RAGS BC FIGURES

[miff]

My sick Raggie friend, Nervous Richie,tells me that the Rags BC  figs will be available to RAG customers by Saturday for $5.00. Surely someone frequenting TG board has an account with RAGS,(I\'ll pay the 5 fish) and we can post RAGS side by side to TG and pontificate.

Mike

[TGJB]

Miff-- On their site they say they are only charging $5 for their BC seminar now that the races have been run, which is funny enough, and makes you wonder how much they need the 5 bucks. If they are charging another $5 for the figures they ran that would be pretty hilarious.

But if they are trying to keep it just to their own customers so we (and especially yours truly) can\'t analyze it publicly, that would be very believable-- that\'s why I predicted they wouldn\'t post the figures, and 5 days later they still have not. Just by looking at the day, I can see they will have a whole lot of \'splaining to do about the figures they give out, and their relationship to some previous ones. Remember, these are guys who insist the track stays the same speed unless Katrina hits.

[marcus]

Great job with the TG BC #\'s - for the most part it looks like everyone ran their numbers ...

[kev]

Well some of those horses number\'s will be seen, when they start running again.

[SP]

Relax, Jerry.  Len\'s put up the BC #s every year for quite some time.  Not the whole sheets, just the #s run in the BC.  And since the only reason I saw Robes\' picks before the BC was that you got someone to post them on your site, for free viewing, while he was still selling them for $35, you shouldn\'t begrudge him his $5 for anyone wanting to hear the seminar after the fact.  The side jabs aren\'t necessary.

Your discussion of variant-making, however, is admirable & still educational, even after all these years.  Thanks.  And I\'m glad you appreciated my question.  I understand the answer, but the problem I have with it is that PH had no impact on how fast the fillies back behind her ran.  So if the variant for that race would be different had she been pulled up, as you say it would likely be, we\'re then moving from art/science toward the territory of educated guesswork.

Please don\'t take that as a stab.  I believe that in many races -- especially the two race cards you mentioned, or 1 turf race a day with different weather each day scenarios -- every figure maker is reduced to educated guesswork.  So I understand your digs at Raggies\' 1/4-point line-drawing on condition.  The issue is -- what data should one use to make one\'s guess more educated?

Your own answer also shows why those who say your figs are too self-fulfilling may have a case.  Your strong feeling that it would be totally improbably for the whole Distaff field except PH to run more than 3 points off their tops comes from looking at your own figs -- figs generated by tweaking the variant, albeit sometimes slightly, in almost every race.

I don\'t have your figs.  I do have Rags.  So I reviewed them to see how likely it might be for the entire field to run poorly.  On Rags, almost every filly in that field ran more than 3 points off her top in at least half her races this year.  So for all of them to do so in the same race wouldn\'t happen that often, but it certainly isn\'t unfathomable.  Especially on that particular Saturday, when most of their patterns looked to me to be iffy-to-negative.

With Rags, Xs are commonplace so I imagine they\'ll give the winner less of a jump than you, and give everyone worse figs.  But let\'s wait and see what Len posts.  You expected many in the field to \'run their race,\' so you won\'t be assigning many Xs.  Who\'s right?

For me, the most logical thing to do would be to look at Belmont days with similar weather over many seasons and see what impact that watering had in the race or two following.  I know they don\'t drive exactly the same speed in those water trucks every time, but they\'re pretty close, and if we looked at enough races, we could probably get a general view of whether & approximately how much that water mattered.  I\'m only an outsider with limited fig-making experience looking in, but to me that approach is closer to science/probability than trying to use one field\'s worth of horses\' performances to determine exactly how extremely one filly freaked or how slowly a dozen others plodded.

I could say that is why I stay with Rags.  But the real reason is just that I started with them and somehow continue to stumble into profits with them despite whatever flaws they may have.  Robes cashed two races I lost. And I presume y\'all cash many races that leave all us Raggies scratching our do Rags.  So I suspect that although you and Len passionately disagree, you\'re probably both right.

[TGJB]

Steve-- I will try to deal with this in detail, but it will be easier when we have the Rag numbers to deal with. If they make them public.

As for Len\'s seminar-- he doesn\'t make picks, just discusses horses. I was not doing anything to hurt his business. The idea was to get some idea of what their positions were, so there could be some comparison.

If I was going to \"tweak\" any time I wanted to, by the way, the 2yo fillies would have gotten much better numbers. You still don\'t get it. You might if you ever get to see what the other guys do with the day.

[TGJB]

Steve-- by the way, you did a little jabbing yourself.

Just for right now, before the fact-- I have a set of Ragozin BC sheets, and I looked up those mares in the Distaff. They have made 74 starts this year, with 33 of those Ragozin figures being more than 3 points off what their LIFETIME top is at that point. The number is only that high because 2 of them (Island Fashion and Hollywood Story) have isolated big tops way back, and between them count for 12 of those 33 \"X\"s (over a third), out of a 13 horse field.

But we\'ll take the percentage (45%) at face value, and see what percentage he gives Xs to here. My guess is 12 out of 13 (unless he cuts the race loose, at which point the sky caves in). Then Jimbo or someone good at this stuff can give us the percentage chance of that happening.

[JimP]

Re \"percentage chance of that happening\": I understand why you would want to use such probabilities in your figure analysis and calculations, but for those of us who are just users of the figures, shouldn\'t our primary interest be in IF IT HAPPENED and not the ODDS OF HAPPENING. In fact, if it happened and it defied the odds, shouldn\'t we be even MORE INTERESTED? I know it\'s an abstract point and probably not even answerable. But it seems to me that the entire game is about detecting events that are \"unlikely\". At least \"unlikely\" relative to the perceived chance of it happening. Just curious about what you think about that obscure philosphical question.  

[TGJB]

When you make figures, the only way to do it is by looking at the past figure histories, and you are by definition looking for the most likely scenario. \"Most likely\" covers a lot of ground (hence the discussion), and determining that is what figure making is all about-- but there would not be a lot of sense in trying to find the least likely scenario, and assigning figures based on it.

[miff]

Jerry,

The issue with using your figs regarding what is \"most likely\" is the pair, pair, pair which shows up very often on TG sheets as opposed  to what shows on other data for the same runners(beyer,rags, et al) which do NOT show pair,pair,pair, after the necessary adjustments.

In other words, if you do the \"most Likely\" scenario using TG figs, you will conclude something far different than if you used the other data.Your figures run in very tight ranges, very often,which is not the case with other data I have been looking at for 6 months or so.

The question to  which I have been seeking the answer to is \"Which figures are more accurate over the long haul\" Someone who has tracked TG, RAGS, Beyer, Brisnet and Equiform told me that the differences between the top fig makers is widening rather dramatically, i.e. the comparative scales.I understand you do not concern yourself with what other guys are doing, but do you have an educated guess as to what is going on rather suddendly, relatively speaking.

Mike

[TGJB]

Miff--

1-- I explained why there are large differences between us and Ragzoin yesterday, twice. And it will be apparent if and when they post their BC figures. It is a difference in philosophy (I\'m being nice about it)-- by lumping large amounts of data together (one and two turn races, races before and after track maintenance, just to name two), and using an average, they HAVE to get different results.

2-- Beyer is getting better. Obviously they don\'t use weight, ground, or wind, and they have some circuit to circuit issues, and are not super accurate even within a day. But they are as advertised, a good general guide to how fast the horses run, and excellent value for the money. They are also MUCH better at this point at judging track speed than Ragozin. They use common sense, rather than aformentioned dogma, and never make the BIG error-- the 6 point or so mistakes I showed in those pop quizzes would be 20 point mistakes with Beyer. It doesn\'t happen.

I can\'t speak to the others, whoever they are, since I don\'t know how they make figures. If they use one track speed for the day automatically, and/or combine one and two turn races, damn right there will be differences.

3-- I\'m tired of having this conversation about the pairs, I\'ve done it maybe 50 times here. The figure relationships between horses in a race are FIXED, by beaten lengths between them, ground, and weight. I can\'t give two different horses in a race pairs of their earlier numbers unless that relationship says I can. Since THE ENTIRE BASIS of both making (and betting off) figures is that previous figures are a guide to later figures, the MORE PAIRS-- OR HORSES RUNNING FIGURES IN A TIGHT RANGE-- THE BETTER. It means your data base is tight. If I have a race where many horses run to their previous figures (whether they are tops, most recent race, or just in the range they usually run), it is the strongest evidence possible, given how figure are made to begin with, that the figures are right, both for that race and for the earlier ones.

[richiebee]

Miff:

    I\'ve been posting about the Pair/Pair/Pair pattern since before the Bel Stakes.

    Lets look at the Thoro-Pattern studies of the Pair/ Pair/Pair BC performers going into the race:

F/M Turf:
Film Maker 620..14...48...29...8
Karen\'s Caper 258...27...48...18...8

Distaff:
Happy Ticket, Hollywood Story, PLEASANT HOME  832...21...42...23...14
In the Gold  655...29...36...27...13

Turf Classic
Azamour, Ace, 49ers Son  456...17...52...23...8
English Channel    258...27...49...18...6

    As I have pointed out in past posts, the Pair/Pair/Pair pattern usually is predictive of top or pair (combined) in excess of 60%. Looking at each pattern, the greatest probability is that the animal will once again \"pair\", meaning that animal will again carry the \"Pair/Pair/Pair\" into his/her NEXT race.

   Hmm, its kinda like a \"pair treadmill\". Actually I would assume that, without checking, all but Ace may have exited the treadmill on BC Day.

   Subjective observation by Miff seems to be skeptical that animals can be so consistent. I hope an interesting figure- based debate ensues.

[BitPlayer]

RB -

I checked.  If I understand the rules correctly, 5 of 10 stayed on the treadmill: Film Maker; In the Gold; Ace; Azamour; and English Channel.

[TGJB]

Actually, it occurs to me that the right way to deal with this \"pair\" question is to point people back to the BC sheets. As you look at what we gave them, see what happens if you try adding or subtracting to the figures of ALL the horses in a race-- remember, you can\'t change one without changing the others. And that\'s independent of other races, track maintenance, weather, etc.

[TGJB]

Good thing we\'re not all holding our breath waiting for those BC figures Friedman promised.