Question to T-Graph

[jimbo66]

I am surprised at the paths given to Sand Springs and Riskaverse going around the first turn in the Flower Bowl.  When I first watched the race, it seemed Sand Springs blew the first turn and carried out Riskaverse.  

I just rewatched the race and saw the same thing.

Yet, Sand Springs is given a 1w and Riskaverse a 2w.

Any thoughts on this?  Did anybody else see the race and see the same thing?

[TGJB]

Jimbo-- we\'ll review it. There is some chance it\'s a rounding off question, we\'ll see.

[jimbo66]

Ok Jerry.

thanks.  By the way the comment on the sheet is \"drifted out into the first turn\".  Hard to tell from the youbet replay, but it really looks like the 4 path to me.

[TGJB]

Jimbo-- there is no question she started the turn wide. We\'ll check it. Meanwhile, I have a feeling I\'m going to need sedatives to get through the next 10 days of CH. Read his posts-- it\'s just 2 equals talking figures.

\"Read his posts-- it\'s just 2 equals talking figures.\"

It\'s one guy that makes his living making figures and one guy that\'s been making speed \"and pace\" figures privately for close to 30 years. I understand enough  to know what the problems and issues were for everyone that tried to make that figure regardless of where my skill level is relative to the others. Don\'t worry. I don\'t have much to say other than being suspicious of the JCGC figure that everyone assigned.

[TGJB]

I put up a response to your post and deleted it-- I\'m going to try my damnest to ignore you, but I make no promises, and if your self centered posts get out of hand I\'m just going to start deleting them. Know this-- I know exactly what the relationship between Beyer\'s figures and ours, and when you adjust for weight and ground he gave Borrego as good or better a figure-- as I said.

You know just enough about figure making to get stuff wrong, as you have shown often, AND YOU DON\'T HAVE THE DATA TO WORK WITH. When I looked at the Gold Cup I had ground and weight for that race and day, and accurate figures for all the horse\'s previous races based on same. If you actually did know what you were talking about, you would be commenting about the sheets I posted-- not some unrelated comment.

Don\'t respond by repeating yourself, and in general watch yourself. A lot of people are real tired of your posts, and I\'m one of them.

TGJB,

>If you actually did know what you were talking about, you would be commenting about the sheets I posted-- not some unrelated comment. <

The sheets you posted are only part of the answer to what complicated the analysis of that race result and thus the figure. There are \"reasons\" why so many otherwise competent speed figure makers are all over the map on that number even though they are usually at least on the same page. Believe me when I say they are all over the map because 3 people have it slower than Beyer, but faster than Ragozin. Two of those are using Beyer\'s exact scale so there are no conversion issues.  

It\'s not possible to discuss the race without pointing out all sorts of things that don\'t make sense and \"what could\" account for them. Besides pace issues, Beyer and others have Borrego running slower in the JCGC than in the Pacific Classic and you have him running a big new top. That\'s hardly consistent with whatever you say the current conversion scale is, but things like that could account for the huge range of numbers I am seeing.

It\'s obvious to me that this is a controversial figure and most people think your figure is the fastest and RAGs is the slowest. I have to come to my own conclusion and bet accordingly.  

[dickie]

Dreadful selections.
Whats up with the horses picked on this particular service ?
most of them don\'t even contend let alone win.

[congaree1]

Dickie, forget about the analysis if you continue to purchase that you will end up in a nut house. You have to buy the product and do the work.

Con

[HP]

\"It\'s obvious to me that this is a controversial figure and most people think your figure is the fastest and RAGs is the slowest. I have to come to my own conclusion and bet accordingly.\"

This is absolutely correct.  You could have put this in your first post and stopped right there.  Nothing else you\'ve said in your subsequent posts (a dozen?) has added anything to the debate.  

I don\'t even disagree with your rationale of WHY the figure is debatable, hard to make, etc.  I do understand what you\'re saying.  But you just keep repeating yourself.  Shakespeare wrote \"Hamlet,\" but if he wrote \"Hamlet,\" and then wrote it another fifty times, people would\'ve leaned out of their kitchen windows and yelled, \"hey Shakespeare, enough already!\"  

Make your point and move on.  HP

[twoshoes]

Shakespeare wrote \"Hamlet,\" but if he wrote \"Hamlet,\" and then wrote it another fifty times, people would\'ve leaned out of their kitchen windows and yelled, \"hey Shakespeare, enough already!\"


Wow... one of the favorites in the Turf and he wrote Hamlet? It\'s amazing what Bill Mott can do with a good horse.

[Silver Charm]

Totally agree HP. Even people on the other Board are complaining. The guy is an INSECURE BORE.

HP,

Point taken, but I don\'t see how it\'s possible to determine which figure is most likely to be correct without discussing all the reasons for the differences and the factors that might have impacted various figure makers perceptions of what happened in the race.

It isn\'t clear to me what happened in that race other than the time was slow relative to other races that day, the pace was fast, most of the horse were on or very close to the pace, most of the horses were crawling late, but it was the only 2 turn race of the day. That leaves a wide range of possible interpretations.

[HP]

You can discuss it for a long time and STILL not determine anything.  Instead of going on about this for the next two weeks why don\'t you save it up and let us know how you feel about playing Borrego the day before the race, when you\'ve got it just about figured out.  HP

[marcus]

Your comments are right on point , I\'ll be curious to see if Ceaser ( Sid Ceaser that is ) will be around to discuss the differences between TG and rags numbers after the BC .