Re: sport stat--TG III

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thorograph -- Ask The Experts ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by chuck on December 21, 2000 at 09:50:01:

In Reply to: Re: sport stat--TG III posted by Alydar in California on December 21, 2000 at 03:52:00:

: : : : : : : : Hey Jerry,

: : : : : : : : Are you going to do another direct comparison with
: : : : : : : : SPORT STAT where all the speed figure outfits go head to head ?

: : : : : : : : chuck

: : : : : : : TG--Us, Ragozin and several others sent data daily for 6 months to Jim Bayle (Sportstat) so that he could run the studies. A couple of months ago he sent us all a letter saying that he decided not to run the studies because he was too busy betting. I'm not kidding. There were some extremely pissed off people. I'm guessing that Ragozin was not among them, but maybe I'm wrong. TGJB

: : : : : :
: : : : : : So you gave this guy free stuff for 6 months and then he decided to bag it ? only in america....

: : : : : JERRY, exactly how are any comparisons done with the different figure providers? Do the people doing the studies use the horse with the best last race number or best number of last three races or some type of average or what? If it is compared in this manner or something similar, do you agree with that process or do you have a different opinion as to how it should be done. The studies may or may not treat everyone fairly,I don't know, I have not seen any results before. I am just curious and would be interested in any comments and very interested in any previous results of any prior studies and how they were done. See ya, jdub.

: : : : TG II--See Alydar? We've livened things up wothout Plever.

: : : : 1. I read Friedman's post on their site, Theoriginal study took place about 7 years ago, covering a few tracks, over a short period. Regozin came out better than we did. Jim Bayle (Sportstat) said it was not a statistically significant sampling, which is why he wanted to do it again. The survey was to include Ragozin, Thoro-Graph, both and couple of others, on 10 circuits, for 6 months. When Ragozin accepted Bayle's invitation, he told Bayle that everyone in his office (which presumably includes the pompous Francophile) told him not to do it, but he (Ragozin) wanted to do it anyway. Ergo my comment.

: : : : 2. There were suppose to be a lot of different studies--win % and ROI based on best last number, best of last 10, best of last 3, etc. The one I suggested was taking the last 3, throwing out the worst one, and averaging the last 2. I would have loved to have seen that one.

: : : : 3. Putting together a study like this involves getting a credible outfit with computers, and getting everyone to send data daily for 6 months, and breaking it down. If you know a way to get this done let me know. Since Friedman was as pissed off as the rest of us, he obviously will be glad to participate. And while we are on the subject, I will extend my challenge (again) to engage him in a handicapping contest, under conditions far to both of us (limited number of races daily/weekly, long period of time). I'm not holding my breath. TGJB

: : : How would Plever respond to this? Here's a guess: 1: You are destroying Bayle's credibility by pointing out his deceitfulness AND you are relying on his credibility when he tells you that Ragozin's office was opposed to accepting the invitation. You can't have it both ways. Should we take Bayle at his word, or shouldn't we? 2: If Bayle knew his old survey was going to be statistically insignificant, why did he waste his time doing it? It is unprofessional to release the results of such surveys. Why did you give this unprofessional man another chance to be unprofessional? 3: A month or two ago, You advised a fence-sitter to compare the records of Thoro-Graph and Rags in the area of consulting. You claimed that this was a good way to measure the accuracy of the figures. Who is kidding whom? Which sample is bigger, The 1993 Sport-Stat sample, or the sample composed entirely of horses you and Ragozin/Friedman advised owners to buy? Doesn't the consulting sample say as much about handicapping skill--and other skills-- as it does about the accuracy of the numbers? Isn't it so small that it says more about luck than anything else? 4: You didn't get nosed out in the old Sport-Stat survey. You were destroyed so utterly that it can't be attributed to margin-of- error. What have you done since to improve your figures? 5: If you haven't changed things, aren't you in denial? If my memory is reliable, Ayn Rand said that "facts can't be altered by a wish, but facts can destroy the wisher". 6: Challenging Friedman to a contest is a smart move. You win if you win, and you win if he ignores you. I faintly remember something called the "Pepsi Challenge". It wasn't the "Coke challenge". As Mario Cuomo said in 1982, when he was running against Koch: "The only place where people fire shots behind them is in cheap western movies".

: : TGIII--Well, there goes my free time for the next week.
: : 1. Rather than get into nitpicking, you are free to take Bayle's (and my) word for it, or not.

: : 2. He didn't know when he undertook the study, he decided it after, or so he says. We didn't know he was unprofessional (a much more accurate characterization than deceitful or lacking credibility) until he didn't follow through.

: : 3. The consulting sample covers a couple od decades, and lots of races for each horse. yes, it involves handicapping--which is useless if the underlying data is bad. It's not just the horses you buy, it's the ones you don't buy, and races you do or don't run in.

: : 4. We weren't destroyed, we lost, and again, the sampling was small. By the way, even on the 6 month study done mechanically, a win for us (or Ragozin) would merely constitute evidence, not proof. In the earlier study, Ragozin lost to other services. Were they better than him?

: : 5. See above, but nice job with the quote. The way to find out if I'm in denial would be the study, or a handicapping contest.

: : 6. But if he beats me, I lose. We have about a third of the market, and we're growing much, much faster than he is, so there is something to gain for them, and to lose for me. Again, nice job with the quote. TGJB

: I reckon I could concoct another list and have a go at all your points, but I would hate myself in the morning. The truth is that I think these surveys are nonsense on stilts. The only decent test for these figures is how well good handicappers do when they use them. I understand why you wanted to roll the dice again, but if I were Ragozin, I would have quit after the first roll. I hope you get a one-on-one with Friedman. I posted your challenge on their board (under the name "John Reed"). Of course, some jackass had to "chuck" in his trite two cents and make it look like an orchestrated taunt, which it was not. Regardless, I have learned a lot from you and Friedman, and I hope one of you MAKES this happen. If nothing else, the inevitable negotiations might make you two remember why you were once best friends.

excuse me my friend, i don't think i was out of line. i love the
sport, i own a few horses, i hold my own quite well
at the windows, and i think you might be over the line here
accusing me of piling on.

i have tried three services; thorograph, ragozin,
and woodside. i have had success with all three
and in my estimation, jumping between them
although educational, it can sometimes clutter
the objective. i would absolutely love for an
in depth survey of the nature talked about here.

and yes, the handicapper using the figures
need be observant and skilled, but if the
raw performance data is better with one service
over the other the handicpapper can only improve
his game.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thorograph -- Ask The Experts ] [ FAQ ]