INQUIRY

[BitPlayer]

Furious Pete -

I hope you can understand why TGJB was not completely receptive to getting into a discussion of figure-making philosophy when trying to prepare for one of the biggest betting days of the year.  On the flip side, I can also understand why you wanted to post when you did, to avoid being branded a \"redboarder.\"

To get to the substance of your post, I would ask what you would do differently.  I suspect that people who use TG figures regularly have a very good idea how they are made and which figures might be more predictive than others. The important thing is that TGJB have a consistent approach, so that customers know what has already been done and what they need to do on their own.

Stonetastic:  I would agree with you that figures where one horse runs away from an inferior field are probably hard to make and need to be taken with a grain of salt.  Did the rest of the field just ignore the winner and run about what they normally would, or did they exhaust themselves trying to keep up with an inferior animal?  In making that decision, I\'m guessing that TGJB is guided not only by the horses\' prior figures, but also by what he can learn about track speed by looking at the rest of the card.  Would it really matter to your handicapping if Stonetastic\'s Parx figure was a negative 3 or 4 rather than a negative 6.  The critical thing is that whatever TGJB does with the Stonetastic figure, he has to do the same thing with the rest of the field.  I don\'t think users want TG to start making figures on a horse-by-horse basis.   (I don\'t know where you got Stonetastic\'s first-quoter splits.  They don\'t agree with what is in the DRF.)

Fioretti:  I think most handicappers take a skeptical view of big new tops earned in the mud.  TGJB did give out a lot of poor figures to other horses in the TCA field (e.g., Judy the Beauty, Sweet Whiskey).  Should those figures have been even worse?  I haven\'t seen the figures for the whole field. I\'m guessing Heykittykittykitty about paired her top.  If TGJB downgraded Fioretti, he would also have to downgrade Heykittykittykitty.

Keen Ice: Are you suggesting that TGJB should make figures off just Keen Ice, rather than looking at the whole field?  How would he decide what to give Keen Ice?  It was not unrealistic to expect that he would improve at 10 furlongs.  How would you decide how much he improved?

Ground loaded figures:  There has been a lot of discussion about this on the board in the past.  Miff posts about it often.  I suspect that users have developed their own philosophies about how to deal with ground-loaded figures.  The nice thing about TG is that the ground loss is right there on the sheet, so the data is there for you to take into account.

[Furious Pete]

Thanks BitPlayer, for providing me with some good arguments on the subject and in a manner I found very polite and respectful.

Stonetastic: First of all, the the first quarter-splits was from the race shapes that followed the form so it\'s all relative first quarters that I would guess has some kind of relationship with the relevant track speed for the race (correct TGJB?). I don\'t know exactly what to read into those but I just found it incredible that she ran those first quarters so much faster than her normal in those two races where she also earned those remarkable figures. I would love to hear from the man himself what one could possibly read into that, if anything, and if the track variants those days were particularly hard to determine, extraordinary or something like that. I\'m fully aware that one have to change all the horses the same amount if one wants to change one of them, and therefore I too find it a superior strategy to make them that way, in general. I also understand that the track variants in the races around will be a factor in the decision, specially in very difficult cases like these. I would truly love to hear more details about the thinking and the thought process behind this particular figure (which is an extreme case). However, all though I find it the best strategy to always look at all horses when deciding I think there are these rare cases were you gotta throw away your usual way of doing things and use ones judgement and common sense instead, which I\'m sure TGJB is better suited than anyone to do anyway. I\'m not saying that hasn\'t happened here but some comments I\'ve seen here comparing this process with linear regression did make me wonder (because in such a mathematical process you would just find the variant that fits the best with everyone, right?). I guess I just wonder about how much \"leeway\" you give yourself when making these decissions, Jerry? To get to the question, what I would have done different: I think I would have probably pushed the new top as low as I reasonably could and in this particular case just decided that (most of if not all) those behind ran poorer than they\'re capable of because of the way the race was ran, the track played etc. I do think that can happen in races that are out of the ordinary, and I would rather have poor figures that I can excuse in my handicapping than having an insane figure that make the next race unbettable no matter whom it\'s up against. I\'m also not sure that I would have come up with the first big one with my method of making figures either, because it looked like a pretty similar situation. If so it would\'ve been even harder to give out the neg 6, all though it looks like they both should still be tops. But of course, I know way to little about the details here to conclude either way and I\'m sorry if I came across as rude or judgmental in my previous post; that was not my intention, I just wanted some discussions going on about these issues.


Fioretti: For me this is all about making figures that best describe the reality, and that often boils down to probability. That\'s also why the linear regression-analogy is a good one in general when it comes to figure making because that process is all about finding the fit that is most likely given all the datapoints (previous numbers). However I do think there are these rare cases where this model don\'t fit very well and one should rather go with judgment or \"creative license\", as I\'ve seen someone call it here. Again, I\'m not saying that TGJB hasn\'t done just that but if so I would again like to hear more about how this thought process looks like. To me it is just very unlikely that Fioretti would suddenly run that figure that day in those conditions and that would certainly guide my personal thought process, given the circumstances in this particular race. Again, when I  face these rare situations where the standard of doing things seems just wrong and for a reason (here: conditions), those are luckily not that many, I usually go easy on the huge and very unexpected new tops and are more inclined to make the race slower for everyone. I still prefer having figures to excuse than figures that are hard to ignore (if one doesn\'t have this religious belief in bounce theory that makes one never bet a horse that have just ran big). And in any case I prefer what\'s closest to reality (event though that is obviously still up for discussion).

Keen Ice: This is the one example where I\'m pretty sure what I would have done or at least in which ballpark I would\'ve ended up in. To me, again, this is about connecting what you see and common sense with your figure making methodology. To me there are two things in this race that would influence my decision, all though I admit I don\'t know how it \"paired up\" behind the top three horses in the race. First I would look at the sheets, then I would watch the race, and I would ask myself: Is it really likely that Frosted and American Pharaoh, the way this race was ran, the way American Pharaoh looked (before and after), the way his sheet were, his season, the way he looked so extremely tired at the end, the pace scenario, the fact that he for the first time had to face a serious challenge; all these things considered is it likely that Frosted pairs up his best efforts and Pharaoh pairs up his next best effort? It\'s possible of course, after all Pharaoh had probably never been asked so hard and Frosted did impress, and tbh, to me that race is American Pharaohs most impressive effort. Because he showed so much heart! But still, the race was a disaster for him tactically and he didn\'t look in top form so all though it\'s possible he ran a good figure I still think it\'s unlikely. And with that theory in mind, which always is flexible btw, I would take a hard look at Keen Ices sheet and the way he ran, and I would probably conclude that he really benefited from the way those two in front duelled and I would give him some credit for it anyway but I guess this is where we differ; I\'d rather slow it down a few points and \"punish\" Pharaoh and Frosted for the way theirs was ran, and probably end up at a neg 1 or thereabouts for Keen Ice. Because to me at least it just seem more likely that way, and it\'s just more aligned with what I just saw and felt and what my judgment tells me. And I\'m actually not even sure if track variants and numbers could trumph that because there are so many weird things going on with pace and tactics, sudden changes in track speed etc that it\'s so easy to go wrong. That\'s why I personally always prefer to \"check\" with my common sense as well.

About Ground; I\'m actually a big believer in ground in figures in general and don\'t usually get very skeptical about horses earning good numbers by being very wide, and I usually treat those figures as opportunities rather than something else because they often will be underbet. When that is said there are some exceptions to that rule, an example being very slow pace or as in this scenario, a race track where the inside is slower than the outside. Here I don\'t really see a clear, possible practical solution to the problem of getting the figures to reflect the reality the best; that\'s why I would love to hear more about how Jerry thinks about this problem. I guess my approach here again would be to \"punish\" the inside horses just a bit more than giving big new tops to the outside horses (specially when they\'re experienced), all though I think this is the most difficult one of the subjects I raised. And if anything I\'m \"calmer\" about that now after Tepin ran big again. I would however personally like an annotation like the \"X for dead rail\", maybe one could give out those X\'es for all the horses in that race and not just the rail horses or something like that so one could easier make those personal adjustments to how one uses the form. I don\'t follow US racing that often any more and it was just by coincidence/extra BC-awareness that I even noticed that the big numbers to Tepin and Tourist was the same track/day as the dead rail on Grand Arch\'s Sheet. (A shame really as that extra awareness and possibly faulty idea about those kind of figures maybe cost me a fortune; as I had boxed Grand Arch/Mondialiste big on the top two places in the exotics in that race!)

[TGJB]

Pete-- look, I know you come to this with good intentions. But you still are framing the conversation in terms of how you would approach things and assumptions about how I did, rather than asking me open ended questions. Briefly:

Stonetastic race. We\'ll post the race later this week, remind me. But by EVERY measure, that figure is correct. By that I mean what the other horses have done before AND since, and how that race fits with the day. There are 4 one turn races before and one after, it\'s right in line.

Look at it this way. If she had won by ten, and got a neg 2, would that make sense to you? If she beat that field by 5 and got a 2, would that make sense? All three things are the same thing (assuming the time is correspondingly slower). Stonetastic ran almost 12 POINTS faster than the second filly.

Fioretti-- When you were handicapping that race you said, Fioretti can win this just by running what she has been (while racing 4w)? I doubt it. a) As noted, if you give her worse you have to give the others even worse, and I gave them plenty bad already-- I added about 1 1/2 compared to the surrounding sprints, and marked the race for review, to see if it was BETTER. But b), if you make figures that way you\'ll never give anyone a new top.

Keen Ice-- I will only say on that one if I ever started making figures that way-- making assumptions that horses SHOULD not have run well, or should, there\'s a guy who lives in Staten Island who posts here who would stop using my figures, but not before he hired a hit man.

But that aside, you again are making all kinds of assumptions about how I got there. There were other horses in that race (like Upstart), and there was also another 2 turn race earlier in the card, and the variant was 1/4 point different. I will break a race out when it\'s clear what the race should be, but not when it\'s just clear that the track has changed speed, and I\'m guessing. When that happens I leave a box.

Your position is basically the opposite of Miff\'s. He thinks it should be assumed that the track does not change speed unless you have a specific reason that it did, which is the Ragozin position, and I should use as little judgment as possible. You think every figure made is a handicapping decision. You guys can have some interesting conversations.