Okay, on to Jim's last set of questions.

"Last question, relating to figures being "bunched" and this being the way that every figure maker does figures. Would you say it is an accurate statement that the Thoro-Graph figures show more pairups and bunched figures than Len Ragozin figures (this was the original point made by the guy I was talking to). George's reply explained why the figures are bunched, but it sounded like more of a general statement about all figures, rather than just TG figures.

I understand why this has to be the way figures are calculated, but to be honest, it almost seems like a string of figures can become a self fulfilling prophecy. It almost reminds me of college, where I always felt the most important papers I would write each class would be the first and second, because once I established with the Prof that I was an "A" student, expectations are set and all papers after that were read with that predisposition. Sorry for lousy analogy, but it does remind me of that.

It just seems that one or two mistakes, which we all make, can lead to a long string of mistakes, if you don't look at each race independently, instead of such strong reliance on previous races. The horse that immediately comes to my mind is Smarty Jones. Having watched and bet on horses for 20 years, I will believe the world is flat before I believe that Smarty was the fastest 3 year old ever (I think both TG and Ragozin came up with this)."


1-- YOU MEAN THE WORLD ISN'T FLAT???

2-- I don't see Ragozin's figures these days except occasionally on big days, so I don't have a first hand opinion as to who has more pair-ups. I have been hearing we do for years, and usually from the Ragozin camp as some kind of evidence we are doing something wrong. I suspect that graphics and page layout may have something to do with all this, but I hope (and would certainly think, given the way Ragozin does things) that we do have more pair-ups.

Again, all figure makers make figures by using previous figures of the horses run, one way or another, whether it is by a crude system of claiming pars, or the far more evolved projection method, which increases your number of "data points" (thank you Jason Litt) from the few horses who won the claimers to every horse who ran on the card, and all their previous numbers.

Now let's say you have a two race card (to make things simple), and the two winners both get the same winning figure. And let's say they both ran a 10 in their last race, which was the best for both in their lives. I (and everyone else) will start out by giving them 10's, and then look to see what figures that gives those behind them-- remember, those relationships within each race are fixed, by beaten lengths, ground loss, and weight. If when I do it that way the second horse in the first race pairs up as well, it would be extremely strong evidence I'm on the right track. And so on with looking at the rest of both fields.

In other words, we don't say these horses run 10's when they run well, so I think I'll give them 15's, or 5's. It may turn out that way depending on the OTHER horses, but for me to assign other figures THE OTHER HORSES WOULD HAVE TO YIELD MORE PAIR-UPS (in a perfect world),OR MORE FIGURES IN THE RANGE THEY USUALLY RUN. Either way, the way you know your data base is tight is then by the number of horses who pair up, or run in a tight range. Every serious figure maker knows this. You try out various scenarios-- for the individual races as well as for the day as a whole-- in an effort to make it happen as much as possible.

If you tie together independent events (races run over tracks with different speeds, as Ragozin does), you will have less numbers that pair up, because you are in effect using an average track speed, and things won't be as tight.

If, on the other hand, you DO have a lot of pair-ups, it is not just an indication that you have this day right, BUT THAT YOUR EARLIER FIGURES ARE RIGHT AS WELL.


3-- Yes, mistakes can compound themselves, especially if (as Ragozin says somewhere in his book-- I just took a fast look and couldn't find where) you sometimes tie a whole day to one or two "solid" horses. (Again tying together unrelated events-- seperate races-- as well).

But there are checks and balances built into the system if you do it right, because the relationships within each race are fixed. You use LOTS of horses, and THEY COME OUT OF DIFFERENT RACES, AND DIFFERENT DAYS. If they moved together from race to race as a block, yes, the problems could compound themselves indefinitely. But if you pair up a horse or horses to bad figures, you will be unable to pair up other horses to their other figures, unless you have happened to make exactly the same size mistake several times, in the same direction.

4-- Ultimately, there is no way to look at an individual race "independently", without looking at previous races-- what would you base the figure on? The question that differentiates Ragozin from us (and from other serious figure makers, including Beyer) is, how dependent do you make the figure on other races, run by other horses, over the track at other times?


All done. Comments? Questions?



TGJB