The right general approach

[TGJB]

http://www.drf.com/blogs/california-chrome-and-his-derby-beyer

If they (Beyer) were to add 3 to their figures, and Jake takes off 3 from theirs, everyone who uses those two services would be better off. Andy got it much closer than Jake (3 Rag points is 10 Beyer points).  Fortunately for our guys the others didn\'t get it.

Meanwhile, there\'s that Jerardi column of a few days ago. The one where he says a) Beyer had CC much faster than other figure services, b) he ran much slower in the Derby EVEN ON BEYER than Beyer had him running coming in, c) so Beyer was right, they (we) were wrong.

[touchgold]

fortunately how? I mean, even if rags gave cc a 4, I still wouldnt like him...and another 0 on tg makes him I would assume the same play against as he was in derby at what appears to be the 4/5 range. Its really a pointless argument being the reads are so subjective. Whether CC received a 4 or 7 on rags, I would bet any horse with a chance at a 5 or 6(if there are any).....same with tgs....any horse I think can run a 0-1 with odds is a bet....CC going back on rags or off a 4 as heavily raced as he is, is a bet against to me.....same goes with TGs.

[TGJB]

Fortunately because our guys have numbers that are accurate for the Derby and will be betting against those who do not in lots of big races for the rest of the year.

And accurate not because I say so, but for all the other reasons discussed here over the last few days. I wrote two extensive posts about figure making which touched on Jake\'s Derby figures. Which aren\'t just wrong, but so obviously wrong it\'s funny.

Since apparently you use their stuff you may have kept the Derby, and they have now posted the figures they assigned for the race on the Jake site. Ask yourself this-- on their stuff (forgetting for a moment about any PRIOR errors) they had 10 horses with a top of better than 7 going into the race. As you handicapped the race, what did you think it would take to win? What would you have made the chance a 7 1/4 would win?

See if you can get Jake to explain how they got to those Derby figures, ask them on their board. Someone already asked them one question, and they ignored it.

Since they probably won\'t answer, let me say something I\'ve said here before-- Ragozin and the rest of the world have a different definition for what a figure being right is. The rest of the world means one that is correct, that reflects what took place, that is accurate. Ragozin (and now Jake) mean that it\'s what came out as the result of a process they have used for many years, period. If the process produced a 30 for the Derby, to them that figure would be \"right\".

[touchgold]

Well, as I have stated before, I have used both, and still do for big days. And also, I am very fair I think in regards to my opinions of both. Hands down, commanding curve was all YOU, and for me, impossible to find on ragozin. As far as the derby itself and a 7 winning it, I am still in the I trust the figure makers and their numbers camp. I am not smart enough, nor interested enough to even attempt my own. On the surface, it does seem slow. And while I am still cashing using both, I find your approach has a lot more depth to it.

[touchgold]

I think what is more important regarding derby weekend, is how pletcher was a non factor and tossing his horses was very rewarding. Obviously oaks aside. Ramsey too for that matter. Amazing how good either set of numbers were when you level playing field. Horses ran like they were supposed to. Do you know if pimlico is doing something similar?

[TGJB]

Apparently Pimlico is not doing out of competition testing. But Pletcher got Sophie and Danza to pair up their tops at CD. And neither had to run well going in.

[touchgold]

well I was referring mainly to the undercards both days....and distant second and thirds I ll take my chances with. It got to a point, we just tossed pletcher from top spot both days. Of course that was after many cocktails in sports book.

[miff]

JB,

Just for the record a Rags 7.25 is equal to a Beyer of app 91(before any adj that may be necessary for ground/wind and scale weight, when applicable)

Also, it is noteworthy that:

1.Beyer originally came up with a figure of 91(matching RAGS)before adjusting upward 6 Beyer points to 97(wind/creative license, whatever)

2.If you use the clock and establish a two turn route variant for the day(assume that\'s what Rags did) the figures would be TG 3.75 Beyer 91 and Rags 7.25. That\'s strictly using the clock.

3.Another strong service had it ORIGINALLY at like Beyer 94, TG 3,Rags 6.50, and then made it faster by like 1.5-2 points.


Look at it anyway you want, the raw time of 2.03.66 is so out of whack on the day, on the day(wind/water et al noted) it gave me a headache.I reached out to the \"guru\" of track speed to see what he thought...will let you know.

Mike

[TGJB]

First of all, the only \"guru\" of track speed is a machine with a drop hammer (see Changing Track Speeds). Everyone else is using past figure histories, one way or another.

For the rest, EXACTLY. Jake used an average track speed based on horses that ran the whole day-- he did NOT go off the Derby horses (obviously). There\'s no chance they\'ll say that because by now even they know how ridiculous it is and how many holes there are in what they do, but it\'s their process and if they were to change it would mean they\'re conceding YEARS of figures made that way are wrong. They\'ll never do it, they won\'t answer questions about it, they can\'t. Psychologically they can\'t even think it.

After the 2004 Expo, when I first presented Changing Track Speeds, the Beyer guys started being more willing to break races out, do variant slides etc., with no weather changes. Andy was smart enough to do so here, though not quite enough, but close.

[miff]

\"First of all, the only \"guru\" of track speed is a machine with a drop hammer\"


...correct, thats what the nameless guy uses and other new technologies. He is on retainer by NYRA and several other venues to investigate the safety/speed of surfaces re breakdowns, etc

[TGJB]

Then pretty sure he\'s one of the guys I corresponded with for the presentation. He gave me a good quote, saying (roughly) the method we use is the best available to judge track speed.

[Thedudeabides]

Andy was on a local radio show this weekend in the Seattle area -- the reasons he changed the figure were as follows, first he said the 91 looked ridiculously low, then suggested the wind affected the final time adversely and even though it was an arbitrary change it was warranted and represents what the race was, it was a weak race.

He claimed the surfacing changing speed between the last dirt race and the derby was bogus.. he said the surface for the race before the derby and the two races after all the derby was exactly the same in terms of the inherent speed of the surface.

http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/media/podcast-win-place-show-ondemand-win_place_show/the-win-place-show-511-24752216/

[TGJB]

That last bit is basically true but not necessarily relevant. If the rate water is evaporating is X per hour, and they are adding X per race, moisture content will stay the same as long as the races are an hour apart. If in the middle of that you have 2 hours instead of one, and they only add X, the track will be drier for that one.

That\'s another thing I covered in the slide show. Watchmaker touches on it in his piece too, and one of the books in \"History Lesson\" in the Archives does as well-- the last one.

[Topcat]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That last bit is basically true but not
> necessarily relevant. If the rate water is
> evaporating is X per hour, and they are adding X
> per race, moisture content will stay the same as
> long as the races are an hour apart. If in the
> middle of that you have 2 hours instead of one,
> and they only add X, the track will be drier for
> that one.
>
> That\'s another thing I covered in the slide show.
> Watchmaker touches on it in his piece too, and one
> of the books in \"History Lesson\" in the Archives
> does as well-- the last one.


 Now you\'ve promped me to read these treatises, took my first look at History Lesson I.   Would figure you\'ve been thoroghly filled in on the topic since that piece was originated, but Turf and Sport Digest was Baltimore based (going back to the 30s, I believe), and was a long-term general-interest mag targeting horse players/fans (unlike the breeding-slanted mags).   They were anything but tout-crazy (unlike the majority of parallel publications), but would run one or two handicapping pieces a month.   Sold a few items to them \'way back when, when I was in high school, breaking in . . .

[TGJB]

The other \"History\" concerns the book you gave me, actually.

Re Turf and Field, I would love to get my hands on other stuff that Donaldson wrote. It\'s pretty clear that\'s where Ragozin went to school.