"The number is solid".

[TGJB]

I have to give someone on the Rag board credit, he did ask Jake how \"credible\" their Preakness figure is. Jake of course said \"the number is solid\". Which is good to know. And since that\'s true, Jake will have no problem explaining how they came up with it, if someone would be kind enough to ask them. Guys, asking for an explanation is not \"challenging\" the figure.

Here\'s the thing. The way they did it, every horse in the race came up 2 or more points better or (in all but one case) worse than both their previous figure AND their top, so they clearly didn\'t do the Preakness off the horses that ran in the Preakness. And, of course, it was pouring rain before (and during) the race.

Think of it this way. If that had been the first race of the day, and they had cancelled afterward, would that have been how you did figures for the race? With the figures the horses ran having no correlation with the figures they had run in the past, and if so on what basis? If the answer to that question is no (which it most obviously is), what did Jake base the Preakness figures on? It can only be other races on the card-- they tied it to independent events.

As I said, it\'s figure making malpractice. And I\'m pretty sure if Ragozin was still around he wouldn\'t have screwed it up.

On a lighter note, the BRIS computer generated figures gave Fame And Power a 108, AP 100.

[miff]

FWIW,Rags has ground for either AP or Verve different than you, assuming I received the correct Rag figs

[TGJB]

Rag Preakness numbers are up on their homepage. We had two different people do ground for the Preakness but we\'ll look at it. We did look at the discrepancies in the Derby, we were right.

[TGJB]

We\'re taking the BO off AP. It came from the chart call, not significant enough to keep there.

We reviewed it, you could haggle with the ground we used at the 1/4 point level or so, but that\'s about it.

[SoCalMan2]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We\'re taking the BO off AP. It came from the chart
> call, not significant enough to keep there.
>
> We reviewed it, you could haggle with the ground
> we used at the 1/4 point level or so, but that\'s
> about it.


Do you normally take the BOs from the chart call?  I would think that is something that comes from your live ground man.  I put a lot of weight in certain designations, and I had always assumed your own people did them.  I liked to believe I was getting something that the hoi polloi did not.  I completely understand that little league places you can\'t go check everything, so am only talking about the major venues where you already are doing live ground.  BTW, no offense meant by this.  I love your product and am a happy customer.

[T Severini]

SoCalMan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We\'re taking the BO off AP. It came from the
> chart
> > call, not significant enough to keep there.
> >
> > We reviewed it, you could haggle with the
> ground
> > we used at the 1/4 point level or so, but
> that\'s
> > about it.
>

A Tgraph call of bearing in or out is significant. Will have to review the stretch run again. I thought it was significant from their post Preakness figures and quoted it.

[SoCalMan2]

SoCalMan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We\'re taking the BO off AP. It came from the
> chart
> > call, not significant enough to keep there.
> >
> > We reviewed it, you could haggle with the
> ground
> > we used at the 1/4 point level or so, but
> that\'s
> > about it.
>
>
> Do you normally take the BOs from the chart call?
> I would think that is something that comes from
> your live ground man.  I put a lot of weight in
> certain designations, and I had always assumed
> your own people did them.  I liked to believe I
> was getting something that the hoi polloi did not.
>  I completely understand that little league places
> you can\'t go check everything, so am only talking
> about the major venues where you already are doing
> live ground.  BTW, no offense meant by this.  I
> love your product and am a happy customer.

And by the way, I am grateful you went back and looked and were not afraid to alter it.  This is something that comes up in the Taleb books that have been cited here previously.  One of the reasons he looks favorably on the choices of George Soros compared to others was that he found Soros was never afraid to re-examine and change previous judgments if he thought the facts justified it.  Most other traders are from the \"foolish consistency\" school.

[TGJB]

Some of them come from our guys and some from the charts.

[NormandyInvasion]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to give someone on the Rag board credit, he
> did ask Jake how \"credible\" their Preakness figure
> is. Jake of course said \"the number is solid\".
> Which is good to know. And since that\'s true, Jake
> will have no problem explaining how they came up
> with it, if someone would be kind enough to ask
> them. Guys, asking for an explanation is not
> \"challenging\" the figure.
>
> Here\'s the thing. The way they did it, every horse
> in the race came up 2 or more points better or (in
> all but one case) worse than both their previous
> figure AND their top, so they clearly didn\'t do
> the Preakness off the horses that ran in the
> Preakness. And, of course, it was pouring rain
> before (and during) the race.
>
> Think of it this way. If that had been the first
> race of the day, and they had cancelled afterward,
> would that have been how you did figures for the
> race? With the figures the horses ran having no
> correlation with the figures they had run in the
> past, and if so on what basis? If the answer to
> that question is no (which it most obviously is),
> what did Jake base the Preakness figures on? It
> can only be other races on the card-- they tied it
> to independent events.
>
> As I said, it\'s figure making malpractice. And I\'m
> pretty sure if Ragozin was still around he
> wouldn\'t have screwed it up.
>
> On a lighter note, the BRIS computer generated
> figures gave Fame And Power a 108, AP 100.


Beyer likewise saw the Preakness as a worse effort than the Derby, though as you note, there\'s no other race to base anything on.

I think the bottom line is that no one\'s number can be \"solid\" but instead it\'s a race to trust your own guts and eyes about the winner and others who ran in the Preakness.

[TGJB]

As I pointed out earlier, the variant for the following race happened to come out the same, which was an added bonus in terms of confirmation. I\'m not going to claim the figure is as solid as most, but I do think it\'s the most solid that can be made, and I think it\'s the scenario most likely to be right. Jake\'s figure (and claims) are pure nonsense, their figures for the Preakness are based on a mumbo jumbo of false assumptions. In this case, silly ones.

[big18741]

Charts for the Peter Pan have Madefromlucky drifting slightly (same description as AP)but if you watch the head on the drifting for the Pletcher winner was pretty obvious.

So I think they were wrong in both cases.

Madefromlucky clearly deserves a BO and he might be running in the Belmont.

[touchgold]

yeah, jakes figures for the dixie were nonsense too, right? 317.00 ex. No redboarding here as I sent texts to a few buddies of what I liked going into that race. Feel free to private me for those texts. As I have stated before, many times, its possible to make money with both products. Its all about how you read them. In fact, in the 10th that day, I had tgs for that race, the 9 looked fast and least likey to bounce on both products.My read. (also in texts to buddies pre race). But the real question is why do you care what jakes figures are? If they are that awful, even better for you. This constant bashing of what they do is kind of weak. The surety provided by you of how wrong they are is kind of laughable as evidenced by the dixie. Yes its one race, but I guess admitting, like I have, that you can hit races with both products is bad for business. But really, let it go.

[miff]

Touch,

That\'s a total cherry pick.Rags figs out of line with top fig makers way too often, sometimes by a pole.Take a look over the long term and compare Rags with TG/Beyer/TFUS, way too often they are the odd man out.

Loyalist to their fig maker are quick to point out isolated races. Sometimes the dumber the farmer, the bigger the potato. Ironicus was slower than many in the Dixie on all services except RAGs and judging the value of their product in an isolated race hardly tells the whole story.

Mike

[touchgold]

Im not disputing its a cherry pick. Im just saying, ive hit races, and nice ones with both....and I m not a huge, serious player.  I dont compare multiple figure maker sources. My point, is why constantly bash them? If tgs are that much better, then the masses will follow. But really, a lot of this is interpretation. Right? My buddies didnt like the 3 as much as I did in the dixie....2nd at 25-1. But with his number/pattern/anticipated trip, he was my key horse.

[touchgold]

let me add, i used the 3 with 1 2 4. the outside horses on sheets were maybe a point faster, but with ground loss vs odds, I didnt use them.