Re: Just For The Hell Of It (583 Views)
Posted by:
Chuckles_the_Clown2 (IP Logged)
Date: December 09, 2004 10:41PM
Kev wrote:
> "but what if those who are using Rag's and winning you think they care if they blew the ground loss?? I've used both products in the past and done well and not done so well with both."
Well, consider that a minute. I knew a mentally disadvantaged couple that loved to bet the races on weekends at Calder. They loved it. They had a technique and it was flawless. I never saw them have a bad day when I was there with them. If I tell their technique here, I should contract for some kind of compensation for them, but I'm not sure where they are any longer so I'll just let it out. This is their secret....
They bet greys. Thats right. Grey pays. I'm not kidding. They utilized that scientific formula and won consistently. I never copied them because even if it is statistically true, I'm not betting like that, but I couldn't argue with their success.
My point being, theres different ways to have success, but does that success hold up in the long run? Suppose Rags got the ground loss wrong and handicappers which use their product still won on races problem figure horses were reentered in. Can anyone explain that anomoly away? Theres about a million ways to explain it isn't there? As a matter of fact, if someone is making bad figures theres a certain "built in" insulation for error in figure making isn't there? Form, Track, Trouble, Path, Injury, Bounce, Jockey Decisions, Juice...I could go on and on. But there is a constant. Its simple really and its this...
"You can't even begin to analyze past efforts if you can't ascertain what is readily ascertainable in them" and that of course is path and distance.
TGJB talked about pattern reads. Assuming Rags puts more stock in determining a figure irrespective of past efforts, how can you do a pattern read when efforts within it are points off? You may be able to, but is starting with error the way to beat this game?
CtC
Jerry Wrote:
-- Yes, most of the differences in figures have to do with differing methodologies, although I don't think it's simply a matter of opinion. I have gone to great effort to point those out and explain them, but they still go over the head of most of those who have not made figures. So I try to find examples where anyone with eyes and a minimal IQ can see that those guys have screwed up-- which would not be that big an issue except that a) they won't admit it and fix the errors, because b) they make claims for super accuracy, and pattern reads based on it, claims that would be blown to bits if people actually understood what we're really talking about here.
2-- Which means, yes, they have made business decisions, of the most cynical kind. The vast majority of their customers still buys hard copy and never hears about this stuff (not true of us-- 2/3rds of our business is now on-line), and it would cause the Ragozin office more of a problem with them to admit a mistake and change a figure than to look bad here. Aside from which, they cynically (and unfortunately correctly) calculate that their on-line customers won't call them on it on their board-- there has not been a whisper about any of this over there in the last couple of days. The most extreme example of this cynicism came when they blew the ground for Touch Of The Blues in the Mile a couple of years back, I pointed out that he was wide (not inside), and Friedman came back and posted that he had checked the tape himself and the horse was inside. Much later, when everything had quieted down, they made the correction.
And obviously, a similar situation exists with this year's Derby, and the bad BC figures. In one case they flatly denied without explanation, in the other they will just wait for it to blow over without commenting.
TGJB