David Patent wrote:
>
> 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?

TG---You know bwtter than to think I deleted you on purpose. Much of what you say was dealt with by Alydar (and he's right, your premised are ____ed), and lots of this was dealt with by me in earlier posts that you didn't pay attention to, ignored, evaded, etc. I'll touch on a few points.

Your 1. Hallelujah. See Magic Weisner and Quidnaskra for practical demonstrations, as I said before.

2. The overall sheet may look similar, but I seriously doubt your 70-85% figure. The route/sprint variability is too high, and when ragozin uses an average he has to have at least one of them wrong, or both wrong if he fudges. Examples abound (Quixotes Hope).

3. You actually might not be as smart as I thought.

3a. Who the big bettors use can be a function of many things--hype, lies, peer pressure, and a lack of understanding of the essentials--as in your case. YOU CAN'T ARTIFICIALLY MAKE THE NUMBERS COME OUT TIGHT EVEN WITHIN A CIRCUIT, and with a few exceptions, race meets feature horses coming from all over.

3b. It's not a question of a sheet looking wrong. You simply can't have the Peter Pan come out the way it did, or the day to day races, unless the pieces fit, and you can't have the pieces fit unless either you mess with the data (earlier figures, relationships within the race), or it's right.

3c. Friedman liked MDO in the Preakness, I didn't. You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that his running bad works against me. I also don't claim that horses run the same number forever, or all horses always run in a tight range--see not only MDO, but WE's first big number.

3d. Alydar did a pretty good job with his example, but his earlier statement is dead on--you can't have made projection figures or you wouldn't be saying any of this. Do it for a week and you'll see. Or, just do what you evaded before--show me how I artificially made the Peter Pan numbers come out that way. Specifically, not generally.

I'm going to post a question on a separate string you might want to think about.



TGJB