SAND SPRINGS

[TGJB]

I did the DMR analysis myself.

Race 3-- Hurricane Smoke wasn\'t in for 16, he was in for 25-- I wouldn\'t have used him off that severe a drop. The major reason I used the horse wasn\'t simply that he was fastest-- West gets at least a paired top slightly more than half the time off extended layoffs, and wins 23% of the time, and some of those are presumably when he does NOT have the fastest horse by two points, after adjusting for weight. As for the pace \"factor\"-- the horse that battled him for the lead all the way lost the race in the last jump, so the pace didn\'t seem to hurt him too much.

Race 5-- I picked It\'s A Perfect Day not because of his numbers, which were only fair, but because In Excess\'s TGI is two points better for grass than for dirt. I generally am not in love with betting horses first time grass, but with this evenly matched group and the chance for a move up it seemed like the right play, especially as he drew inside all the other contenders. As for the \"bias\", I don\'t know whether your stat is true, and don\'t believe in an anti-speed bias in any case. The horse may not want grass and he may not want a distance, but I discount THAT PARTICULAR bias completely.

Race 6-- The play in the race was Genie Magic, for a lot of reasons, and the thinking was that IF SHE RUNS, the one to worry about was La Perfecta, hence protecting under her. It\'s not about liking her (of course I saw the drop), it\'s about making sure you cash if your price horse runs the way you think she will. Lone speed is an advantage (ground loss), but you are free to post here in advance telling me when one appears, and we\'ll see how they do if they don\'t look good on TG over a significant sampling.

Race 7-- First of all, we cashed this race, and second, we assumed Drysdale would run just the other half of the entry (why run Sarafan back for small money on short rest)? But you have to be kidding-- the 9-1 shot we picked beats everyone except the 3/5 Sarafan, and you think it was the bias that beat him?

Feel free to post the races you disagree with (and the reasons) here before the races are run. I would prefer you did it without mentioning names, and I\'ll address the reasoning after the races are run.

[Bull]

Hey, Im a Ragozin user, but honestly, I enjoy the insight and info on both boards so I frequent both of them. My use of Rags is not a commentary on TG, I was just exposed to Rags in my youthful days (teen years) and have been a user ever since. I have never used TG but Im sure they are effective as well. I also do not involve myself in the bickering between the two boards. It is really not my place. Im just looking for an edge, and I think both sheets probably give that edge. This is my first time posting on this board and I first want to thank members of both boards for continuing to post such refreshing and insightful stuff. Keep it coming.

As for Sand Springs, the idea of the last number being significant makes sense. As JB said \"something\'s wrong\". But is must also be noted that this race was run in a torrential rain storm on an already soaked course. The poor effort could be a sign of immediate decline, but it could also be just another case of a horse running poorly under harsh weather conditions. It could even be a little bit of both, only time will tell. My point is that if the original poster was looking for a race to bring up \"other\" handicapping factors, he probably should have used a different race, one that wasn\'t run in a monsoon. Let\'s just hope Intercontinental is still on course for the BC. My future bets in Vegas depend on her.

Overlays to all and to all a good night!!!

-Bull

[jimbo66]

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=57921

JB,  this is the bias you don\'t believe in.

[miff]

BULL,(RAGS Ist TIME POSTER)

Do you recall what the last 3 #s were for Sand springs on the RAGS.Thanks

[jbelfior]

Bull--

I\'m the \"original poster\" and my feeling is that the results would have been no different had the race been run on Mars.

If something was \"wrong\" with SAND SPRINGS than how did she manage to miss second by a couple of lengths while beating half the field including your BC future horse. The answer is she probably ran her race but wasn\'t classy enough to outkick the winner, RISKAVERSE and OCEAN DRIVE.

By the way, only MIESQUE type fillies win the BC mile and INTERCONTINENTAL is no MIESQUE.


Good Luck,
Joe B.

[TGJB]

I said something was wrong with Sand Springs because she ran her second number in a row that was at least 5 points off her top, and healthy stake horses-- especially grass horses-- don\'t do that. She got beat 10 lengths (4 1/2 for sedcond), and if she had run back to her top she would have been second-- the winner ran a slight new top, and saved ground.

But I do love your logic. Other fillies ran worse, so she must have run her race. Why make figures?

[TGJB]

I saw the article about the DMR bias. First of all, it says 2 out of 20 frontrunners won, not zero as you had said. Second, if the average number of horses in a race is 7, horses who race on the lead should win 1 out of 7 races (as a practical matter they win more often than that because the lead is an advantage). So let\'s say the right percentage is 25-- meaning 5 wins would be an average result. The deviation is nowhere near statistically significant, particularly given the small sample.

The way we check for biases-- and we do it for the dead rails-- is by looking to see not whether horses win, but what numbers they ran. And no, I\'m not going to go back and see what numbers all the frontrunners ran. If at the end of the meet the statistics are extreme, I might. But it should be pretty obvious that the one we picked who ran second to Sarafan ran very well FOR HIM, even though he lost.

[Bull]

Hey Joe B.

  I really don\'t want to start a class discussion on here, but I was just saying that the horse could have thrown in a bad effort given the torrential thunderstorm that was going on during the race. Your analysis is that she was outclassed, TGJB\'s analysis was that something is obviously wrong with the horse. I didn\'t post to comment that either of you were right or wrong, I was just suggesting another alternative; sometimes horses that look ready to run well (by whatever methods you use) throw in an off effort during adverse weather conditions. I could be wrong too(won\'t be the first time, and won\'t be the last either), but I was just putting another spin on the race.
  As far as the last 3 Rag numbers go, I didn\'t have the sheets for Saturday.... unfortunately a relative passed away and I had to attend the funeral, but I did make it home in time to catch the race on TV. And my Intercontinental future bets were for the Filly and Mare Turf, it was just a small wager. Im banking on Frankel realizing that the Mile would be too tough (like you said) and opt for the F+M Turf. Being out of Danehill, I see no reason she shouldn\'t get the distance. Frankel stretching her out to 9 furlongs shows what his intentions are to me. I was excited to see 50/1 on Seattle Fitz for the classic too. Here\'s hoping he runs well tomorrow!!!

Overlays to all and to all a good night!!!

-Bull

[jbelfior]

Bull---

I\'m not convinced something\'s wrong with the horse. TGJB has his opinions and I respect that...I just don\'t always agree with them.

I think horses run better figures when they are properly placed. When they are outclassed, they will inevitably run poorer numbers...it does not always indicate the horse has gone sour. But that\'s my opinion...shared by some but not all.

As for INTERCONTINENTAL, I think the jury is still out on if she can get a mile and an eight. Firm ground will be a better indicator. Good luck with your future wager.


Good Luck,
Joe B.

[Bull]

Joe B.

Like I said, the class handicapping discussion is for another day. I don\'t factor in class at all basically, but that\'s my preference. I also am not POSITIVE there is something wrong with the horse either, TGJB has made a good case though. All we know is the horse ran an off race figure wise for some reason, whether that was declining form or the adverse weather or whatever. As I said, I didn\'t have Rags or TG for the race, so I can\'t comment as effectively as I could. I enjoyed the discussion however, and you\'re right, the jury is still out on Intercontinental. We\'ll have to wait and see. She is no Miesque, but thanks for the well wishes anyway. Good luck to all!!!

Overlays to all and to all a goodnight!!

-Bull

[jimbo66]

JB,

At one point, speed on the turf was 0 for 17 at 1 1/16 on the turf.  Since then, there have been 2 winners.

As for the other post, I certainly don\'t want to buy your analysis to criticize your opinions and post on your board when I think you are wrong.  I don\'t want to discredit T-Graph.  I have never used a Ragozin sheet in my life and I do think your product adds value to a handicapper.  

I was simply pointing out what I believe to be true.  That the T-Graph numbers, in combination with solid handicapping, is the best chance for success.  And I do believe, from my admittedly limited sample, that the Analysis product does ignore some of what I personally consider to be valid handicapping angles.

Your comments about track bias are strange to me.  17 races at the same distance is not a significant sample?  I couldn\'t disagree more.  Biases can change.  If you wait for 100 races to have significant statistical foundation, the course will have changed many times.  Sun-baked turf courses, drying out muddy tracks, sloppy speed highways like on Derby day this year, dead rails at sandy Belmont.  Are you saying you believe in none of them?

And saying you don\'t believe in class either?  I have a question for you, what about company lines?  For example, if you had a horse who ran an inferior T-Graph figure when he pressed a quality speed horse in a 50k claimer before fading late after sharp fractions.  And then the horse he pressed the lead against comes back and wins again at the next level (say 75 claimer).  When the original horse comes back and runs next time against a horse who ran a better T-Graph number, getting a contested pace to close into in his last start (which was against cheaper).  Are you saying you don\'t factor in that the horse \"A\" pressed strong fractions against a repeat winner (causing his fade and lousy T-Graph number).

It would be a better question if I would research an example, but I don\'t have one handy and am just looking for your general \"rule\" on this.

Thanks

[TGJB]

Im going to be leaving soon for the weekend, so I\'m not going to get into a long discussion about this, but

1-- Assuming you are right about the 0 for 17, and the DRF is right about the 2 for 20, does the recent 2 for 3 mean we now have a speed bias? If you viewed the 17 as being significant, you would not have done well on the next three.

Again-- we check for biases not on the basis of wins (unless it is a VERY big sampling, where things will even out), but by looking at the figures the horses run.

2-- I didn\'t mention Ragozin, and didn\'t think you used his product.

3-- Your examples mix together pace and class. I don\'t have as firm an opinion about pace, but I absolutely place no credence in class. Period.

[Boscar Obarra]

   Doesn\'t Modern Class come in a syringe?

[derby1592]

Jimbo66,

I know this is responding to a \"stale\" post but I thought I might add in my 2 cents worth.

When it comes to making a bet I like to say that \"If it\'s in the DRF, it\'s in the odds.\"

By that, I mean that if you apply \"handicapping 101\" to come up with the most likely winner (and you know what you are doing) then, guess what - you can probably come up with the most likely winner. (i.e., For the most part, the conventional wisdom is sound).

That\'s great if you want to cash tickets and you want to be \"right\" as often as possible. Unfortunatley, just about everyone else can do the same (and does) and you will lose money (long term) betting on such horses (regardless of how creatively you bet).

To make money long term you either have to be VERY selective or you have to be willing to reduce your \"hit rate\" in order to raise your ROI. You have to find a horse that might not be the most likely winner but who is undervalued by the betting public at large, which pretty much by definition means you have to find a horse that probably does not figure simply by applying Handicapping 101.

Also, keep in mind that \"Handicapping 101\" is evolving all the time - speed figures, pace analysis (early and late), trips, even the \"bounce\" all are part of \"Handicapping 101\" today but were not 30 years ago.

I am not defending the TG analysis but to find value you are almost always playing horses that have some apparent \"negative\" factor(s) in terms of \"handicapping 101.\" You are also going to be wrong much more often than you are right; however, you also have a chance at long-term profitability (assuming that you really are capable of consistently identifying value BEFORE the race, which is much easier said than done).  

In pari-mutual wagering, you certainly need to take into account fundamentals and the \"accepted wisdom\" but going against it sometimes can be a very good thing.

As Albert Einstein once said, \"Common sense is nothing but a collection of misconceptions acquired by age 18.\"

Chris