Belmont 9/15

[TGJB]

I just did Sunday\'s Belmont figures, and if Ragozin did it the way they usually do (using \"objective criteria\", which really means making an assumption that the track changes speed either not at all or very little, and therefore using what amounts to an average) there will be some of the most extreme differences you will ever see.

You may download the Adobe Acrobat file by clicking on the attachment.

[Friendly]

I wonder what % of your \"New Topic\" posts are devoted to Ragozin and The Sheets?  Do you realize your vendetta only matters to you?

I pity you Poppa Jer, how miserable you must be.


Jerry, JR.

[TGJB]

Yeah, that\'s it exactly. Meanwhile, feel free to jump right into the discussion of figure making theory. Start by answering these two questions: What are the \"objective criteria\" that Friedman referred to? And, how does Ragozin measure \"physical resilience(y)\"? There are those who think you\'re as dumb as a stick, but I have absolute confidence you are fully versed on the subject (or you wouldn\'t have commented), and will engage me in lively, meaningful debate.

[HP]

This discussion ends here! HP

[TGJB]

I hope not. Think any Raggies will ask Friedman to post the day?

[HP]

No.

On an unrelated point, I think Nolan Ryan (lousy and mediocre teams) is a useful example in the earlier discussion on the use of ERA as a definitive measure on a pitcher\'s effectiveness. Compare his stats to Steve Carlton\'s (several very good teams - extra credit for 27 wins for lousy Phillies team). Good stuff.

I will leave horse racing and figure making to the experts. HP

[dpatent]

Jerry,

I will post a request on the Rag. board for the complete card.

I actually would like to compare the numbers side by side for every race every horse has run that appears on the sheets for a particular day.  With what should be 1,000+ data points I think we could get a good idea of just how \'different\' the two products are in terms of:

1) Average variability of performance (i.e. standard deviation)
2) Average performance

I have no idea what the outcome will be but think it would be interesting, no?

[TGJB]

Yes, but please define for me exactly what you are going to measure.
If all you are doing is working out that our numbers run 3 points faster on average that wouldn\'t be nearly as interesting as looking at how we handled the day itself (and why), or correlating what we both gave them with future results. Also, you would get some distortion- as I said this Spring, Ragozin (or whoever does them) gets some
of the circuits different relative to ours, and their are fewer 2 turn races in NY.

[Friendly]

Poppa Jer,

I would have to be \"dumb as a stick\" to engage in a debate with someone that can\'t go one post without resorting to name calling.

Good luck with your circle jerk.


Jerry, JR.

[cheapclaimer]

Either the 2yo filly Storm Flag Flying freaked to a 1.5 or is the only one that ran close to their original number a 7.5 (or worse) in which case everyone else on the dirt should have been running X\'s all over the place prior to the Futurity, where the rain that started before the 8th sped up the track.

Hmmmm, you\'re guessing that Ragozin will have everyone running \'X\'s\', you\'re probably right. But, I have to admit, it\'s almost impossible to believe that the 2yo filly ran a 1.5

[dpatent1]

Jerry,

What I am trying to measure mainly is not just the different scale but the difference in standard deviation -- the relative \'smoothness\' of the lines.  We hear so much talk about it and if we had a couple thousand data points then we could see about how much smoother TG lines are than Ragozin.

Actually, the Preakness day card was a great card to use b/c it had a ton of entries, lots of shippers, horses from NY and the Delaware Valley circuit which Ragozin has slower than you.  Unfortunately, I don\'t think that the Preakness card is still available on the Ragozin web site and I don\'t think I saved it to my hard drive.

I am aware of the other items you find interesting and they are, but everybody knows that you sometimes split the variant and Ragozin doesn\'t (with rare exceptions), so I\'m not sure we would learn a whole lot there that we don\'t already know.

[dpatent1]

Ragozin still has Pim 05/18/02 on their site and I downloaded it.  Can you make the card available on this site or tell me where I can find it?

Thanks.

[mholbert]

i have to agree with jerry on this.  what do you think you are measuring?  what if one has a smaller stdev than the other?  does the underlying element that the numbers measure have a large or small variance?

[TGJB]

The Pimlico, Preakness card for 5/18/2 with figures included is available as an attachment. Click on the attachment above.

[dpatent1]

Thanks, Jerry.  This will take some time but I think it will be interesting.