Stop the presses

[Michael D.]

Michael-- Miff\'s first post contained the \"notorious Ragozin wide figure\" quote. he said they didn\'t match up with other services, and since Mike has used our data for 20 years, I assume that means us.

Trakus is only in play at a couple of tracks. They approached us, if they get comprehensive I might do something with them, but a) I\'m not looking to fire a bunch of trackmen unless it makes a big difference financially to the company, and b) trackmen are also giving us wind, which we have to get anyway, and in some cases work done on the track.

Any trackmen reading this, it would behoove you to make yourselves really, really indispensible.





TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read his first post, Michael.

Nothing of consequence there Jerry.


> But of course, if the ground loss was the same (as
> opposed to what he had said, and as opposed to
> what is SOMETIMES true), yes, it would be a
> variant issue. UNTIL RECENTLY. Because if they are
> making adjustments within the race, anything
> goes.
>
> Why not ask them about this? You sometimes use
> their data, and it\'s a legitimate question.



They won\'t get into variant discussions. I respect what you post here, and will ask the relevant questions.

These are important issues. Let\'s make sure we get everything right.

And Jerry, with Trakus out there, how could one systematically blow path calculations?

Do you match your data up with Trakus?

[Deadrockstar]

My point about the Mother Goose figure was that it represented an inherent truth about your business, which is that sometimes you just don\'t know -- or can\'t be precise. Now if you\'re unsure about RA, what about ouchy horses at Laurel when your ground calls aren\'t always reliable?

[BitPlayer]

I haven\'t done anything systematic, but on the few occasions when I compared TG and Trakus data last year (at Keeneland and Del Mar), they didn\'t match up very well.  My recollection is that Trakus tended to show greater ground loss.

My theory at the time was that Trakus includes meandering on the straights (which TG does not) and fanning off the turns (I don\'t recall how TG handles this).  I also remember seeing some things that led me to question the accuracy of the Trakus numbers.

[TGJB]

Dead--- ummm, if you know something about our ground at Laurel that I don\'t know, let me know.

The Rachel race was a 3 horse race with huge gaps and no dirt races on either side to work with. Under ordinary circumstances, graded stakes are extremely easy to make figures for, the horses are very consistent. Pretty sure Rachel and Z have been runing in graded races, and that was who we were talking about.

[Deadrockstar]

Obviously JB I have no insights into Lrl live ground. I assume it\'s the DRF boys, but if I were you I\'d do it off satellite.

I merely have an opinion that there\'s a lot more inconsistency in making figures than you\'re willing to admit. There are a lot of other figure makers who are. Hopkins, for instance.

On Sunday, the Rags had the 9-1 winner of the opener off a 02xish pattern. You had him competitive but not great on numbers. In that race or more likely a later (6f) one you had a PN shipper with a 3; Rags had him maybe 10 points slower, and he lost badly. Was it a bounce or a bad number?

[miff]

\"On Sunday, the Rags had the 9-1 winner of the opener off a 02xish pattern. You had him competitive but not great on numbers. In that race or more likely a later (6f) one you had a PN shipper with a 3; Rags had him maybe 10 points slower, and he lost badly. Was it a bounce or a bad number?


Rock,

At one time or another, all data services are going to have \"that\" winner. You mention the 02xish winner on Rags Sunday. I\'ll bet that same pattern does not show an overall positive ROI on Rags. Any takers??.Nothing more than a random occurrence amongst thousands of figs/pattern possibilities.

What you are citing re the slower Rags fig vs TG on Sunday happens every day and sometimes the TG fig is the winner and sometimes the Rags fig is the winner.Looking at that PN horse X on Sunday and saying the previous TG fig was wrong is not a solid way to validate the figure.

Yesterday,TG had figs that were wildly different from Rags/Beyer in 3 races. In all three races the TG figs won out(2 kinda layover winners and a slow toss at even money) Today, who knows.

I will say that in tracking/comparing the top three fig makers for some time, it is now next to impossible to have a meaningful conversion formula. Recently,the fig makers are wider apart than ever before, with some figs ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY,UNEQUIVOCALLY,WRONG!  

Rags has taken the lead with the occasional \"off the wall\" fig lately.JB speaks of such figs being \"correct\" according to the RAG formula.How can a number off by 5-6 lenghts ever be deemed \"correct\"?

Good luck with whatever you use but this performance fig stuff is seriously complicated.


Mike

[TGJB]

Dead-- look, seriously, you are about 8 years and 500 posts behind this conversation, and I\'m not going to spend the time to catch you up. Yes, figure making is not an exact science-- the ones who claim it is are Friedman (\"objective resiliency\") and Ragozin (lots of yuks in his book on that score, I\'ve quoted some here). Start by checking out \"Changing Track Speeds\" and \"History Lesson\" in the Archives on this site.

Miff-- my point is that the idea that following a rigid process ipso facto makes a figure correct-- which the Ragozin office believes-- is silly. It\'s like saying a certain type of golf swing makes you a great golfer, no matter what you shoot.

The Funny Moon race you brought up here a couple of weeks ago is a good example, I\'ve shown many others over the years, back when I spent a lot of time trying to wake people up. One great example was actually brought up by David Patent (I think). By memory, it involved Bayakoa winning a GI by 12 lengths on an off track. Ragozin gave her something like an 18. If you don\'t split 1 and 2 turn races or have the track speed changing that might be how it comes out-- but is it right?

Another example involves the recent NTRA certification of various tracks as drug free-- if you follow certain procedures, you get certified. Among the ones certified so far are Monmouth and Delaware. Problem solved, they\'re certified, so there must be no drug use there.

[Deadrockstar]

Actually Jerry, I\'ve been listening to the conversation for longer than that but have rarely participated in it. Sorry for the digression after my first post. Hardly the first time it\'s happened on this board.