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 |
|
|
Last Words? (2280 Views)
Posted by: David Patent (IP Logged)
Date: May 28, 2002 10:51PM
Gee, don't you guys ever go out and enjoy the sun?
I'm back from enjoying the Memorial Day weekend. No, I have not expired, but do have a day job.
A couple reply comments to Jerry on his latest reply to my last messages.
First, an overall comment: To a large extent these debates are stupid because Jerry, you have made it clear that your methodology makes certain unverified assumptions about equine behavior. Those users of yours who want to take your assumptions on faith are welcome to do so. But to me and many others, you have it backwards.
I stand by the creation/evolution comparison. The TG view reminds me of the creationists who argued that God had put the fossils there to test our faith and make it appear to non-believers that the earth was more than 6,000 years old. How do you argue against that? Maybe I'm stupid but when I see fossils and see the carbon and radium dating results, I tend to believe my eyes.
Lastly, your constant harping on the 13th race at Pimlico is now just funny. An 8 point change in the variant between races? Okee dokey. BTW, in your book is there a consistent effect on track variant when it dries? When it gets wet? Does it sometimes get faster and slower as it dries on the same day? Ever wondered whether it might make sense to figure out whether you should test those assumptions?
On to a couple of specifics:
1) I do believe that Quixote clearly enjoys sprinting because I believe the Ragozin numbers. And I have seen open length wins when a horse 'x's. I remember Bayakoa winning in the slop at Santa Anita with a 19 once -- in a 'Graded' Stakes race. Of course that was with Ragozin numbers so they probably had it wrong.
2) The turf course. Jerry -- your math here is just wrong. Unless you believe it is possible for a horse to run a time of 0:00, the difference is not 2%. If a turf course has a variability of plus or minus 10 seconds for a mile, then the 4 point (it looked more like 5 or 6) adjustment you made works out to an 8-10% improvement in the speed of the course in 2-3 hours. Given that they have a pretty good way of measuring the firmness of a course (that meter that they use in Europe a lot), you'd think that you could do better than just the assertion that you made and use some real data.
3) The Schafer field -- I gave you a horse-by-horse breakdown of the race and you gave basically nothing in response except to repeat your previous post that 'graded' horses run better than other horses. I will take your non-response as a concession.
While I grant that in general, 'graded' horses run better, you need to look at the specific horses to determine what they are likely to do.
What is most entertaining is that you have changed your characterization of the race three times. Your initial post of May 23 asserted that it was not possible that "an entire field of older graded stake horses bounced 6 points". [direct quote]
Then, on May 24 you changed your argument to say that every horse "RAN AT LEAST 6 POINTS OFF THEIR TOP". [direct quote]
Then, your latest post on May 25 goes back to the assertion that they can't all "bounce AT LEAST 6 POINTS". [direct quote]
Please, make up your mind! My point was that, taking each horse one by one, almost every horse in the field figured to run at least 6 points if not more off of their top. That is not the same as claiming that each horse was going to bounce 6 points. And, incidentally, not every horse bounced 6 points on the Ragozin sheets.
4) Of course your figures will 'fit' better because of your underlying assumptions about how horses run. No one is claiming that your numbers look perfect for every horse in every race. But once you have decided that horses can't do this or that, then you will by definition have a tighter range of numbers and a resulting 'prettier' looking sheet for most horses. Which is exactly why I find your product less than helpful.
5) I admire your marketing aggressiveness. It's what you have to do to try to sell more product. Why do you think Pepsi is always dissing Coke but Coke never talks about Pepsi?
In many ways, Ragozin discourages having too many customers. Why? For one, they are not graduates of the 'The Customer Comes First' school of business. Second, if too many people use their product, its value is diluted.
Coda: This kind of dialogue is fun for people like me but in the end it is pretty pointless. I have tried both products and found one to be the one I prefer based on the results I got. It is also based on a methodology that I agree with and is put out by the guys who were doing this stuff first.
Last Words? (2280 Views) |
David Patent |
05/28/2002 10:51PM |
Didn't we already talk science? (1295 Views)
|
Treadhead |
05/29/2002 12:10AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1195 Views)
|
JimP |
05/29/2002 12:33AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1105 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/29/2002 12:43AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1140 Views)
|
Treadhead |
05/29/2002 01:11AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1086 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 03:27PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1194 Views)
|
Mall |
05/29/2002 02:12AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1195 Views)
|
tegger |
05/29/2002 03:39AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1151 Views)
|
Mark O'Keeffe |
05/29/2002 04:58AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1188 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/29/2002 08:23AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1208 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/29/2002 04:28PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1162 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/29/2002 05:02PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1061 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/29/2002 05:35PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1118 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 06:11PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1122 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/29/2002 07:18PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1159 Views)
|
JimP |
05/29/2002 07:37PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1087 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 08:16PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1081 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/30/2002 12:48AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1144 Views)
|
teekay |
06/03/2002 08:17PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1204 Views)
|
mandown |
05/29/2002 09:58PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1114 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/30/2002 12:25AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1064 Views)
|
mandown |
05/30/2002 02:46AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1196 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/30/2002 03:48AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1179 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/30/2002 09:29AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1176 Views)
|
Patrick Morgan |
05/29/2002 05:03PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1146 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/29/2002 05:15PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1128 Views)
|
Patrick Morgan |
05/29/2002 05:38PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1200 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/30/2002 10:25PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1205 Views)
|
Mall |
05/30/2002 10:48PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1092 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 12:02AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1176 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 03:37AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1253 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 07:25AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1092 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 07:30AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1141 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 12:42PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1196 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 12:45PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1116 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 12:50PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1258 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 01:16PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1105 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 04:41PM |
Re: jerry (1246 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 05:34PM |
Re: jerry (1115 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 05:56PM |
Re: jerry (1111 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/31/2002 06:02PM |
Re: jerry (1164 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 06:20PM |
Re: jerry (1182 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 06:32PM |
Re: jerry (1071 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 06:55PM |
Re: jerry (1154 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 07:35PM |
Re: jerry (1072 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 08:33PM |
Re: jerry (1046 Views)
|
Jason L. |
05/31/2002 09:44PM |
Re: jerry (1142 Views)
|
Michael D. |
05/31/2002 10:05PM |
Re: jerry (1198 Views)
|
Jason L. |
05/31/2002 10:34PM |
Re: jerry (1140 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 11:06PM |
Re: endless bitchy catfights (1155 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
06/01/2002 07:21AM |
Re: jerry (1164 Views)
|
Jason L. |
06/01/2002 08:32PM |
Re: jerry (1208 Views)
|
TGJB |
06/02/2002 04:13PM |
Re: jerry (1314 Views)
|
Jason L. |
06/03/2002 07:40PM |
Bill Clinton Medallion of Merit (1257 Views)
|
Anonymous User |
06/01/2002 03:15AM |
Re: jerry (1140 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 08:27PM |
David: Two More Things To Think About (1118 Views)
|
Mall |
05/31/2002 08:42PM |
Re: David: Two More Things To Think About (1035 Views)
|
BrettFavre |
05/31/2002 09:34PM |
Re: David: Two More Things To Think About (1128 Views)
|
tgab |
05/31/2002 10:20PM |
Re: David: Two More Things To Think About (1104 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 11:04PM |
Re: jerry (1191 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 06:12PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1140 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 04:07PM |
Re: alydar (1186 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 04:37PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1121 Views)
|
Patrick Morgan |
06/03/2002 11:53PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1142 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
06/04/2002 07:37AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1066 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 03:15PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1067 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 03:10PM |
track speed (1154 Views)
|
nunzio |
05/29/2002 11:37AM |
Re: Last Words? (946 Views)
|
HP |
05/29/2002 01:20PM |
Re: Last Words? (1152 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 05:50PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|