Order Online |
Complete Menu of
TG Data products |
Customize a Value
Package of Select
TG Data |
Order The Last Figure for Any Horse |
Free Products |
Download and Review previous days' data. |
With detailed comments |
Email notification when your horse races |
Information |
For newcomers.
Samples and Tutorials |
Consulting services and Graph Racing |
Where to buy TG around the country |
Historical
races and handicapping articles |
Handicapping |
Major handicapping contest winners |
|
|
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1090 Views)
Posted by: Jason R. Litt (IP Logged)
Date: May 24, 2002 10:54PM
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Ragozin user. However, I can assure you that I have never spoken to anyone in the Ragozin and am not making this post in an attempt to secretly tout their product. I do have a few things to say about this exchange.
When you take as a compliment the fact that your winners "look better" you are entirely missing the point. All of your horses look "better" because your lines are smoother. That is only a benefit to the unsophisticated sheet user.
In my mind, the sheets are extremely valuable for two things (1) identifying horses to throw out as too slow or bounce candidates and (2) identifying horses with explosive patterns that are likely to move forward. When you have smoother looking lines, it may make the horses look better, but it makes both of these taks much more difficult to accomplish.
The fact is when I look at your sheets, several of the horses in every race look more or less the same and each horse tends to have a smooth looking pattern. Nobody is arguing that you go back and tweak individual horses numbers to make them look better. However, when your overriding philosophy is that groups of horses in a single race do not deviate from the norm -- a proposition that does not comport to my own experience -- then by definition your numbers are going to have far less deviation.
In my view -- and I do not purport to be a variant expert -- there are just too few data points in a single race to make the conclusion that the track must be the reason all horses ran slower or faster than you would expect compared to different race on the same card. While I am willing to accept the premise that sometimes the track changes significantly during the day, I suspect that is far less often than you articulate (mostly it seems to me, in an attempt to distinguish yourself from Ragozin).
I do not see any valid scientific manner in which to change the variant for a races on the same day based on what you would have expected to occur. In fact, the process of doing so makes the entire statistical analysis suspect. On a particular race, you may be right and you may be wrong, but this process moves too far into the realm of guesswork for my taste. Though all variant making includes statistical analysis with a little guesswork, the idea is to minimize the guesswork, not maximize it. If that means some of the numbers turn out to be "wrong" -- I have certainly seen some suspicious looking numbers in the past -- so be it. But at least with Ragozin, I have some comfort that the numbers are based on a consistent scientific foundation and not one person's opinion.
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1941 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/23/2002 11:48PM |
Challenge (1073 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 12:18PM |
Re: Challenge (1094 Views)
|
nunzio |
05/24/2002 01:33PM |
Re: Challenge (1025 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 01:39PM |
Re: Challenge (1025 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/24/2002 03:53PM |
Re: Challenge (1059 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 04:38PM |
Re: Challenge (1038 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/24/2002 06:06PM |
Re: Challenge (1022 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 06:33PM |
Re: Challenge (1134 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/24/2002 10:21PM |
Re: Challenge (1172 Views)
|
Anonymous User |
05/25/2002 01:02PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1206 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/24/2002 05:40PM |
Challenge (1027 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 06:17PM |
HP, another hypocrite (1030 Views)
|
Jerry Jr. |
05/24/2002 07:17PM |
Re: HP, another hypocrite (1015 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 07:36PM |
Re: HP, another hypocrite (1035 Views)
|
Jerry Jr. |
05/24/2002 07:49PM |
Re: HP, another hypocrite (1047 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/24/2002 10:16PM |
Re: HP, another hypocrite (1101 Views)
|
Jerry Jr. |
05/26/2002 01:12PM |
Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1056 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/26/2002 03:36PM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1044 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/27/2002 07:22AM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1057 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/27/2002 03:48PM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1075 Views)
|
Jerry Jr. |
05/27/2002 05:57PM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1037 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/27/2002 07:40PM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1071 Views)
|
Jerry Jr. |
05/29/2002 11:32AM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1075 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/29/2002 09:36AM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1026 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 03:29PM |
Re: HP, another hypocrite (1063 Views)
|
HP |
05/27/2002 05:09PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1110 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/24/2002 09:04PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1113 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/25/2002 09:26AM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1074 Views)
|
HP |
05/25/2002 12:18PM |
More Ragozin Logic (1124 Views)
|
Treadhead |
05/25/2002 12:23PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1158 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/25/2002 05:17PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1087 Views)
|
Mall |
05/28/2002 12:27AM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1123 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/28/2002 03:29PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1090 Views) |
Jason R. Litt |
05/24/2002 10:54PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1125 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/25/2002 05:20PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (999 Views)
|
Anonymous User |
05/25/2002 12:07PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|