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 (1120 Views)
Posted by: TGJB (IP Logged)
Date: May 25, 2002 05:20PM
Jason L. wrote:
>
> 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.
TG--See my replies to David Patent, also my posts Changing Track Speeds (11/17/01), and Figure Making Methodology (5/2/00). You are welcome to post here any time with comments or questions.
TGJB
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1936 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/23/2002 11:48PM |
Challenge (1069 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 12:18PM |
Re: Challenge (1091 Views)
|
nunzio |
05/24/2002 01:33PM |
Re: Challenge (1021 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 01:39PM |
Re: Challenge (1021 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/24/2002 03:53PM |
Re: Challenge (1055 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 04:38PM |
Re: Challenge (1032 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/24/2002 06:06PM |
Re: Challenge (1017 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 06:33PM |
Re: Challenge (1129 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/24/2002 10:21PM |
Re: Challenge (1168 Views)
|
Anonymous User |
05/25/2002 01:02PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1202 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/24/2002 05:40PM |
Challenge (1024 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 06:17PM |
HP, another hypocrite (1027 Views)
|
Jerry Jr. |
05/24/2002 07:17PM |
Re: HP, another hypocrite (1010 Views)
|
HP |
05/24/2002 07:36PM |
Re: HP, another hypocrite (1031 Views)
|
Jerry Jr. |
05/24/2002 07:49PM |
Re: HP, another hypocrite (1042 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/24/2002 10:16PM |
Re: HP, another hypocrite (1098 Views)
|
Jerry Jr. |
05/26/2002 01:12PM |
Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1049 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/26/2002 03:36PM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1041 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/27/2002 07:22AM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1054 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/27/2002 03:48PM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1069 Views)
|
Jerry Jr. |
05/27/2002 05:57PM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1031 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/27/2002 07:40PM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1062 Views)
|
Jerry Jr. |
05/29/2002 11:32AM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1072 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/29/2002 09:36AM |
Re: Rosencrantz? Guildenstern? (1021 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 03:29PM |
Re: HP, another hypocrite (1060 Views)
|
HP |
05/27/2002 05:09PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1105 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/24/2002 09:04PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1109 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/25/2002 09:26AM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1069 Views)
|
HP |
05/25/2002 12:18PM |
More Ragozin Logic (1121 Views)
|
Treadhead |
05/25/2002 12:23PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1153 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/25/2002 05:17PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1084 Views)
|
Mall |
05/28/2002 12:27AM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1119 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/28/2002 03:29PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1086 Views)
|
Jason R. Litt |
05/24/2002 10:54PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (1120 Views) |
TGJB |
05/25/2002 05:20PM |
Re: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (995 Views)
|
Anonymous User |
05/25/2002 12:07PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|