A Modest Proposal

[dpatent]

It has been very interesting watching this board basically wither and die over the last three weeks.  First, you take a run at becoming an Oprah\'s Book Club site, then TG \"The Master of Understatement\" JB decides to adopt a Ragozian -- or is it Friedmanian? -- editorial policy.  Instead of \'Factoid\' man, the pet name for our dearly departed Soup, I dub TGBJ \'Factor Man.\'

And there was the predictable.  One minute Jason L. is a reasonable human interested in discussing important handicapping points.  The next -- after he dared question Jerry\'s underlying methodology -- he is a raving lunatic.

But I\'m not here to talk about Brown vs. Ragozin methodology.

Let\'s talk handicapping.

We\'re going to have a contest July 13 and/or 14.

Here is my proposal to make sure that it is a handicapping contest instead of a money management contest and to minimize the odds that some weasel will do poorly in the contest but well at the windows and crow about his tax tickets.

THE PROPOSAL

The contest will award points to prognosticating ability with no wagering as part of the contest.

Contestants will select their picks, in order, for the top three finishers in each race that is part of the contest.  My preference would be that each handicapper must select choices for every race on a chosen card -- no cherry picking.  We might eliminate 2 y.o. races if people are squeamish about picking winners in a field of 90% first time starters where there are no sheet numbers.

Points will be awarded as follows for a correct placing:

1st -- 20 points
2nd -- 10 points
3rd -- 5 points

Thus, if you nail the tri in order you would receive 35 points for that race.  You can get points for being off one or two places if your horse still finishes in the top three according to the following schedule:

If the horse you selected for first finishes second, you get 10 points.  If it finishes 3rd you get 5 points.  Off the board = zero.

If the horse you selected to finish second wins you still get 10 points.  If it finishes third you get 5.  Off the board = zero.

If the horse you selected to finish third wins or finishes second, you get 5 points.  Off the board = 0.

I tried to come up with a point system that would reward accuracy but also gave some credit for picking non-winners if they ran well.  This is similar to what we do in betting.  It\'s not all about picking the horse who finishes first, b/c exotics play a big role.

As an initial matter, we should first decide whether we want betting to be a part of the contest.  If not, then we can move on to the right point system.  I\'m sure that there will be disagreements about the right way to structure the points but I took a shot at something which we can modify as appropriate.

HP -- What are your thoughts?

Also, what track(s) should we use for that weekend?



Also,

[HP]

Hello David,

Here are my thoughts

1) I would say both boards are equal in terms of scintillating handicapping discussions. There are a few interesting things buried in a lot of hoohah. In fact, this really covers ALL of handicapping related books, articles, etc. If you prefer the other board and find it more stimulating, great. I can\'t help noticing that we will have the contest (again) HERE, which is all I need to know about the relative merits of the respective bulletin boards.  

2) Jerry banned superf. There is no comparison between the editorial policies of the respective boards. Friedman deletes so much more stuff it\'s not even close.

3) As for the contest, I accept your conditions with one suggestion. This format will reward you points regardless of mutuel payoff. Shouldn\'t there be some greater reward for picking a 10-1 winner as opposed to a 2-1 winner? I would suggest you figure out some scale of increased point value for longer priced horses. Like maybe an additional 5 points for 5-1, an additional 10 points for 10-1, and an additional 20 points for 15-1 or better. You can have this apply to winners ONLY or otherwise. I would lean to making these bonus points for higher priced horses for winners only, and leave the 2nd and 3rds alone, but you\'ll have to weigh in on this.

Otherwise I would prefer Saturday July 13 only. And how about $500 on the outcome, just between you and me? Let me know, HP

[Mall]

I still can\'t for the life of me figure out the attraction of a contest that doesn\'t reflect the reality one faces at the track, even if little dave, littleandy, tiznow, tizlater & the rest of your pals on the other Bd all entered & had to explain their handicapping theories in print, even though I feel certain that would make for interesting reading indeed.

More to the point, let\'s not get too far ahead of ourselves. Beginning with a very tough Independence Day card tomorrow, Bel is offering some pretty good racing this weekend, including the best Handicap race of the year on Sat. Oddly enough, the nitecap tomorrow, a 1 mile NW2 on the turf for NY breds, may offer a good opportunity for a  score if you conclude, as I have, that the Bailey/Mott runner will be a very overbet & very vulnerable favorite. Besides, I\'m pretty sure based on my reading of history that our forefathers wanted us to celebrate the 4th at either the local track or OTB. So get out there this weekend & demonstrate your independence through, not from, gambling on the ponies.

[TGJB]

Alydar was wrong—you are not basically a good guy. I don’t blame him, I blame you—because you know every single thing I am about to post already, and have intentionally mischaracterized them all. As you know, Alydar got me to agree to not “hit you going out the door” when you agreed to stop posting here (which I did not request), and out of respect for him I didn’t respond to your last couple of posts at that time. Your performance above is absolutely in keeping with the character (and lack of it) you have demonstrated here from the start.

1- Friedman’s policy is to censor any points or questions showing flaws in their methodology, product, etc., and those he knows (or even thinks) come from yours truly. Ours is to encourage those posts, and I have invited Friedman and Jake to post here. Soup was banished not because he made points (his posts had no content), but because he insulted people and pissed all over the site, and was getting paying customers upset. I heard from several (not all here) who said they were going to stop coming here if I didn’t do something about it. I didn’t ban you or Jason, and you were attacking my methodology.
    Nice try.

2- Soup is Factoid Man because he consistently recited “facts” that were untrue, or intentional mischaracterizations, just as you do. You are slicker—he is transparent. It was productive for me to have him here, and I would have let him stay if not for how the customers felt. Given his behavior since he was tossed, it’s also clear his elevator doesn’t run to the top floor.

3- As to your Harvard Law classmate Litt, I took the same position with him as I did with you. When you both first came, it was under the pretext of it being a serious discussion, and I had (and have) no problems with discussions of methodology—I encourage them, unlike Len “Changes In Physical Resiliency Of The Track” Friedman. Incidentally, any comments about that hilarious marketing attempt last week?
    Problem was, both you and Litt employed the same bad faith, chicken dropping arguing style. You would post, I would respond in detail, you wouldn’t respond, then a day or two later you would start a new string as though I hadn’t already shot the hell out of your “arguments”. I don’t remember calling Litt a lunatic, just a cutey-pie, but I can think of a few other names for both of you, since I don’t have a shred of respect for either of you. You will be happy to know that just last night I heard from someone who learned a lot about figure making from the exchanges I had with you and Jason.

4- The contest is the business of those who participate, but I will offer the following—your proposal rewards picking underlaid 3 to 5 shots. A variation I would suggest would be to pick one horse in every race and have a flat across the board bet. I will also take this opportunity to challenge Friedman (for I think the fifth time) to a public handicapping contest.

[mandown]

David,

Only you could fire off two paragraphs lambasting JB and this board and then try (unsuccessfully) to claim the moral high ground by saying \'But I\'m not here to talk about Brown vs. Ragozin methodology.\' If you\'re not here to do that then why do it?

Regarding the contest why all the trouble of counting points - why not just use the pari-mutuel returns? That would ensure the winner was the person who found the best value, not the one who threw all their handicapping principles out the window and went for the obvious.

[HP]

Mall,

Whether or not the contest reflects the realities one faces at the track, if all things are equal for both parties, the contest does reflect something about the respective skill of the participants. HP

[dpatent]

Geez, Jerry, lighten up.

I was actually joking about the Friedmanian/Ragozian policy.  Why do you think I keep coming back to this board?

As for \'factor\' man, come on.  You don\'t really think that your ROI is 1000x Friedman\'s?  And they don\'t really censor 100x the posts you do, do they?  Was it really so crazy for me to call you lightly on that?

I went back to our posts from the year 2000 on figure making methodology and was stunned by the civility of the discussion then versus now.  All that I will say at this point is that I believe that both sides have overstated their cases (that includes you, sir) and my attempts to needle you earlier clearly had the intended effect and then some.  Your comment about starting new strings to confuse the argument, however, is mistaken.

Anyway, we\'re moving on.

I\'m mindful of HP\'s and your comments regarding a longshot premium.  I will think that over and have something in response in the next day or two.

[HP]

Sounds good. Will look forward to your Amended Proposal, Esq. If you decide you want to stick with your original thing, that\'s fine too. But I would really prefer having some real money riding on this one. HP

[Mall]

Obviously. My argument is the \"something\" it reflects is not all that relevant to the game we play, just as a putt-putt game between Tiger & I would reflect something about our relative skill level which has nothing to do with winning a professional golf tourney. I do like your suggestion that there be some cash on the line because, as I have argued in the past, the game & one\'s approach to the game changes as the price of poker increases. That of course was part of the thinking behind the heavy-handed challenges I issued to the one whose name will never be written or spoken, even though there would have been much more pressure on yours truly, since I had reached the decision that my only option was to give up the game for good if I lost. That\'s also why you\'ve never heard me criticize the \"use lightly in exotics\" approach, even though it is entirely foreign to me. At some levels return of capital becomes a major consideration. But hey, I don\'t want to rain on anyone\'s parade. Have the contest & have some fun. When you get down to it, that\'s what this game is mostly about anyway.

[dpatent]

HP,

Right.  Forgot about the money thing.  I don\'t feel like I want to bet $500 on this.  Call me a wimp, esp. since I should be playing with house money.

I do have $70 in tickets left over from Belmont day when the \"1\" horse got scratched in the 11th race and I never thought to cash my \'losers\'.  I\'d be willing to put that up at least.  Maybe an even $100.  Is that enough to keep you interested?

Back soon with the ultimate handicapping algiorhythm.

[Campbreeze]

Although we have no live racing here in New Orleans right now, my wife and children are away for the weekend, so I have 7 cards printed out for a 4th of July celebration tomorrow at one of the fine Fairgrounds OTB facilities.  I am sure I will bet at least $2 on all 70 of the races, money management and value handicapping be damned.  From the 1st race at Belmont to the nightcap at Hollywood, I will be enjoying my independence from all tyrants.

Laissez les bon temps rouler and God Bless America.

[Alydar in California]

JB: David should have left the jabs out of his post, but that\'s done now. He\'s a good guy who has a big mischievous streak. I can certainly relate to that. If necessary, please go back and take a look at some of the shots he has received here. He was wrong about methodology, and he got hammered. Now it is time for the three of us to put a stop to this. I want you to meet David at Saratoga. I think you two will become friends. As a peace offering, please give him the Halle Berry \"scene.\" Then he can give it to me. I am going to get that tape from you--one way or the other.

David: 1: What Superfreakicus has been doing here, almost from day one, is cyber-vandalism. He stacks one vacuous post on top of another in order to be a nuisance. He has a mistaken view of the history of the conflict, which leads him to think he is justified in disrupting this site. It is as if he has no idea how many Raggies--including employees and ex-employees--have been here over the years. JB\'s posts on the Sheets board are not even remotely comparable to what Superfreakicus has been doing.

 2: Jason Litt is fond of this type of sentence: Now I\'m not calling you a thief, JB, and anyway, the statute of limitations has expired.

  As you know, David, this is a politician\'s and lawyer\'s trick to get an accusation in without taking responsibility for making it. Litt did this more than once, and he deserved what he got.

Mandown: Who the hell are you? You pop up at strange times and act as if you have been here forever. Et votre modele, il est si familier.

[dpatent]

O.K., I have thought about the issue of odds and if they should affect our scoring system and here\'s where I come out:

If we are treating this contest as a test of handicapping skill where we are competing on our ability to select the horses that will run the best (which will be a reflection of both sheet reading ability and the accuracy of the product we use), then the price of the horse should play no role in the contest results.  Any impact we let price have on our selections necessarily adds an incentive to change or disregard our handicapping opinion.

For example:  I like the horse that\'s likely to be 3:5.  I give him a 50% chance of winning based on the sheets.  There is a horse likely to go off at over 10:1 who I give a 15% chance of winning.  If we are doing a pure handicapping contest I should select the 50% horse for first because that\'s who the sheets tell me has the best chance of winning.  If we let price play a role, then I should probably select the 15% horse because the expected return to me is higher.  But then I am picking a horse for first who I don\'t really believe is the best horse.  We do that in betting all of the time but that\'s a money management issue, not a handicapping issue.  And when the contest is over, the excuses are going to fly -- I have mine ready.  

My problem with using price in this contest is twofold:  1) We had complaints in the previous contest that not being able to know the odds or scratches ahead of time necessarily negated our bets (a scratch) or our bets would have been different if we had been able to wait until post time (the odds were not what we thought they would be).  We will have the same problems in this contest if price plays a role.

2) I thought there was some desire to focus somewhat on the accuracy of the numbers and to concentrate on horse picking ability over money management.  Letting the odds come into play negates our ability to accomplish those goals.  

So, let\'s decide what we are trying to test and be clear on how the rules of the contest will affect our behavior (politicians should try that some time).

I\'ll throw it open for more discussion.

We still need to select the track(s) for the 13th.

[TGJB]

I\'ve decided not to let you ruin my day. The ROI comment, which you have taken out of context (of course), was obviously hyperbole. The censoring comment was not--it was probably more than that at the time I said it. Soup\'s flatulance has changed the equation a little, but not the underlying issue as to WHY each of us censor.

[TGJB]

I don\'t have the scene, haven\'t even seen it.

Mandown hasn\'t been here forever, just since a couple of years before the old man decided to go swimming from a boat.