Consistency in the ROTW

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

HP Wrote:

> My main beef with this ROTW would be that perhaps they could\'ve
> found a more interesting race -- something where they could\'ve
> showcased how you could get a big price on something using the
> data, even if it was an allowance or something not of \"national
> interest.\"  As a horse-by-horse review, it does have some value
> to show how someone can interpet the data...
>
> HP

I did not peruse it, but I noticed the ROTW last week was a conditional allowance from a card at Hawthorne Race Course. Thats spreading it around some.

Assuming the ROTW analysis has been a bit rocky recently, though I have no idea upon that, its very difficult to say that recent record somehow frames an issue about the usefulness of the product. I know I\'ve lost 15 straight bets before and I don\'t know that T-Graph is picking races they have layover T-Figs on. My belief is that they try and pick interesting and competitive races to demonstrate the product. Regarding layover figs the last two that I\'m really aware of were Ghostzappers Classic and Smarty Jones Derby. 5-2 and 4-1 winners respectively.

I\'d like to mention one other little point at TGJB\'s expense. The T-Graph Figs are many times validated not in cashing but in projections. A notable projection they get big credit for is Brass Hat. They attempted to buy that horse for about 50,000 dollars is my recollection and their vet nixed the deal. Brass hat since has won a stakes at Turfway, the Indiana Derby and the Ohio Derby. I believe his total earnings are nearing 700,000 although he is on the shelf right now due to an infirmity. They knew he was infirm but they KNEW he was fast too.

CtC



Post Edited (11-15-04 11:54)

[Michael D.]

jimbo,
as for the free products (ROTW), i think an effective use of constructive criticism would involve your own pre race analysis (you give nice pre races opinions from time to time, chime in on the ROTW if you plan on commenting on the success of it afterwards). when they charge $25 for the picks, i think everybody is welcome to redboard the picks.

[jimbo66]

Michael D,

Fair enough point.  I agree to disagree.

Cost is one issue.

But as somebody who likes to handicap, if you give me a choice between being graded on my top pick each week or being graded on how I do all 9 races at 4 tracks a day, I would probably pick the race that I feel most comfortable with.

jim

[TGJB]

Okay Jim, looks like the things I said went right past your ear, and I\'m going to have to waste a bunch of time on this going step by step. Let\'s begin:

1-- Based on your reading of the ROTW, who did we think was the most likely winner?

2-- Who won the race?

[jimbo66]

Excuse me, all knowing Dr. Brown,

We don\'t have to base anything on my reading of the ROTW.  Here are your words:

1.  \"given the prospect of ground loss, the weight, the lingering concern about the big top and its affect (sic), and ONE FASTER HORSE, Weigelia is somewhat vulnerable.\"

2.  \"a pair up or new top gives a real strong shot.  The timing is right, about 4 months since the last big effort, and the pattern is pointing forward. It looks like Built Up is going to run and if he does, he\'s a strong contender.\"

Even without relative odds, sounds like #2 is the play.  When you factor in 4-5 on #1, and 5-1 on #2, it becomes easier.

[TGJB]

Let\'s try it again.

1-- The ROTW said the right price on Wegalia was 5/2 or 3-1, in a big field. Focus, and figure it out-- which horse did we think was most likely to win?

2-- Who won?

One word answers to each will do, then we\'ll move on to the other points you missed. Hopefully we won\'t have to do this every week.

[twoshoes]

Just a quick look at the other side of the coin - I look at the ROTW most every week and a few times in each of the last two years the analysis of the ROTW dovetailed nicely with my own notion of how those particular races might play (actually it did again this week - I thought Wegalia would be tough to beat and tough to take - so did the ROTW analysis.) That said, I made very good scores out of two of them... the King\'s Bishop at Saratoga in 2003 and The American Oaks this year. The ROTW analysis owes me nothing, especially since I paid nothing for it. It has also been very beneficial with regard to furthering my understanding of reading patterns and dealing with form cycles whether I\'m using Thorograph data or not.

[jimbo66]

1.  unclear

2.  Weigalia

Jerry, I have read enough of these ROTW\'s to know that you VERY OFTEN use the exact words \"most likely winner\".  Sometimes accompanied by \"but no value\".

Even if I give you that you called him the \"most likely winnner\", which you didn\'t, you thought fair value was 5-2 or 3-1.

[TGJB]

Okay, we\'re getting somewhere, albeit slowly. Another 5 or 10 posts should do it.

3-- We had Wegalia about 5/2 or 3-1 to win the race. From your reading of the other horses (like Built Up) do you think we had one of them shorter than that to win the race? If not, who was the most likely winner? Remember-- it\'s a big field, and you have to assign every horse some chance of winning. Try it.

4-- Regarding your second answer, you\'re honing in on it. Go look at my 5 point post to you from yesterday-- if Wegalia went off at 4-1, would ROTW have been good this week?

[jimbo66]

Jerry,

As I read your ROTW, I 100% believed that you felt the most likely winner was Built Up. So, yes, I thought you had Built Up at least the same odds of winning as Weigelia.

Obviously, this is open to interpretation, since you are not picking winners with the ROTW, but for me, Built Up had to win or at least run real well for you to be \"right\" this week.  

When I read your \'somewhat vulnerable\' comment on Weigelia and the fact that Built Up was the fastest T-Graph horse going in, plus his pattern was \"pointing forward\", he looked like the \"play\".

Forgetting about my interpretation for a second, what was your point in picking this race as the ROTW?  You have said before you select a race to showcase a specific point or illustrate a specific pattern or in some cases because of a \"bet against\" angle on a false favorite.  In this race, you thought the 4-5 favorite was the most likely winner but was only value at 5-2/3-1.  I doubt you were thinking you would get 5-2/3-1 on Weigelia.  So what was the point?

[TGJB]

First of all, Alan did ROTW and he isn\'t here today to say why he picked it. But we choose a race that either will be of public interest or enable us to illustrate ways to use or data, or both. It almost never has to do with whether there is a good bet in the race, but with whether there are things to discuss. It\'s a teaching tool.

Second of all, it\'s pretty tough on the math (or in looking at the sheets for the race) to think that anyone was BETTER than 5/2 to win the race with that many horses with competitive numbers. Here\'s the point-- Wegalia was either the most likely winner, co-most likely winner, or a likely winner, any way you look at it we gave him a very good shot. He was not a bet at a very short price, AND NEITHER WOULD ANYONE ELSE IN THE RACE BE. NO MATTER WHO ENDS UP WINNING.

This aside-- recognize the ROTW for what it is, as everyone else does. It\'s not a pick, and even if it were, we are giving away both data and analysis without charge. It has nothing to do with what you pay for other data, and if that\'s a problem, stop buying it. If you want to comment on ROTW before the fact, I welcome it, and from what little I\'ve seen you have a good opinion-- all the better. That kind of discussion is productive-- this is a pain in the butt for no reason.