SoCal-- I'm taking a few days off (in NoCal), so I won't be checking the board that often, but I saw this and have a little time, so...

There are two different issues here: how I "know" a figure is correct, and how you (the customer) do. I know from all the ways that I use to make the figures themselves, which I have discussed here many times at length, and I have access to a lot of information you do not when doing so-- all the other figures that must be assigned if I give the one in question (they are connected as you say, one can't be changed without changing the others), the lifetime figure histories of the other horses in the race, the other races, the history of what the track does, run-ups, track maintenance etc.

You do not have any of that information, except on those rare occasions I post whole races after they have been run with figures (Gold cup etc.). So how do you know? You can't know about an individual figure before the fact, but you have some ways of making global determinations as to whose figures to trust:

1-- You keep an eye on what horses out of that race (or that part of the country) do going forward. The two recent Mid-Atlantic shippers are just two to come from there to NYRA-- I seem to remember a lot running at Saratoga. And I seem to recall a horse called Super Frolic that someone bought from there and raced elsewhere based on those figures. One caveat here is to remember that some horses won't fire shipping or first time over a track, but if a significant number of horses from a location are running to their figures-- not consistently running big new tops, not consistently running no better than 3 points off their tops-- the figures are right or close.

In looking at individual races (or days), it is important to keep in mind that horses other than the winner come out of them. Example-- the Gold Cup, where you could argue either way what Borrego would do going forward, but it was simply ridiculous to think that all the other horses would run MANY points worse than they usually did on the same day (as Ragozin had it), but then jump WAY forward again next time out.

2-- You can use common sense. That was what was behind all the examples of silly Ragozin figures I gave pre BC, and we had some more examples coming out of it (like Borrego getting a better number for running tenth than winning the Gold Cup laughing). This also applies to checking on the reasoning used to make the figures (I've quoted Ragozin's own words on assuming the track does not change speed, for example, and showed scientific evidence for why it is absolutely wrong). Also to someone's willingness to explain their reasoning, and post figures for whole races to expose them to critical analysis (when someone consistently doesn't want to answer questions, there's a reason for it, both here and in politics, and that's a non-partisan comment. I voted for the guy the first time).

On the other hand, I have several times pointed out IN ADVANCE times where you would be able to track major errors those guys had made with a group of horses-- 01 BC at belmont, 7/27/05 last 2 dirt races at Sar, Gold Cup this year, etc. And by the way, I will give free data for a month to anyone that can get Friedman to post those 7/27 Saratoga races on their site and keep them there for a week.

There is obviously a lot more to say on this subject, but that'll do for now. Short answer-- you need to figure out who figures to be right, because in an individual case you won't have a way to know before the fact.

And I don't mind these conversations at all.