Your Ask The Experts ID
is separate from your
Order Online Account ID
 Race of the Week:  2024 Kentucky Oaks/Derby Days Final Figures Churchill Downs May 3 & May 4, 2024 
Order Online
Buy TG Data
Complete Menu of
TG Data products
Simulcast Books
Customize a Value
Package of Select
TG Data
Sheet Requests
Order The Last Figure for Any Horse
Free Products
Redboard Room
Download and Review previous days' data.
Race of the Week
With detailed comments
ThoroTrack
Email notification when your horse races
Information
Introduction
For newcomers.
Samples and Tutorials
For Horsemen
Consulting services and Graph Racing
Sales Sites
Where to buy TG around the country
Archives
Historical races and handicapping articles
Handicapping
Hall of Fame
Major handicapping contest winners
Home Page
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (691 Views)
Posted by: Michael D. (IP Logged)
Date: December 19, 2002 01:15PM

Silver,

you wrote: "there are a lot of people out there who are not as smart as you and can't keep themselves from discounting that first race figure."
I don't think there was anything the Ragozin group could do to help those handicappers. A four and a half furlong race has little to do with a mile and a sixteenth race, and I am sure the Rags people pointed this out when they analyzed the race. I have no idea how accurate the Ragozin # in question was, but blaming that # for the low odds on Chilluki in the BC race is nonsense. Your logic would lead one to believe that Congaree was a lock on Rags in the Met Mile, because he was the fastest horse in the race. In fact, Congaree's Rag # in the Wood had very little to do with his brilliant performance in the mile race, as the Rags people admitted. Two different races with very different conditions. As for your analogy regarding the calendar, you might want to ask TGJB if he thinks he gets every number exactly correct. It's not an easy job these guys are doing, and the room for error is bigger than you think.



Subject Written By Posted
Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (1139 Views) Mall 12/13/2002 12:53PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (756 Views) TGJB 12/13/2002 04:50PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (705 Views) Silver Charm 12/13/2002 07:19PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (829 Views) TGJB 12/13/2002 08:05PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (695 Views) Mall 12/13/2002 10:15PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (677 Views) nunzio 12/14/2002 10:48AM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (717 Views) Silver Charm 12/14/2002 01:51PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (677 Views) nunzio 12/14/2002 02:15PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (714 Views) mike holbert 12/14/2002 05:17PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (698 Views) David Patent 12/16/2002 06:37PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (721 Views) TGJB 12/16/2002 07:34PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (693 Views) David Patent 12/18/2002 04:56PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (14874 Views) Silver Charm 12/18/2002 05:47PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (673 Views) David Patent 12/18/2002 11:46PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (715 Views) gaaaaaining grooooound 12/19/2002 03:03AM
Calendar Crack (730 Views) TGJB 12/19/2002 03:38PM
????? (676 Views) gaaaaaining grooooound 12/20/2002 06:46AM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (691 Views) Michael D. 12/19/2002 01:15PM
Re: Measuring The Variant Objectively.? (727 Views) Silver Charm 12/19/2002 02:33PM


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.

Thoro-Graph 180 Varick Street New York, NY 10014 ---- Click here for the Ask The Experts Archives.