First, regarding Jimbo and Janis\' getting together to do the study, I\'m all for it, if it can be done right. That doesn\'t just mean in terms of the study itself, but in terms of the auditing-- after the horses are rated, the ratings should be e-mailed to both Len and me before racing, and the results tabulated on a running basis daily and posted (presumably here, since Len doesn\'t want any part of this). This removes the chance of one side or the other crying foul after the fact. I also think that NoCar Tony might want to get copied, since he will have other ideas about how to do the studies. I think Saratoga is a good meet to use, since there are a lot of shippers, and we can look at track-to-track consistency that way.
My idea is this-- take the last 3 on the same surface (turf or dirt), regardless of trainer changes, time between races, off tracks, etc. Throw out the worst one, average the other two, and you have a rough power rating for the horse. Sure, there are plenty of situations where the methodology will screw one side or the other. But over a decent size sample (300+ races) that should wash out about evenly. Then adjust the ratings for weight to be carried today, and rank the horses for each product in each race. After the race, see who had the winner ranked higher, and that side gets a point.
There are lots of other things you could do (like give an extra point if they had the winner on top), but this is a simple approach that should be indicative. There obviously is some margin of error, and if it comes up 52/48%, nobody should be crowing. But if it comes up 170/130 or so for 300 races, that would be a piece of evidence-- not proof, and we can always do it again or another way (and in fact since both products are sold publicly, anybody can do any study any time they want). But it would be evidence.
The idea here is not to approximate handicapping-- for starters, different players can look at the same data and have different opinions (like Vito thinking Barbaro was a great bet at 6-1 in an evenly matched 20 horse field, and many Ragozin guys disagreeing). The idea is to check the overall accuracy of the figures-- as several people have noted, there are now enormous differences in two sets of figures that in theory are supposed to be measuring the same things, differences that go way beyond small pattern reads, so somebody is doing something wrong. This should give us a clue as to who it is.
So yes, if this is going to be done properly, I\'ll go for the cost of both sheets for Saratoga. Jimbo and Janis won\'t be paying for their data, but there will be some work involved, and if they want to increase the sampling by adding Del Mar for the same time period I\'ll go for that as well.
As far as the comments from the other guys on Ragozin\'s board:
Dave (Soup? Zat you? You\'re very calm, these days)-- I addressed some of your comments above. This is not a betting system, it\'s a figure checking system. And if one set of data is considerably off, pattern reads are irrelevant.
By the way, it\'s also not \"entirely about pattern reads\", to a large degree it is about how fast the horses are. Vito can talk about Barbaro\'s pattern all he wants, but if that horse is 2 points slower going in, it\'s unlikely he bets him. Also, someone who uses our data (head of programming at TVG) called me to tell me about a conversation with someone that uses Ragozin (Amoss) about a race at Keeneland, the Shakertown. Amoss said Atticus Kristy had no shot, he was too slow, coming off a pair of 10\'s. We also had him coming off a pair-- of zeros. Not only did he win (8-1), but the second finisher came out of the same race at Tampa. We both had the winner off a pair, but I think we got it right.
Vito-- yeah, you\'re right. It is of no consequence that Ragozin got the ground for the winner of the Kentucky Derby-- who was on the TV screen every second-- wrong, by 3 paths, and didn\'t correct it when it was pointed out. This is the second time in 3 years they have made a major error (as opposed to a difference in judgment) in the biggest race of the year, and din\'t fix it. Who cares, right?
Raz-- Yes, I know there are handicapping contests. I know because guys using our data have won the biggest one 3 of the last 4 years, and it\'s a contest that is NOT open to the public-- you have to qualify by doing well in other contests. (And by the way, the winner of one the earlier NTRA Nationals, as far as I know the only one to win using Ragozin, has switched to our data).
As for the challenge to Len-- I AM willing to put up my own money, a lot more than I would have to put up in one of the public contests. I want it to be head-to-head, and meaningful-- a large sampling, not 20 races in a contest that depends on being the one to hit the longshots that day. In fact, I am less proud of the winners of those NTRA contests than of the large numbers of TG players that have qualified-- to me that\'s more indicative. The only contests these days where you see large numbers of Ragozin players is the Orleans-- you don\'t have to qualify, and you don\'t have to bet real money, like in some of the contests now. (By the way, you might recall that in 05, despite being wildly outnumbered, our guys did unbelievably well at the Orleans, much better than Ragozin\'s. This year both did poorly).
Indulto-- my eyes glazed over trying to read your fourth paragraph, so you\'re going to have to live without a response.
