'s more than one way to skin a cat; T-Graph/the Sheets may be one way, but a lot of Davidowitz\'s \"ancient\" ideas still work.

[Silver Charm]

agreed

[P-Dub]

Its on my shelf too,  excellent book.

[Davidwtz]

Text deleted by author\'s request.
Edited version in subsequent post.

[Davidwtz]

This is a response to Jerry Brown\'s posting that was forwarded to me.

I have not logged on or read the thread of remarks about my column and I just created an id and registered for the express purpose of responding to this post


All I am responding to here is the statement that was contained in an e-mail forwarded to me that apparently Jerry Brown posted on your site.
In fairness, I believe you should post this response in its entirety on your site where appropriate, including this prelude.

It is completely false that I ever called you from Florida and screamed at you on the phone saying your theories were wrong wrong wrong.

Never happened.

Twice I did call you, once from NY to thank you for the sheets you were distributing for free to a few members of the press for promotional purposes, as you currently do to many members of the media in different markets to this day. I was not in Florida, but was calling you to thank you about seeing them in Florida weeks earlier.

The other time from Minneapolis.
Both times in response to a suggestion by Steve Nagler who was acting as your agent to get your Sheets off the ground. In the second call I explained that I was interviewing you for a column that was to be published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune in the late 1980\'s.

I called to say--and remember it vividly-- that I found value in your sheets approach to presenting \'performance figures\' in chart form and also noted the similarity to the Ragozin Sheets, which you told me in the conversation that you had once worked for him.

I also told you that I found your sheets to be helpful in identifying turf contenders, especially since no turf figures were presently being produced by Andy Beyer or anyone else I knew about and I had experimented with making figs for turf on my own but gave up due to the inconsistencies in clockings. I even told you that I had shared some of your turf figures when in Florida with Steve Crist, with whom I was staying at the time and we both hit exactas based on The Sheet turf figs.

You explained that your employees clock races from the gate and that was one of the reasons why you were able to make good figs.

I asked you what you did about weight and what you did about horses who were running on deep rails and what you thought about pace and what you did about other subtleties. In other words, I asked you professionally about your methodology and did not scream at you, far from it.

When you explained the ideas behind your theories and the research behind your weight formula and your lack of belief in track bias and pace as important mitigating form factors, I did not scream anything at you, I told you straight up man to man, that I disagreed.

I was not even argumentative, although I did explain why I thought you were wrong to discount slow rails when they existed and that weight is the most over weighted handicapping factor I have ever come across and that pace is a murky but important consideration when evaluating good and bad performances, rather than a predictive tool.But it is hardly something to be dismissed in when assessing how a number was generated by a horse in a race.


In other words this was anything but a screaming session, it was a professional interview with professional responses from someone who was both impressed with your approach and had disagreements with it too.

How and why you have found the nee to turn it into a way to make me look like an arrogant jerk, is hardly worth analyzing other than for me to simply state it does not become you or make any sense.

As for the subsequent Handicapping Expo you refer to, I have no recollection whatsoever of \'being reminded\' of your (mis) represented conversation. I have no recollection of any important interaction with you about any aspect of your work, or about any subject, although it might well have occurred, because there were dozens of short interactions with Expo attendees and speakers that I could not begin to list or recount. Whatever. There was no disrespect or argumentative feeling that I can recall from any of those interactions with anyone.

I can only also add that it is not my nature to dismiss people in the game in a cavalier or hostile manner.

Nor do I regard Thorograph as something bad for the game, something terribly misguided, I just think your Bounce notions go way overboard in explaining poor performances. Be they mentioned before the fact or after. Be there percentages attached before the fact either. What I do not like is an injured Rh horse being used as an example that seems to state that the theory of the bounce was proved by the injury, which was the implication of the note passed on to me that I reacted to when writing my TrackMaster column. That felt to me to be in bad taste. And if that did not occur as represented to me in the e-mail that I used as a springboard, I will print a correction. If it did occur as represented in that e-mail, than I would suggest it was in bad taste, winning play or losing play notwithstanding.


If you truly believe that----more power to you, but I have serious doubts that Barbaro\'s injury was the result of a SEVERE BOUNCE.

As for the number of weeks that a horse of today must rest to reproduce a good race vs the numerous starts compared to the numbers of races, close together by horses in the 1960\'s and \'70\'s---yes that is indeed an issue related to changes in training regimens, drugs, and other issues just as it is related to modern baseball pitchers and their less resilient form factors.

But the point I raised is that such issues are not absolute gospel truths.

Time between races and numbers of starts are an evolving trend that can shift in either direction, slow down, or speed up through time, just as it is has in other sports, including basketball where players are more resilient, more active than they were 20 years ago.

Bonds? Vs Aaron?
McGuire and Sosa vs Mays and Mantle?
Etc.

Sure Bond and McGuire and Sosa are bigger and stronger through drugs in combination with modern training regimens and nutritional supplements. At the same time, the livelier ball and smaller ballparks are among other important factors that blur equal comparisons, just as pole vaulters and golfers leap higher and hit further through technological advances in equipment, just as racetracks are manicured differently to produce faster clockings. But good figs take out the condition of the track and purport to measure how fast a horse really ran.

I wonder when I read in some public forum that the fifth or six place finisher in an ordinary Derby ran a 4 on The Sheets, or that the latest winner of a mediocre Derby ran a zero and that Secretariat only ran a 2, or something like that.

It seems to me that if that is anywhere close to what is being recorded for such horses that your scale is sliding more than the horses are improving and I base that on my own speed figure research which I have published in many forums through the years. But if there are contrary facts that you possess,I could be persuaded otherwise.



I also believe that the fault with 3 yr old racehorse fragility can be better traced to the layout of principal stakes at 2 yrs of age, where distances have been lengthened for those stakes--from August on--more than is reasonable from a development and health standpoint. this more than increasing the spacing between Triple Crown races should be addressed seriously, I think.

At the bottom line, I do not believe I have the Rosetta Stone to explain the universe of handicapping, but I do believe I have a realistic, professional perspective and I have spent my entire life trying to find things out, trying to share them honorably and not being afraid to offer critics when it seems fair and deserved.


Should you wish to discuss any of this honorably-- anything about any aspect of your work, or mine---please feel free to contact me by return E-mail or provide your private phone number. I would suggest though that you retract the comment that I \"screamed\" at you and labeled your theories, \"wrong wrong wrong\".

I strongly suspect that you confused me with someone else.

Sincerely/Steve Davidowitz
davidwtz@aol.com

[NoCarolinaTony]

Steve,

It will be interesting to see what happens from here. Glad to see you respond here.

I too have read your books and guides throughout the years and have found them to be very well written and still pertinent today. I could have seen Barabro bounce...but to associate injury with it is a stretch and a very bad coincidence. In the end, people will believe what they want.

NC Tony

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Davidwtz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nor do I regard Thorograph as something bad for
> the game, something terribly misguided, I just
> think your Bounce notions go way overboard in
> explaining poor performances. Be they mentioned
> before the fact or after. Be there percentages
> attached before the fact either. What I do not
> like is an ijnjured h orse being used as an
> example that seems to state that the theory of the
> bounce was proved by the injury,  which was the
> implication of the note passed on to me that I
> reacted to when writing my TrackMaster column.
> That felt to me to be in bad taste. And if that
> did not occur as represented to me in the e-mail
> that I used as a springboard, I will print a
> correction. If it did occur as represented in
> that e-mail, than I would suggest it was in bad
> taste, winning play or losing play
> notwithstanding.      
>
>
> If you truly believe that----more power to you,
> but I have serious doubts that Barbaro\'s injury
> was the result of a SEVERE BOUNCE.

Theres certainly no bad taste in factoring a large effort horse to go off, regardless of how large the effort may have been. Add to Barbaro\'s Derby Top, the lack of a legitimate work coming up to the race, his very spotty past performances, observers who felt he was amiss in the pre start of the Preakness, the Preakness gate rush, his odd demeanor being led back to the starting gate and the totality of facts indicate he suffered the Mother of all Bounces. It certainly wasn\'t Brother Derek. Not only did he bounce, he was purportedly played to bounce by many on this board, myself included. This was a horse that needed time and time was not available to him.


>
> I also believe that the fault with 3 yr old
> racehorse fragility can be better traced to the
> layout of principal stakes at 2 yrs of age, where
> distances have beenlengthened for those
> stakes--from August on--more than is reasonable
> from a development and health standpoint. this
> more than increwasing the spacing between Treiple
> Crown races should be addressed seriously, I
> think.  
>


Agree with you entirely with this point. Although there are other factors as well.


> Sincerely/Steve  Davidowitz
> davidwtz
> 4;aol.com
>

[Silver Charm]

Steve glad to see you come on the Board and defend yourself.

I don\'t have time to discuss most of your points but will later. If I am one of the people who was considered in \"bad taste\" regarding using Barbaro\'s injury as an the result of a bounce there is one problem with that.

I said what I said \"before\" the race not after. The post is re-posted as the first one in this string.

Steve I have bought two copies of your book and now do not have any. I gave them too other friends who never gave them back. This tells me its good and I need new friends, but thats another subject for another day.

I will respond with more later tonight.

Welcome to our world.......