Figure Study

[TGJB]

Okay, Del Mar opens this week, and with it the Thoro-Graph/Ragozin figure study. When this was brought up on the Ragozin board, Len Friedman said there should be 3 solid ground rules, and I agree:

1) The parameters of the study should be announced publicly in advance, meaning which tracks will be included, and for what time period.

2) The length of the study must be sufficient.

3) The study, once started, must be finished.

I agree with all those conditions. The tracks and time periods covered will be the Del Mar and Saratoga meets, which between them will have somewhere around 700 races.

Here\'s the way we will do it-- we will take the last 3 figures from both services run by every horse on the surface he will run on today (turf or dirt), no matter when they occured. We will throw out the worst one, and average the other two to create a rough power rating for each horse. If they have only run twice we\'ll average them, once, we\'ll use that one.

We will then adjust the ratings for the weight each horse carries in the race, and rank them in order of power ratings for each service. After the races are run, the service that has the winner ranked higher gets a point. At the end of the study, the side that has the most points wins. If the winner was a first time starter (or first grass or first time in this country, etc.), we go to the second horse, but no further-- it should be about who runs fast, not who runs okay.

As to how the mechanics will work-- George will put together a file and post it on this site daily in advance of racing with our ratings and rankings (and since we sell the sheets in advance and have the Red Board Room, anyone can check to see if we made a mistake or cheated). Tom (Alydar, Janis Joplin, etc.) will check what we post, and do the work to create comparable ratings and rankings for Ragozin, which he will post in advance on both sites and e-mail to me and Friedman. (What Tom is getting out of this is free sheets for both tracks from both services, which means I\'m paying for a lot of Ragozin sheets-- ugh). Tom will also make the adjustments later for the overweights, and post a running score on both sites.

A few comments--

1-- I would like to keep things simple and focused, but I am open to any suggestions that Len has about how to do the study. There are issues here of both fairness and credibility.

2-- This is not a betting study-- we\'re doing it this way because patterns are very subjective, and different guys using the same data can (and do) have different opinions. But in the long run, fast horses will beat slower horses, and this study is designed to find who is more accurate in determining who the faster horses are. (Also, patterns are no more accurate than the figures they are based on, so if it becomes clear from the study that one set of figures is more accurate, conclusions can also be drawn about the accuracy of patterns).

3-- Because the data will be posted on an ongoing basis daily, anyone that wants to can do whatever other studies they want to (win %, ROI etc.). But the primary study is the one we are doing, because it creates a winner for one side in every race, making the sample size significant-- having to have the winner on top creates more randomness and more cause for argument (especially if someone bet the winner because they thought it \"looked good\", and it wasn\'t listed on top).

4-- Some of you stat guys might have an opinion about what would constitute a meaningful result, but in my opinion anything less than a 52/48 edge would not be significant enough for anyone to brag about. If someone ends up 50 points ahead, however...

[BitPlayer]

TGJB -

In the case where both services have the race winner rated the same (e.g., fastest, second fastest), would you call the race a draw or try to break the tie by looking at the second place finisher?

[TGJB]

We would go to the second place finisher.

Eric-- the things you mention in your post on the Ragozin site are true for both sides and will wash out over a significant sampling. But that aside, it\'s a figure study, not a betting study. And the reason we are choosing these two meets is that they are high-visibility, and everybody follows them anyway.

Please read my earlier post carefully. If after that you or Len have any suggestions as to how the study can be improved, I\'m open to discussing them.

It occurs to me we could add another category along the same lines as seeing who had the winner rated higher-- taking the highest rated horse by each service in each race and seeing which finished higher, whether it won or not.

[bjt]

I was just wondering if Beyer figures would be part of the study as well , obviously without any weight adjustments . bj

[colin]

I am a converted Ragozin customer to your service. If you check my account activity I am a pretty good customer and have had a lot of success using your product ( although I only came in 26th out of 207 in the Belmont Park Handicapping contest sorry for letting the Thorograph down) but for the life of me I can\'t see why you are bothering with this study. For all the effort, I can\'t imagine any big statistical difference between you and Ragozin and I think you are missing the point of why customers like me made the switch. You always seem to be thinking of innovative new ways to use the figures to help gamblers win while Len Friedman, at his seminars, tends to suggest that his method of reading the sheets has been profitable for him and he will continue on this path. You made a good point last week about a horse at Belmont who had good sheet numbers and in the past you and Len would have caught him at a much bigger price if not for more people being aware of the figures. I will tell you that I notice many horses being much shorter than they should be because their last figure is very strong and I know people who use your product and just pound horses that have fast last figures and take no account of the overall pattern. I believe those bettors are creating value for someone like me who has spent time learning how to \"read\" the sheets. That being said it makes your study even more of a waste of time. Best of luck on it though and keep trying new things. Even if they don\'t work, it makes customers like me think you are earning my money. E

[texasdolly]

Jerry I agree all this will come out in the wash but why use tracks where at least half of the races are not \"sheet plays\" but rather breeding, trainer and workout angles.  Personally I play Saratoga only very gingerly in the 1st two weeks and find DMR much to trainer and workout oriented for my style.  So. Cal in general is populated by races with many horses off long layoffs that the workout guys have an edge over the sheets guys.  I think you could throw a dartboard at an equibase track schedule and use the first two ground tracks and you would have a more accurate result then from Sar and/or DMR.

[TGJB]

Again, the study is not designed to find plays. It is designed to see which figures are more accurate.

I hope to have further announcements to make about the study today, including whether it will start tomorrow or next week, when Saratoga opens.

I think as we go along everyone will see what the study is designed to measure, and that it is doing so. At least I hope so.

[Thehoarsehorseplayer]

I have no dog in this fight, but why not break it down into turf and dirt categories while you\'re at it?

[TGJB]

The data and results will be posted publicly daily, and anyone can break things down any way they want.

Right now I\'m waiting to hear back from one of the people who was going to be involved in this. Unless you see ratings and rankings for both services posted on this site before racing begins at DMR tomorrow, the study will be beginning next week when Saratoga opens.

[marcus]

 the study makes sense for TG , the other folks know they\'ll be taking a small hit as they can anticipate a degree of negative fallout as one likely result of the study and are entering into this begrudgingly - making jerry buy the rag sheets for the study lacks a certain graciousness .
i like the comment\'s of the fellow eariler on in the thread who came over , saying amoung other things , in order to find value these days ,  his edge is in reading patterns and i have to agree - that\'s what it comes down too , along w/ all the different ancillry data and patients .
 but 1st off - accurate numbers are the name of the game , it\'s no secret that TG has the best numbers in the business and the study will bear that out ...

[NoCarolinaTony]

So what you are saying is that lets say Bellamy Road came into a race at the SPA with a -5. +3, -2 you toss the +3 and average the other two...and somehow that makes this study and info Valid? (ie a better accurate figure?)

You guys really may want to re-think the purpose and intent.

NC Tony

[NoCarolinaTony]

It is my opinion that either every race is valid or none are valid. To ignore one data point because it\'s low skew\'s the data. Period. I would suggest you either use more data and include it all, or whatever period you agree to you do not exclude the lower score. After all the bottom line is that you both want to claim you are better than the other in portyaing performance via a speed figure rating. to ignore one of three because it is low is arbitrary and wrong.

NC Tony

[NoCarolinaTony]

So to take it a step further you are saying the negative or (slower perforamcne) in this case is a random accurance or an anomolly (flier) and should not be considered. I do not think your assumption will pass the Stats board as being valid.

NC Tony

[NoCarolinaTony]

One last thing..I could care less what your study says wheather pro or con for TG or RAGOZIN.....You ---we are sheet readers and our objective is to assess who moves forward, pairs or regression from last race based upon prior history. Now you tell me some how the last three races on similar surface or distance is more relavant than prior periods?

Why should I buy the sheets over lets say TQuick?

NC Tony

[marcus]

i would have liked to see a plain head to head competition with study findings that simply express numerically the differnce between the 2 products for each horse\'s  last 3 - and maybe an average breakdown . it would give insite into who has the cleaner data base , i think rags has some issue\'s w/ their use of variants . yo - someone needs to tell rags over there to \" stop pulling this shit \" with the variant stuff ...