Interesting that I gave a long and detailed reply to an issue regarding variant-making and it promptly got deleted. Seems like that has been going around a lot lately.

Responses expected. Let's see if you two (JB and Alydar) can get through a post -- like I did -- by dealing with the facts, answering the questions and without saying something insulting.

Here is the string:

Author: TGJB
Date: 06-05-02 12:08

Re: 3 – What’s interesting (and what this is all about in the end) is that they don’t use the same variant, which is why they can’t address any questions about variant making without it becoming clear they are hypocrites. On Preakness Day they took 1 3/4 points more off the third than the second (both routes) then had the track getting faster, for example. And they have the grass course getting significantly slower, which is nuts considering both the conditions and the practical ramifications (figures assigned). They have some rules concerning the relationship between independent events, which they apply, except when they don’t. All the “science” is intended to make it look like the figures come from a higher power.

TGJB


Reply To This Message


Re: Moving On
Author: Alydar in California
Date: 06-06-02 05:24

Ragozin wrote that "all the figures must use the same variant unless rain or a freeze or a thaw changes things." Thus, Ragozin could argue that the rain changed things on that day. What's strange is if they have their variants moving against the grain: the track getting slower when Patent's meteorologist thinks it should be getting faster, for example. This would invalidate their figures, according to Patent.

What I was ridiculing was Patent's idiotic claim, made to cover his retreat, that your numbers and Ragozin's numbers would be in sync 80-90 percent of the time even if, as Patent believes, Ragozin ordinarily does all the races at the same variant, and your variants "yo-yo" up and down.

Now I'm done with Patent, barring something unusual.


Reply To This Message


Re: Moving On
Author: David G. Patent
Date: 06-06-02 10:42

Alydar,

At Jerry's suggestion I took a look at the sheets for the Preakness horses -- over 100 horses with about 1,500 to 2,000 numbers. This is what I observed:

1) Brown's and Ragozin appear to have substantially different scales for certain circuits (confirming what JB said)

2) However, within those circuits, the variants are remarkably similar from race to race -- I would say 70-85% of the time the numbers 'agree' (+ or - a point or so) once you factor in the different variant -- the sheets look very similar, just 'shifted' over. Brown's horses run tighter patterns than Ragozin, but the average deviation (hi-lo) between numbers is not that much different.

Now, the key here is on the margins. My problem with the TG product is that I make my money (when I do make money) finding horses likely to run bad and playing against them. It's finding that one or two horses getting bet that look really bad. That only happens a couple times on a card I can't do that as well with TG's product because horses look a lot more likely to run good. Thus, my selection of product. Others may have a different method.


3) Jerry's claim -- and this is the important one -- is that the fact that his horses maintain a tight range proves that his numbers are right. Now let's just take that statement on its face. If that were true, then Jerry would have the ultimate proof that his product was superior and he should be able to demonstrate that superiority day-in day-out to the racing world. The big bettors, few if any of whom are just blind dancing partisans like myself, would use TG and not Ragozin. Is that reality? No. Not even close.

Brown's claim is false. The tight ranges do not prove that his numbers are right -- see below. Do you believe that statement of his? I don't think anybody but he and (perhaps) you buy that one.

I have said from day 1 that neither Ragozin nor TG can 'prove' anything. The method that each employs rests upon different sets of assumptions and the product that each of us bettors chooses likely reflects our comfort level with the maker's underlying assumptions. Agree? We've gone round and round on empirics vs. belief and I don't expect you'll ever come around on that one.

What I did see, from looking at those Preakness day horses, however, was that Jerry's claim that his numbers would collapse (at least I think that's his claim) if his variant was wrong on a day is wrong. As long as horses run within the same circuit there will not be a problem (for example, JB has a horse at CT running straight 5s. On Ragozin, she runs 10s-12s). As long as that horse stays at CT, she will continue, I think, to run tight numbers). Even if a horse moves to a ciruit where the scale is different (this is not a very common occurrence -- note that almost all the Del, Pim, Lrl, horses stay in that circuit) -- I'm now assuming that Ragozin is 'right' and Jerry is 'wrong' -- then the only anomaly will be the single race that the horse has run outside the circuit. That won't make the horse's sheet collapse at all. It will just be a blip on the radar (MDO's Preakness number is a good example -- it looks a lot more plausible on Ragozin's sheet than on TG's). If the horse stays on the new circuit, the numbers will just shift over. Agree? Only when horses bounce around to different circuits with different scales is there a risk that their TG sheet will collapse.

The question is, how many numbers in a row that were 'off' would it take for a horse's sheet to go to hell. Similarly, what % of a horse's number would have to be 'wrong' for the tight ranges to collapse? My point was that it would take at least 3 (and probably 5) 'bad' numbers in a row before the sheet started looking funny -- the percentages I associated with the 80% and 90% were correct (8 in 1000 and 1 in 1000; significantly less likely for 5 in a row). If not, tell me how that math was wrong.

The second question, what overall percent would need to be wrong? That's a question of judgment. I would wager that it is 25% to 35% (for a horse with at least 10 races or so) before the sheet just didn't make any sense. What are the odds of that happening? Depends on how many races the horse runs, but you won't find many horses given the odds as long as Rag. and TG agree the majority of the time. Do you agree or disagree with this? If not, tell me specifically what is wrong with the reasoning. Don't just say it's 'idiotic' or that I'm 'unreal'.

Maybe you take issue with the 70-85% assumption. So, what is the percent in your view? Once you take a stand, it's easy to estimate what percent of horses would have sheets that 'collapse' if Brown got the variant wrong.

Brown's latest post on the variant indicates that he usually has the day flat or on a slide, so there can't be too much difference between he and Ragozin on a race-by-race basis. When I said that Brown's variants go up and down like a yo-yo that's what I meant, but it does not mean that every day every race they go up and down. My point was the fact that they occassionally do go up and down raises a red flag and I'd want to know more about why someone reversed direction on their variant (e.g., the Preakness day). Is that unreasonable?