Enough Nonsense

[TGJB]

CH-- I printed out the posts from after I left to address in detail when I have time, including the Afleet Alex one, and the other where you said us figure makers would be \"confused\" by certain circumstances. Somebody is-- you are completely missing the point that I have now made several times, which is that the amount and level of accuracy of the data we use to make those decisions is about 100 times as great as you could imagine in your wildest dreams. You said, if I recall, that circumstances on the FG day led to certain results-- well, take a good look. As you can see, the data was so tight as to make the variant decisions inescapable-- for example, my choice in the Derby was to do it the way I did, or add 1/2 point (which I still might do). Period. If you look at how EACH horse came up, you will see that it\'s nothing like your simplistic view of \"good\" or \"bad\" figures-- we have the ability to make micro decisions, based on super accurate data. When you look at results, you are working with very crude info, some of which is gained second hand from others using very crude info (in some cases, slightly less so, but still way, way off what we\'re talking about here). You have an abstract theory that you can\'t prove or even supply serious evidence for (cherry picking anecdotal examples is not evidence), and have no idea what you are talking about regarding figure making using the data and variables we use. If you spent one day looking in this office you would know it.

I\'ll get to Afleet Alex later.

Miff-- you are right, and I\'ve decided to take it a step further. I\'m not only going to stop using ground loss, I\'m abandoning beaten lengths and weight carried as well. Haven\'t decided yet about time. I\'m going to go strictly by your subjective appraisal of whether horses are \"empty\".

Look- forget about science (you know, physics, trigenometry, stuff like that). I\'m sitting here looking at sheets for about 800 horses a day, often seven days a week, with the past histories AND the figures they ran on the day I\'m looking at, and how those past and present figures relate to each other, and relate to the others in the races I\'m making figures for. You really think it wouldn\'t have become completely obvious 20 years ago that ground loss corrections were causing distortions? It would have jumped right out at me-- the outside horses would be getting an inordinate percentage of tops all the time. They probably do get a slightly higher percentage than those bottled up and risking trouble inside-- but there is nothing remotely like that going on.

I\'m going to tell you the same thing I told CH-- LOOK CAREFULLY AT THOSE FG RACES. See how tight they came out. Then figure out how the figures would have come out without the ground loss counted-- use 1/2 point per path per turn to make it easy, since all 3 were routes. You will see that HL and BOS would get MUCH better figures relative to the fields-- one of the problems CH doesn\'t know he has when working with crude data, as Jimbo pointed out when this subject first arose.

TGJB,

Please! You are either missing or avoiding the point. I would prefer not discussing it with you further. \"I\" don\'t have the time for this nonsense either. I never said there was anything wrong with your FG figures for Saturday. I said a couple of individual horses had trips that either helped or hindered their performances. So I would perceive their performances differently from the final time figures you (and everyone else) gave them. That is entirely different from saying you made a mistake.

The impact of a dominate pace setter issue has nothing to do with the FG races. See the Bellamy Road discussion.

As far as Afleet Alex goes, I asked 2 simple questions to which I do not know the answer.

Did you give that race a much faster figure than Beyer?

Did you break the race out?

Based on everyone else\'s pace and speed figures, that race came back slower than Afleet Alex and several others had been running coming in. IMO, it deserved to be slower because the obviously fast pace impacted the final time for several horses.



Post Edited (03-18-05 13:53)

[miff]

Miff-- you are right, and I\'ve decided to take it a step further. I\'m not only going to stop using ground loss, I\'m abandoning beaten lengths and weight carried as well. Haven\'t decided yet about time. I\'m going to go strictly by your subjective appraisal of whether horses are \"empty\".


True to form, your arrogant reply was expected to a loyal customer of 20 years. Anyone who watches and understands racing will most proably conclude that KCB was empty(me, jockey, trainer, and many others I\'m fairly certain)Maybe against a inside speed bias, maybe no blinks, etc, etc.

Again your dogmatic approach rears it\'s head.Read carefully!! your fig(4) is math/science PERFECT, but the horse did not \"run well\"as you stated. You must have seen a different race or have poor overall knowledge of what is a good performance vs a bad one.

[TGJB]

CH-- I am going to reply to the Afleet Alex stuff later, and I am neither missing nor avoiding the point. If you intend to ever talk about this stuff here again we will straighten it out-- if you don\'t want to, leave the subject alone entirely. I\'m not going to have someone saying on this board that a set of circumstances can \"confuse\" me, producing incorrect figures, when he doesn\'t have the slightest idea of what he\'s talking about, or the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. If you produce any comments on this subject in the future, be prepared to supply real evidence to back them up-- you will be called on it.

I know you didn\'t say the FG figures were wrong-- you said the figures (performances)were affected by pace. Look at the damn figures, and show me the ones that would look better on the page if they were a different number-- given HL\'s figure history, meaning a 1 and a 2.5 AT TWO, would a 3 or 4 make more sense on the sheet than a 1? Without knowing anything else but his figure history, what was the most likely range for Wanderin Boy to run in-- 0, or 2.5-3?

Now, when you watched the races, BEFORE YOU SAW ACCURATE FIGURES ADJUSTED FOR GROUND AND WEIGHT, it looked different-- you didn\'t know HL was so unbelievably fast at two, and it looked like he beat the field by more than he did on figures, so you needed an explanation for his \"improvement\". Right? And you probably didn\'t know Vicarage was not running a new top, that he was just coming back to a figure he had already run, so you tried to find some explanation for his \"improvement\"-- right? And you had no idea KCB actually got the same figure as his last, so you needed an explanation for his \"bad\" performance. Right? And you didn\'t know Wanderin Boy\'s \"terrible\" performance was as good as two of his last three \"good\" ones. Right? YOU COULDN\'T KNOW THIS unless you had all the data we did.

[TGJB]

Miff-- my \"arrogance\" is anything but dogma-- it\'s a function, as I said, of experience. I\'m looking at about 4,500 sheets and figure histories a week, compared to each other-- I would have known even before you started using my data that the ground loss correction was wrong. You don\'t want to use it, don\'t-- you can see the paths upper left, just adjust the figures.

> know you didn\'t say the FG figures were wrong-- you said the figures (performances)were affected by pace. Look at the damn figures, and show me the ones that would look better on the page if they were a different number<

None of them silly.

Please just calm down and stop assuming I am being critical of your figures when I am just using them differently. For crying out loud!

You gave Wanderin Boy the right speed figure. Read that again please!

However his speed figure is not an accurate refection of how well he ran because he battled with BOS in too fast a pace for him!!! That battle impacted HIM alone and specifically!

That fast pace did not impact the other horses in the race because they were either far enough off it for it to not matter or  because in BOS\'s case he\'s good enough to run that fast early and for it not to hurt him. (plus he was on the good rail)  

So when I read Wanderin Boy\'s chart alone, I consider his last race to be as least as good as anything else he ran and maybe even better. Everyone\'s else\'s figure for that race I take at face value.  

> given HL\'s figure history, meaning a 1 and a 2.5 AT TWO, would a 3 or 4 make more sense on the sheet than a 1?<

I couldn\'t give a rat\'s behind what you, Beyer, Bris, Rags or anyone else gives him. Whatever they all give him I think he earned it under optimal conditions. So if you say he ran a 1, I believe you. If Beyer says it was a 105, I believe him. I just say all else being equal he would have run slower had he been pressed that day with a faster pace against a quality opponent. He probably also would have run slower in a couple of his 2YO races because he got away easy in the route as a 2YO at a minimum. He\'s had all easy trips so far.

[TGJB]

CH-- You are repeating yourself, and COMPLETELY missing the point. I know EXACTLY what you mean. I am pointing out that there is NO EVIDENCE to support that position, and I\'m showing you the evidence that supports a contrary position. Read my last post again, and look at the examples (evidence) again carefully, individually. Make an attempt to understand the data outside the context of the theory you have.

TGJB,

The evidence to support my conclusion comes from 25 years of making pace figures and watching how horse\'s final time speed figures vary when they duel in too fast a pace vs. when they get loose on easy leads in moderate paces.

The evidence comes from years of cashing overvalued tickets on horses I knew to be better than their speed figures indicated.

In the race in question I threw out Wanderin Boy beforehand because I believed he was facing a tough trip vs BOS and could not repeat his fastest figure under tougher circumstances. That\'s one race, but horses I throw out like this are constantly underperforming and vice versa.

The evidence comes from dozens of other people who also make pace figures or that use visual skills to evalauate pace that have come to the exact same or very similar conclusions.

Pace matters. Almost everyone that has worked with decent pace figures or that has good visual skills agrees. It\'s so darn obvious to everyone that\'s been around the game for awhile that the discussion should not be about whether it matters, It should be about refining the pace figure making process and understandng the impact on specific horses in different scenarios  better.

On the pace figure boards, they don\'t argue about whether it matters. They argue about complexities of making the figures. Much tougher than final time figures.



Post Edited (03-18-05 14:44)

[TGJB]

None of that is evidence. Show us real evidence here, like I did when I posted the three stakes from FG.

Everyone who has a handicapping theory has what they consider \"evidence\" to back it up, a history of results that they cull to find the ones that conform to their theories. It don\'t mean squat. If you broach this subject again, bring hard evidence.

Find attached sheets for the Hopeful, 8/21 at Sar, won by Afleet Alex. I remember that day well, I was there, it was Alabama day and my best day of the meet, despite losing the photo in that race that cost me about 10k in pick 4s. But I looked anyway-- the track had water in it from the start of the card, it rained again before the second race, and the track changed speed several times, and did slow down before that race. Yes, I gave it better than Beyer-- AND LOOK HOW IT HELD UP. AA got the same figure for that race as the one before and EVERY OTHER RACE HE RAN AT TWO-- pretty good evidence it\'s right. Flamenco ran a new top, AND RAN EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER IN HIS NEXT TWO STARTS-- pretty good evidence. The rest of the field did not run tops-- AND DOING THE RACE SLOWER WOULD HAVE ONLY GIVEN THEM WORSE.

Now, again, some of the discrepency has to do with weight and ground-- AA was 2-3-4w, and the whole field was carrying more than average that day (122), which slowed the time of the race a point or so (about 3 Beyer).

So no, there was no problem with the figure in that race. As for horses closing into the pace getting inflated figures, the only one who closed was AA, and that figure held up pretty well on ours-- but not on those of the other figure makers. Right?

http://www.thorograph.com/hold/sar082104r9.pdf

TGJB,

>AND LOOK HOW IT HELD UP.<<

Of course it held up. You adjusted the slower figure by assuming the track slowed down. However, it is very possible the track did not slow down. The fast pace slowed the race down.

However, the fast pace would not impact all horses in the race equally. It depends on where they raced.  

You assuming the track slowed down gave equal credit to all.

My notes on everyone\'s speed and pace figures for that race are 1 example of an endless supply about how the pace impacts the final time, but for the conversation to have meaning you would first have to have and work with accurate pace figures for awhile and accept the possibility.

I promise I\'ll leave the issue alone.

I know what I know and don\'t feel the need to prove it to you. I don\'t get paid for my effort here. If you would spend some time working with good pace figures and looking at some of the applications I have highlighted over the months, I am certain you would agree with me. With your resources you could supplement your product and process in a way that would blow the Rags out of the water for good. Instead you are leaving wiggle room for guys like pacefigures.com and logicdictates.com to supply what a lot people know to be important.  

If anything, I am doing myself a gambling disservice my promoting ideas and concepts that are not well understood and are the single most important factor to my gambling success..



Post Edited (03-18-05 20:32)

[TGJB]

There is no EVIDENCE that the pace affected anyone\'s figure in that race-- the second and third finisher made the pace, one went back a little (Devil\'s Disciple), the other (Flamenco) ran a new top. None of the ones who raced off the pace give any indication of being helped by it-- AA ran just what he was running and did run the rest of the year, the others ran WORSE, not better. You haven\'t got a leg to stand on with this race, no matter how you cut it, other than that you THINK (or feel) pace should have had an effect.

I have always been open to the idea of pace affecting final time for a whole field, and even possibly of it affecting performances within a race-- that\'s why we use \"S pace\" and occasionally, in extreme circumstances, \"H pace\". But that has nothing to do with what this conversation has been about-- your contention that we are making bad figures out of confusion or ignorance. You have no idea what you\'re talking about when you say that-- again, you have no idea of the degree of sophistication and amount of data we are looking at when doing this. This has nothing to do with looking at some figures that don\'t account for wind, ground loss, or weight, and drawing some anecdotal conclusions. This is the big leagues.

[Frank]

Enough nonsense is right.

Why don\'t the two of you intelligent men read what the other is saying instead of yelling at each other? You\'re arguing apples and oranges. Even a halfwit like me can understand. Jerry - you make accurate figures and CH uses them to handicap. A 1.5 is a 1.5 is a 1.5. However, sometimes a horse has to overcome serious adversity to run the number and might be expected to improve and sometimes he had it all his way and might not be expected to even repeat the figure under more difficult conditions. But it was still a 1.5 on the day he ran it.

Now cut it out and play nice.

Frank

TGJB,

Sometimes I feel like am speaking another language. Either I am the worst communicator in the world or you would rather protect your ideas at my expense than being open to the possibility that you can improve your product by listening to something I have to say.  

There is plenty of evidence if you look at the final time figures that \"every other\" speed handicapper gave to the race (slower), the pace figure everyone gave to the race (very fast) and your own opinion that \"YOUR FASTER FIGURE HELD UP\"!

Well it\'s 6 to one and 1/2 dozen to another.  

You made the track slower.

They made the race slower but gave it a very fast pace - meaning that some of the horses were capable of running faster than the slow figure they assigned to the race.
 
The two methods (pace + final time or breaking the race out) are often equal in terms of speed figures assigned to the race, but not exact for individual participants because the pace does not effect horses equally within a race. They all have different abilities and run different fractions.  (I know I have no proof, just years of success with pace analysis and all the great handicappers that agree with me)

Please we have to stop this.

Those of us that use these concepts profitably will continue to do so.

If I analyze a race here (because I enjoy that much) I will express the concepts without saying your figure should be adjusted for a specific horse because of the impact of pace or could be suspect because of process etc....

I\'ll word it like this if you find this acceptable.

My figures indicate the Champagne Stakes was a slow pace.  Proud Accolade got the jump on Afleet Alex. IMO, under a more favorable pace scenario, Afleet Alex would have won that race. I also think his unfavorable trip in the BC cost him that race. IMO, he should be undefeated going into tomorrow\'s race.  

IMO, Rockfort Harbor set a slightly fast pace in the Nashua and drew off under wraps indicating he could run faster under a more favorable pace scenario or if asked to give his all.

Rockfort Harbor beat the gate in the Remsen and got loose on the lead against Galloping Grocer. He set an average pace. IMO, the combination of getting loose early and getting pressed late enabled him to perform at his highest possible level at that time.

Given that AA has had the rougher trips, raced against the better quality horses, and RH has had a tough few weeks preparing for this race, I\'d have to think that AA will be and deserves to be a solid favorite.

Is that OK?

No mention of how I am adjusting the your figures or the Beyer figures for my pace figures. Just generalized trip and pace analysis.



Post Edited (03-18-05 17:05)

[TGJB]

Frank-- he doesn\'t use our data, that\'s only one part of what he\'s saying, and I would never call you a halfwit, no matter what the Ragozin office says.

TGJB,

I use your data. I get it downtown at the Yankee Clipper. I buy it when I go to the track and for major stakes cards when there are several races in a single day I might bet. I don\'t buy a full day for a single stakes race outside NY because it doesn\'t make economic sense \"for me\" to do so. I rarely bet anything except stakes. I don\'t bet many of the races I actually handicap because there\'s no value. When I do bet I don\'t bet a lot of money very often. I could never recover the cost the way I play.