Miff-- without even seeing it, I can tell you it\'s not an input error. What it is is a perfect example of the differences in TG /Ragozin METHODOLOGY, independent of result.
As I have said here before, Ragozin is process oriented-- if you follow the process the figure is by definition correct, however it might come out. They use what amounts to an average track speed for the day, they assume it stays the same if there is no rain, snow, freeze or thaw (per Ragozin\'s book), and they have rules for how much you can adjust track speed race to race even if conditions change (i.e. no more than 2 points from the previous race).
On July 3rd at Belmont, there was moisture in the track (track good), and the track started getting slower after the third, presumably because it was drying-- but whatever the cause, it was clear from the horses (how fast they ran) that it was slowing, unless you simply assume it can\'t be changing.
After the seventh (grass) it rained, and they sealed the track. Now, those with REALLY long memories will remember that the first real website dustup between me and Len F came over the Fupeg Wood Memorial day, where exactly the same thing happened. Ragozin lumped the sealed wet races together with the dry track races, I said that was silly, there was no logical basis for it. The same thing happened here. I broke out the eigth, taking off a lot (about 8 points) from the surrounding races-- it was instantly clear you could not do the race at the same variant (see attachment).
So when you look at the sheets for this race-- and you will see I did not even give out good figures-- think about what it would look like if you added 8 points to each horse. Again, by their definition, Ragozin\'s figure is right-- they followed process to get there, which is to say they in effect used an average variant for the day. My guess is that will also result in horses from the second and third races coming up too fast, as well.
