Kool Aid?

[SP]

Jimbo, the periodic repetitions of the Jim Jones analogy cause lots of bad vibes.  Can you refrain?

But the cult/faith analogy has validity in certain aspects.  This site has the righteous zeal of people trying to “deprogram” cult followers.  The other side is insular.  And both sides are going on faith.  “Both sides,” I hear you asking?

Well if you think that JB can determine the precise extent that track speed has changed each 30-60 minutes, within a tenth of a point, as it apparently swings back and forth, changing directions from faster to slower to faster to slower (see his BC day – variant making post) without any dramatic changes in weather, and maybe not even any watering…  And if you think he is justified in dismissing the idea of statistical studies of the impact of track watering to verify his theories…  You have a lot of faith in the guy.  I was really surprised, given the sharpness of many posters here, that no one questioned Jerry on either of those.

But I can understand your faith if you’re cashing a lot of tickets.  Looking at the BC graphs, JB’s work looks internally consistent and predictive, too.  I may have different instincts than Jerry on which samples to use in calculating variants, but I’m not trying to be dismissive, either.

What I don’t get is the dismissive attitude toward the Rag approach.  The “laws of probability say that so many horses can’t go back at the same time except once in a blue moon” argument is being applied in a distorted way.  You base your figs on projections, so projections based on Rag figs must also be taken into account in analyzing whether Rag figs are also predictive.

Looking at the Distaff on Ragozin before the race, I felt that most of the field would go back.  This wasn’t a random set of #s to analyze -- this was a set of past performances.  I know you share my belief that Xs are much more likely in some situations than others.  So the exercise in coming up with some abstract % of how often a set of horses “X,” and then trying to judge a particular situation based on that generic %, was irrelevant.

I also looked at TG’s BC figs, and found that 9 of the 10 horses in the Juvenile Fillies went back on your #s.  These were young, developing fillies pointed for the richest race many will every race in.  How often had these fillies bounced before?  Was this defying the laws of probability?  Do I question your figs on that race?  No.  Just your willingness to say Rag has no right to have a different field of horses, older females no less, going back 3 points.

I also looked at the JC Gold Cup horses that ran back in the BC.  Sun King, given a big bounce by Rag in the Gold Cup, was coming off a new top.  He had bounced almost 5 points off his last top and it took him half a year of steady racing to get close to it again.  If I were playing the Gold Cup, I’d have played SK to bounce big – that fig made sense.

Suave was coming into the GC off a 3, one point off his top.  He had bounced big off an 8 top, bigger off a pair of 8-, bounced again off a 5 top, and again off a 2 top.  The bounce to a 9 in the GC off the 3 looks appropriate on the Rag sheet.  I thought he’d run better in the BC.  Flower Alley came into the GC off three straight big efforts, the last two of which were a pair of zeros, which represented a 3-point top.   He figured to bounce big in the Gold Cup just as he did off of 3 big efforts at the start of the year.  I also played him to run well in the BC and hit the tri with him.

Borrego also figured to bounce off the 2+ (equal to his prior top) he ran right before the Gold Cup.  He had bounced off the 2+ the first time he ran it, just as he had bounced off his 5- top, and a pair of 5+ tops.  So the 5 he got in the Gold Cup also makes sense on his sheet.  I know he won big.  But what if his saddle slipped coming out of the gate.  Wouldn’t that have made Suave a very impressive almost 6-length winner in that big race?

Your figs make sense on the patterns one sees on TG.  The Rag figs also make sense and are predictive, using the very different patterns one sees on Rag sheets.  Your arguments that Rag must be getting some races wrong are persuasive – the concept of changing track speed makes sense.  But it is impossible for me to imagine that with the small sample sizes you’re using, and your willingness to cut races off without weather changes, that you aren’t getting some races quite wrong too.  Given your belief in the impact of changing track speed, your lack of enthusiasm for the idea of rudimentary research on the impact of watering was surprising.

Back to the Kool Aid -- it is time to retire that offensive analogy.  If it were Kool Aid, we mindless, brainwashed Raggies would all be “dead” – and you’d have all our $$ by now.  And you wouldn’t periodically be reading how Raggies had success in major handicapping tournaments.  It just looks like Kool Aid.  But it’s really tasty, nutritious concord grape juice.  Enjoy your fresh squeezed OJ and see you at the windows.

[TGJB]

Steve-- That post was extremely well written nonsense, packaged in such a way as to take detailed deconstruction in orded to deal with it. I probably won\'t get to all of it today, and may or may not be willing to do it at all-- it is truly annoying.

But Jimbo\'s (and before him George) Kool Aid analogy is apt. While you take at least half a swipe at the underlying issues, virtually everyone else on the Ragozin side that has ever commented on TG-- including Friedman, most of the time-- simply resorts to name calling, without dealing with any of the issues. On this site, I get challenged all the time-- and I explain myself. Only one with a cult mentality accepts that someone who charges you money should be taken on faith on claims that their data is perfect,and never questions anything, even when the issues are brought up publicly. And stays that way when errors are brought up and not addressed or corrected (remember the 04 Derby beaten lengths?). Those on this site don\'t take me on faith-- they get explanations as to why I do things, and then have the ability to draw their own conclusions.

And you know it, because you read this site.

One more point. On the Juvenile Fillies-- as I said, I originally was going to take off more from that race, and it would have looked better. But:

1-- I KNEW that there had been no different track maintenance-- I made no assumptions. I went so far as to talk to Jerry Porcelli myself. Which by itself would not have made the decision for me, because as the science shows, tracks change even without work being done, BUT

2-- in this case, the variant was the SAME on both sides, and it was solid. You could not give the the 2yo colts or the Discovery faster numbers. Which would have been some coincidence, if the track was significantly different for the race between. And

3-- the hot pace, combined with it being 2yo fillies going long, offered another possible reason for so many running bad, and along with the ACTUAL INFORMATION I had made it unnacceptable to break the race out.

The \"instincts\" thing was cute, by the way. Yeah, that\'s what it is-- just plain old gut feel, without any logic or science to back it up. One guy\'s instincts against another-- me and George Pratt of M.I T., against you and Friedman.

Which is where the Kool Aid comes in.

More later if I feel like it.

[SP]

Jerry, you & Jimbo often manage to make your points without calling Rag customers blind zealots and suicidal fools.

I wasn\'t trying to equate my instincts as a very recreational player with expertise gained from your full-time skilled immersion.  But the Rag staff has also been at it a long time.  As a consumer, I\'m left trying to compare two competing approaches to sampling and variant-making.

You present good arguments that tracks do change speed, but you feel you don\'t need to research how to measure the size and direction of those changes because you can infer it accurately.  How can anyone tell whether your corrections are always called for, or are worse than none at all?  All I can do is read all the arguments, try both products and then go by my instincts (and my ROI).

As for the other things I wrote, I\'m sorry -- especially after asking such good questions -- to have disappointed you with such nonsense.  No need to respond further.

[TGJB]

Steve-- there is PLENTY of need to respond further.

I did NOT say that I \"didn\'t need to reasearch how to measure the size and direction of those changes because (I) can infer it accurately\". That\'s bull. I said it could not be done-- in point of fact, way back when I was researching the Expo stuff, and Mick Peterson (thats DOCTOR Peterson to you) said that he was starting a big new study of track surfaces, I offered to do a blind study comparing our variants to the data he collected to see if there was identifiable correlation. He didn\'t respond.

But even if you had those studies, it would only be significant if you had all the relevant information-- AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO YOU-- and that\'s even if you know what all those factors are. I know a lot of them, and know that the incredibly large number of permutations of just those makes the idea of finding direct relationships very unreliable-- AS I SAID IN MY RESPONSE TO YOU. It\'s also tough because the variants we would be using in any study would be themselves based upon judgment calls by me-- AS I SAID IN MY RESPONSE TO YOU. I didn\'t say I knew better. I said it would be almost impossible to do a study which would serve any practical purpose-- and you played games with my words.

In point of fact, the guy who doesn\'t believe any of this matters-- the one who thinks he knows better-- is the guy who thinks sealing a racetrack or watering it in the middle of a race card has no effect on track speed, but that rain does. And the fact that guys like you accept that without questioning it, while going after someone that has actually looked at studies of racetrack surfaces and talked to track superintendents, is why guys like me say you are drinking Kool Aid.

[jimbo66]

Steve,

Not sure why you find the Kool Aid comment offensive.  It isn\'t a discriminatory remark, unless you actually do belong to a cult. But I think twice is enough.  I forgot I used it once before.  I will try to be more original next time.

I read the other board.  Just not too often because there isn\'t a lot happening on it.  The Rags players either blindly believe Len is always right, or they aren\'t internet users and don\'t question figs via the web site.  

If you read this board, you are aware that I don\'t blindly believe every fig that jerry puts up.  I question a significant amount of them and so do others.  Jerry answers the questions and then we decide whether we buy the answers or not.  Either way, I adjust my future bets accordingly and I am sure others do also.  I can tell you that the next time a California horse ships east with seemingly slow figures on T-Graph, I will not dismiss him.  Continuing to diagree on this board AFTER I get an explanation is just a waste of time.  The customers ask questions and get answers.  We can either agree or disagree.

It just doesn\'t happen there.  Nobody who uses Rags has issues with the Gold Cup?  I am not even saying that Len was DEFINITELY wrong, but geez, some percentage of the players must think so.  Just like some percentage of the players here think Jerry had it too fast.

Anyway, we all use what figures we think gives us the best chance to win.  

[SP]

I need to remember and take to heart what you said about continuing to disagree on this board after getting an explanation being a waste of time.  Thanks.

By the way, I\'ve found the attitude in person in the Rag office to be much different than what you see on the bb over there.  Given that they\'re the big name, and the constant attacks from here, I understand their public stance.  That said, I appreciate it that JB does have the discussion (at least the parts before he loses his temper) since I\'ve learned a lot from it.

[TGJB]

Steve-- I lose my temper when someone intentionally misrepresents what I say in an attempt to make me look bad. And I continue to have the discussion after I do.

There was other nonsense in that post of yours. I was going to let it go because you stepped up about one of Friedman\'s bad acts, but here you are again taking shots at me. So we\'ll see how much time I have later, and whether I think you are worth it.

My \"attacks\" are about figure making, and as such are perfectly legitimate. They also have resulted in the public learning a tremendous amount about figure making, and in Ragozin NOT being the big name. IF he outsells us-- which at this point is questionable-- it ain\'t by a lot. And the horsemen only use his data because he basically gives it to them for free, where we charge commissions-- which in turn allows our customers to buy the Super Frolic\'s of the world.

[SP]

Jerry, if I\'m misrepresenting anything, it isn\'t intentional.  Saying you lost your temper is hardly an insult, and is borne out BY ALL THOSE CAPS TYPED IN FRUSTRATION WITH ME.  You\'re hardly the only person on earth who doesn\'t see it when they get a little past the line.  Sorry, If I\'ve gone past your lines.

I\'m not trying to make you look bad.  I\'ve expressed agreement with some of your thoughts on changing track speed.  I acknowledge that your figs fit together well and that some make money off them (if I had in my trial of them, I might be your customer).  Is that some partisan Rag agenda?

However, since this is the Kool Aid free zone where challenges are OK, I did point out that it takes faith in you to believe you can tell that the track is getting slower, then faster, then slower again from race to race without obvious changes in weather or maintenance.  I wonder how many people here are satisfied with your answer to Bit Player\'s questions on the Probability string -- I\'m not.

I can see the legitimacy of slides.  Or a track speeding (or slowing) as it dries, then drying too much and the variant reversing directions.  Call me thick, or a fundamentalist, or anything else you like, but nothing you\'ve written convinces me that there is a geological reason for a track variant to ping pong without obvious weather/maintenance changes.  I\'ll keep reading and watching for something that might.

You seem really frustrated that I\'m not sufficiently acknowledging the difficulty of trying to research the impact of changes in track moisture.  Perhaps I\'m a moron for believing that the challenges, while steeper, don\'t seem impossibly different than those involved in making decent pars to start making good figures.  I\'ve been wrong before.  But what I\'m expressing is honest disagreement, and surprise that you haven\'t tried the research, not some agenda to make you look bad.

Look, why is it so weird to you that Rag customers like me -- who are by definition skeptical about your approach -- would want you to prove your point with research?  Even if you used your own figures to demonstrate it, that would mean something to me, since I believe you have a passion for trying to perfect your figs, and I don\'t believe for a minute you would compromise the accuracy of your figs to prove your theory.  If your past performances hold up, you would adjust your figs in light of new research and tout your new improved method to the public, belittling the competition for not keeping pace.

Listen, just when I thought there was nothing new for me to read about figure making, we had this exchange, and I learned more, even if I\'m not \"converted,\" so I\'m grateful for that.  Sorry to tick you  off.  I said in our e-mail exchange where you said I\'d be welcome to post here again, I don\'t really belong here since I\'m not a customer.  Challenges understandably feel different/better coming from customers.  People like Bit & Jimbo will continue to post challenges.  Mine don\'t feel good to you.  I understand that.  Perhaps you & yours should also understand why your challenges aren\'t welcome over at the Rag site.

I\'ll say sayonara for real now and save you the energy of having to decide whether I\'m worth more effort.  If I have a question or issue, I\'ll e-mail.  The last word is yours.
Peace,
SP

[TGJB]

Steve-- more nonsense.

1-- As I made perfectly clear,the misrepresentation had to do with WHY I would not (in actuality, could not) do the studies. And you continue to do it.

Just out of curiosity, how many levels of humidity are there? Temperature? How many of cloud cover? How many types of track maintenance? How many different moisture contents to start the day? How many track depths? How many different wind speeds and directions? And amount of time of wind?

Yeah, I\'m just lazy. Or afraid what the results would show. Because what science there is so far is all on my side.

2-- The caps are for emphasis. I do it all the time, and it has nothing to do with temper. Which is not to say that your intentional mischaracterization of my position didn\'t annoy me. It did.

3-- You have yet to address the ASSUMPTION that the track stays the same speed despite being sealed, or show that it is more than an assumption. But I have confidence that you can finesse it.

I\'m the one who DOES NOT make an assumption one way or the other about what the track does when I make figures. It is the ones who  say that it stays the same that have to prove it. And as you know from the scientists studies of actual tracks, they do NOT stay the same in measurable terms.

4-- I take your claims of positive ROI and trials of my data as being just as credible as your account of why I won\'t do the studies. They come from the same source.

5-- I\'m not trying to convince you. This is a public forum, and I use answers to you and others as a chance to get the word out.

6-- Bit and Jimbo are intellectually honest. That\'s why it \"feels\" different.