Nack Talkin Smack

[fkach]

>Allen Jerkens snickers at the thought of leaving a sharp horse in the barn just because he just ran a big race. Run them when they are good, rest them when they need it, he says.<

He sounds like me.  

The problem with that philosphy is that you have to be a competent enough trainer to know \"when they need a rest\". ;-)

[fkach]

Bull,

I can\'t disagree with a single word you said, but IMO there is one \"potential\" downside to the Sheets management philosophy.

Even if you get more consistent tops and a longer campaign out of the average horse that way (I am not 100% convinced that a competent trainer can\'t just tell when a horse actually needs a rest as opposed to assuming he does), it doesn\'t prove that you earn more money that way.  

That style opens you up to the risk that are resting a rugged horse that could easily be winning or placing etc... in many more races if asked.

It also risks that you keep a horse on the sidelines while he\'s razor sharp in order to rest him and he gets hurt or sick (an accident that could happen regardless of training style) and you miss an opportunity to earn by passing a race he could have won etc...

[NoCarolinaTony]

Bull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Being a young man, I really do not mean to bash
> old people, but this is a perfect example of what
> is wrong with way too many people when they hit
> their “golden years”. They become venomous and
> bitter towards anything remotely younger, fresher,
> and contrary to their ancient, time honored
> ideologies. I am sure I am not the only victim of
> this, but it’s disgusting.
>
>
>
> The old timers spend too much reminiscing about
> the “good old days” to ever see the present day
> clear enough to comment intelligently on it. The
> whole “I’m older so I know more than you” attitude
> speaks volumes about a person. I found Nack’s
> article inaccurate, poorly researched and
> unprofessionally biased. I would think an old
> timer, who has done this for so long, such as Mr.
> Nack, would know better.
>
>
> Yours never afraid of change,
> - The Bull

The same could be said for all those that don\'t like POLYCushionDirt.

NC Tony

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Second the importance of pattern reads and being able to recognize a pending improvement indicated in an unusual pattern.

Also appreciated your \"chaos theory\" as it pertains to finding value. Trainer changes aren\'t really subtle but point noted.

To draw both concepts together, let me pose this rhetorical question in regard to Rags pattern reads:

\"How can one read a pattern when the figures presented don\'t represent the actual efforts?\"

CtC
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miff,
>
> I agree, there are other factors necessary in the
> handicapping equation. The Sheets are the
> cornerstone of my approach yes, but they are not
> the whole bowl of wax. I will say that I give very
> little to no credence to pace. My methodology is
> designed to predict change. I feel that in this
> game, too many people think in a linear manner.
> When you try to predict deviations from the
> typical, that\'s where you get an edge. I attempt
> to determine the number that each horse figures to
> run today, based on NUMEROUS factors, some of
> those non sheet related, if that makes sense. For
> instance, at Philly Park, if Jayne Vaders claims a
> horse off of some low % trainer, you can give the
> horse credit for running at least 2-3 pts better
> today than what you would have predicted without
> the trainer change. The bets with my biggest edge
> come from those where my predicted number is in
> stark contrast with the horse\'s recent history.
>
> My comments on the Triple Crown horses were
> intended to be an overall generalization, not
> specific to this year. I said \"some top 3yos\", not
> \"all top 3yos\". I agree, that Preakness went
> FAST.
>
> As for your Ragozin # questions...... I did not
> bet the Preakness, with the exception of the Pick
> 4. I saw no value whatsoever. That being said, I
> will go on record as saying I was a little
> disappointed in the way the figures \"performed\" in
> the Preakness. Given the Ragozin #\'s, you would
> have to find the result of the Preakness
> implausible. If Street Sense is struggling to get
> back to his 2yo top (as Ragozin says) it\'s hard to
> imagine he moves forward to a 0 on 2 weeks rest.
> If Curlin reacted 3 pts in the Derby to his Ark
> effort, again it\'s hard to imagine he moves
> forward almost 7 pts off the Derby to a negative #
> off of two weeks. My analysis (as was Len\'s, I
> believe), that Curlin was more likely to go
> backward again than he was to go forward.
>
> Let me continue by saying this is a game of %\'s
> and my analysis given the Derby numbers, was that
> it was unlikely that both Street Sense and Curlin
> would improve to that level. It was certainly
> possible, but given the patterns, I would say the
> % would be low, and given the odds, made neither
> one a bet. I don\'t want to put words into Len\'s
> mouth, but I would assume he would echo that.
>
> I believe in the Ragozin numbers, I believe in
> Len\'s ability to get the right number. However, I
> do question if the read on the horses would have
> been different had he had the Derby a few pts
> faster for the top horses. Personally, I would
> still be a bit negative on Street Sense and Curlin
> in the Preakness if he gave Street Sense a 2 or 1\"
> and Curlin maybe a 3-4, but I would not have been
> nearly as surprised by the result, particularly
> Street Sense. I am not trying to say the numbers
> were wrong in any spot. Im just saying from a %
> standpoint, I would give Street Sense a greater %
> chance to get to a 0, had his Derby been given a
> faster number. If Curlin had been given a number
> in the Derby which was slightly faster than his
> Ark Derby, the case could be made that he had
> another forward move in him (though on two weeks
> rest, that would be tough), as opposed to the 6
> which he got, which could be viewed as the signal
> that he had no more forward moves in him for the
> time being given his races and spacing. That being
> said, I believe had Curlin skipped the Preakness,
> given his 6 in the Derby, you could play him to
> move forward, maybe even past the 3 top when
> Belmont Day came around.
>
> I will finish by saying that I am not as good at
> reading patterns as Len, so I will not dismiss his
> reads. I may disagree at times, but I always have
> respect for his opinion and always understand
> where he comes from with his argument. Actually
> our reads were similar on the Preakness. We were
> both negative on the top 3. Some people will say
> the numbers were right, but it was just a crazy,
> outlier type result that occured in the Preakness.
> Others will say that the Derby (and maybe
> Bluegrass) figures were wrong in the first place,
> which explains many Sheet users being fooled by
> the resulting Preakness figures. I will tend to
> side with the first reason, but I understand where
> you\'re coming from if you want to side with the
> second reason.
>
>
> Licking my chops for the Belmont Day pick 4,
> -The Bull

[Silver Charm]

Wow, everybody\'s talkin smack.

Nack, Flach and now NCTony.

The examples Nack used and the trainers he used supported HIS argument. Doesn\'t mean he is right it just supported his argument. If the sheet approach of good spacing was so wrong then why are ALL of the Derby preps three to five weeks out today as compared to two to three maybe as recent as ten years ago. Same goes for all of the Breeders Cup Preps.

Wayne Lukas has probably forgotten more than most trainers ever knew. Even he has adjusted some of his style knowing that a big effort WILL NOT be there everytime. See Flying First Class and Fiery Pursuit two most recent races as a perfect example. Both came of big wins and both were not well meant in their last. Period.  

Bob Baffert is useful these days for one thing. Just remember the next time you see him on TVG with his bowl cut white hair and wearing his round black glasses one of lifes great mystery\'s has been solved.

Whatever happened to Cousin IT........

[Bull]

Fkach,

That is a valid point you\'re making. You\'re referring to the opportunity cost of not running the horse in certain spots, to keep him fresh for spots down the road. It makes sense, yes it is a drawback to the \"softy\" philosophy. But to counter I would posit that if the spots you are gunning for are consistently bigger purses than the sum of the races you are skipping to stay fresh, than that could conceivably cancel your theory out....especially when considering the potential breeding windfall from winning in those \"big spots\" such as the Derby, Met Mile, BC etc.... Just playing devil\'s advocate.


-The Bull

[richiebee]

Bull:

  Love you too, and appreciate your perspective, but find it quite humorous that
your post has the phrase \"short term success\" and the name \"Allen Jerkens\"
(please Chuckles spell his name right EVERY time) in the same sentence. And
putting the ingrate RD2 and H. Allen Jerkens in the same parenthetical, well,
thems \"fightin words\".

  In alphabetical order, and with an east coast bias, Hall of Famers Frankel,
Jerkens, McGaughey, Mott four of the best HORSEMEN currently plying the trade.
Four trainers with only limited success in the Triple Crown series. No
coincidence there, and certainly no need to elaborate.The successful run that
HAJ has maintained over the last 5 decades is nothing short of astonishing.

  I think I read a stat somewhere that Mott and Frankel are the only 2 trainers
to maintain a win percentage in excess of 20% over the last 20 years.

  Enjoyed the interviews with Jimmy Jerkens after the Met Mile, how he said
that after Corinthian took control of the race his thought pattern was
basically \"Oh, shit, here comes the Chief\".

  RD2 has never acknowledged HIS father. It pisses me off because RD was 5
times the HORSEMAN that RD2 will ever be.

[Bull]

Richie, Im sure you knew I was referring to HAJ\'s ability to get big efforts out of a horse in a short period of time, that\'s what I meant by short term. In no way do I want to diminish Jerkens\' longevity and success in this game. I just was using him as an example of a guy who\'s not afraid to run a horse on short rest, and can get a good effort out of him in the process.

Your comments on RD2 are right on the money.


-Bull

[Bull]

TGJB im not going to throw Len under the bus if that\'s what you want. I do however question the Derby numbers for the top few horses. As I said, the Preakness result makes more sense if you give Street Sense and Curlin a faster number. In my opinion (and you can give yours since your a pattern guy too) Street Sense\'s Ragozin pattern would have looked better heading into the Preakness had he received a 1\"-2 for the Derby. It meant he surpassed his 2yo top and was ready to move forawrd (though it was less likely than normal given the timing).

All of my speculation comes after I see the Preakness number, which may just be post race handicapping. In general, you can\'t just see the results and then fit previous numbers to make the outcome make more sense. Personally, i think the Preakness # was an out of whack result that was difficult to predict on any level. If Len had made the Derby number 3 or 4 pts faster, I would still be negative on the top 3, and it would still be hard to predict a negative number for Curlin, though not as difficult given the new pattern.

Jerry, honestly I have no idea about the Bluegrass #. The point about the pace being so slow is valid. \"The horses did not do much running until the final few furlongs, so it\'s hard to imagine that some of those put forth efforts that big numbers wise\" is that what you are trying to say??? First, I want to say I did not bet Bluegrass Day, I have no access to their variant or ground loss formula information. I had no access to other final times that day to compare it to, so my opinion is not really all that informed in this spot. To answer your question directly, I would say it is possible that Street Sense\'s effort in the Derby was similar to the Bluegrass effort. From a ground loss perspective alone, Street Sense made a sustained wide run into a hot part of the race in the Bluegrass, while he skimmed the fence virtually both turns in the Derby. That being said, it is also possible that the Derby was a better effort. I do not know, I am not a figure maker. I would defer to guys like you and Len, and in this situation you differ. I have been a Ragozin user for a while, and I have made consistent money with them, so I would tend to give Len the benefit of the doubt in this case (this is not to say any figure making process is infallible).

I did not bet Bluegrass Day so I did not have access to the sheets before hand to compare the previous tops and histories of each horse. I do have the updated Sheets for the five Bluegrass participants that raced in the Derby. I am not sure which horses you are referring to running HUGE new tops. I do know Len had Teuflesberg and Dominican running at least 2 pt tops. I would say those numbers held as Dominican and Teuflesberg reacted to those big tops on short rest in the Derby and ran poorly. I do not know the other horses who ran tops, but if you are referring to Times Squared, I would say it\'s possible he had a new top. I could be wrong but he did have slower numbers going in, and in the Bluegrass he was about 7 wide, and managed to lose by only 3 lengths. He did run a nice race. Like i said, I did not see the sheet of Times Squared so I do not know how to take the context of his Bluegrass, nor do I recall where or if he ran next. Therefore it is hard for me to determine if the figure held up.

I do not want to really get into an argument Jerry, I respect you greatly. I know you think Len got the Bluegrass and the Derby wrong. I am not saying you are right or wrong, I am saying I use Len\'s numbers with the assumption they are correct, and I have been rewarded with consistent profits year after year. Are there times I question certain numbers? Yes, but that does not mean I would not question yours if I had access to them. I am a natural skeptic, it\'s what I do. Am I saying Len and crew are infallible and never make mistakes? No, but I would think the same thing about your operation as well, so my comments do nothing to validate what you are saying.

All I know is, Len\'s numbers are very accurate in most if not every race, and I have used them with great confidence and success in the past and will continue to do so in the future. This is not to say your numbers are any more or less accurate. Im sure you have a great product as well that provides value for you and your customers. Have a nice day.



Here\'s hoping we can all just get along,
-The Bull

[TGJB]

Bull-- nobody\'s asking you to throw anybody under any bus. I\'m asking you to use your head, as I have asked many others (and we took a bunch of calls just this week from Raggie guys).

There were 4 horses together at the wire in the BG, another a length back, in a race where they went 1:16 and sprinted home-- it was shown as an \"s. pace\" race on BOTH sets of sheets, which means by definition that the final time could not be taken at face value. Meaning, they could have (and presumably would have) run FASTER.

a) Under those circumstances, how does any figure maker give three horses out of seven big (2 point or more) new tops? Based on what? Think about that before you answer it. What basis would you use, if not the time, and not the past figure histories of the horses?

b) Ragozin gave SS the same figure in that race and the Derby. You kind of missed the point on this-- do you think the other 4 that finished on the wire with SS in the BG ran well enough to beat Curlin and the rest of the 20 horse Derby field easily if they ran back to their BG efforts?

c) Dominican and Time Squared did not bounce after the BG. On real world figures they paired their BG figures in their next starts within 1/4 point.

I\'ve said this before, I\'ll make it clear again. Getting a figure \"right\" for Ragozin means something different than for the rest of us. They have a rigid, dogmatic process that is not based in science at all (if you have not already read \"Changing Track Speeds\" on this site, you should). At the end of that process, what comes out is \"right\" whether it makes any sense or not. If you do any serious investigation of this subject you will find that to be true.

IF you are winning, that may or may not be enough reason to join many others (at least two of which post here) and switch. But it is not a reason not to think.

[fkach]

I\'m probably the last person in the world that should be commenting on this, ;-) but doesn\'t Ragozin use some kind of arcane formula that translates very fast closing times into approximate final times when they give out the \"S\" designation?

If so, that could/would probably explain the tops given to several horses in the Bluegrass. It may have been done by formula instead of an estimate of track speed or something else.

If so, then the discussion should be less about who ran a top in the BG or paired in the Derby etc... Even Len would admit that all the horses in the Bluegrass ran slow and no one actually ran a top despite the figures he assigned.

Maybe the discussion should be about the accuracy of his arcane formula relative to simply looking at the ability of the horses like you do.

I hope I understand what the Rags are doing in these \"S\" races, but if not, then totally disregard my comments.

[TGJB]

fkach-- that\'s my point, as I said in the last paragraph. They are about process, independent of where the outcome leads. Another obvious example came when Ragozin gave Borrego a better figure for finishing ninth in the BC than winning the Gold Cup by open lengths, but there are a zillion other examples.

[Bull]

I just wanted to comment on William Nack\'s agist and innacurate bashing of the Sheets and Sheet methodology, I am not sure how it turned into an argument about the Bluegrass. I was trying to take a stand that united both operations in the context of Nack\'s article, somehow it manifested into people driving wedges between the two (which is your right TGJB, they are your competition). Don\'t worry I will keep my anti-drug, pro Sheet posts to myself in the future.


In much the same manner Len assigns quit numbers to horses on extremely fast paces, he does so in extremely slow paced races. I am not positive if this is done by formula or includes a degree of subjectivity. It is Len\'s opinion of what the horse would have run had the fractions been more honest, giving the horse an opportunity to run his true effort. My point is that Len makes NO attempt to state the P~ numbers are just as accurate as the normal figures. He will probably be the first to tell you that there is a degree of uncertainty in the numbers and his customers should be well apprised of that fact. It is very hard to take any P~ figures at face value and tougher to make pattern reads off them than normal (as Len has said in the past, I believe).

I saw the Bluegrass was a P~ race in which Len gave big efforts to a number of the horses. I found it a tad strange too I admit, but I understood where he was coming from. I did not give a ton of weight to those figures, the same way I would have not given much credence to yours or anyone else\'s, The truth is when the pace is that slow, the final time is much less meaningful, and the resulting figures are too, no matter who\'s figures you use. You had the number different then Len\'s, obviously you think his was wrong. It is up to the customers how they want to handle those P~ races and to who\'s they believe are correct. I personally don\'t lend P~numbers much credence in anybody\'s set of figures (yours, Lens, Beyer etc).



Good luck to all
-The Bull

[TGJB]

1-- It\'s not an argument. And any anti-drug posts are welcome here, I\'ve made a few dozen myself.

2-- When a methodology produces numbers that make no sense, it becomes important to examine the methodology-- because it also produces figures in cases where it is not so obviously wrong, like those in non-stakes, and at smaller tracks. My point, as I said, is not to get into an argument. It is to get people to THINK.

3-- It\'s not just \"a tad strange\". It makes no sense-- there is no logical basis for doing the race that way-- unless, as I said in a much earlier post on this subject, you tie the BG to the next race, also a pace race, featuring a 1:18 6f(!!) split. The only possible explanation for coming up with those BG figures is if they blindly stuck to process and tied those races together-- which is crazy.

4-- Saying that your numbers are not perfect does not mean it is okay to do things in such a way as to insure you get them wrong. Those that have looked at our \"s. pace\" figures (and it happens all the time in grass races) can tell you how they hold up. It is up to the customers to FIGURE OUT whose figures are accurate. And one way you do that is by asking questions and thinking. Another is by seeing who will answer a question on the subject-- you might have noticed that I\'m not afraid of a free exchange of ideas on this site. Others are.

Ragozin\'s BG numbers are clearly wrong (about 2 points fast). So are his Derby figures (about 2-2 1/2 slow), and his Preakness figures (about 1 or 1 1/2 fast). And I\'m not basing this on the relationship between his figures and ours-- I\'m basing it strictly on HIS figures,which I can see since he posted them. And in all three cases, it looks to me like the reason was the same-- a dogmatic requirement to tie together independent events, as Ragozin proclaims he does in his book (he says that if he adds 1/4 point to a race, he has to add 1/4 to all other races on the day, even if hours later, even if some are sprints and some routes). It\'s non-scientific dogma. Nonsense.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Bull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 
> I saw the Bluegrass was a P~ race in which Len
> gave big efforts to a number of the horses. I
> found it a tad strange too I admit, but I
> understood where he was coming from. I did not
> give a ton of weight to those figures, the same
> way I would have not given much credence to yours
> or anyone else\'s, The truth is when the pace is
> that slow, the final time is much less meaningful,
> and the resulting figures are too, no matter who\'s
> figures you use. You had the number different then
> Len\'s, obviously you think his was wrong. It is up
> to the customers how they want to handle those P~
> races and to who\'s they believe are correct. I
> personally don\'t lend P~numbers much credence in
> anybody\'s set of figures (yours, Lens, Beyer
> etc).
>
> Good luck to all
> -The Bull




I think its time to chime in here. It may be that pre Derby one might not want to give a ton of weight to TGraphs Bluegrass figs. Post Derby and Preakness is where we are now. At this juncture can you seriously state that the Bluegrass TFigs were too arbitrary to now consider accurate if not spot on?

TGraph scored those Bluegrass Figs as Pairs to very slight regressions. Thereafter the horses from that race that had run faster figures, prior to the bluegrass, were the horses that finished better in the Derby. Jerry or Alan posted the post race calculations on the board. Go check them out.

The fact that Ragozin had the Bluegrass a multiple horse top number producing race despite a contention that it was an off paced in absolutely incredulous and devoid of all logic. Its Surreal.

I\'ve had my disagreements with the occasional figure factored here, however, what you\'ll find here will never stray so far from logic and reality as to render the TGraph number a fiction. The other guys are a Faery Tale.