Alydar,

1- The reason I want to talk about the Chilukki race ("Smoking Gun" post)is because when it comes to figure making philosophies, hard cases make good examples. That race is the perfect illustration of how the Ragozin reliance on assumptions and averages is wrong. With all the wind and dust that has been stirred up, it is important to note that there still is ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION for how they came up with the variant for that race.

Don't have the run-down for the Came Home day on my desk (it's in storage, we don't store the data in that form in the computer, are about to start), but if I gave a figure (as opposed to a box), there was more data to go on within the race, and/or more surrounding data that could be used without it being ridiculous to do so, than on the Chilukki day. Which is not to say I necessarily got the Came Home figure right-- as I believe I said at the time, it is always possible to blow a figure, since there is an element of judgement involved. Which in turn does not mean it's okay to make wild leaps based on assumptions or broad averages.
Incidentally, my recollection is that Ragozin made that Came Home figure even slower than I did, but I could be wrong.

2- The question of the distance of the Chilukki race was a complete non-issue-- no-one raised it but Friedman. What you say about the reason he brought it up might have some merit if he had also explained how the variant was determined, but he did not-- HE HAS YET TO EXPLAIN HOW THE FIGURE WAS CREATED, DESPITE SPENDING AN ENTIRE POST PRETENDING TO DO SO. That's why it rates caps. If he linked the races "in some manner", as you say, let him explain why, and how. Ahem-- why not ask him?

3- If Awsome Humor had lost next time, would it have been an indication the figure was wrong? Did she pair up her figure on Ragozin second out? If 2 year olds that are given a slow number first time out jump forward to win second out, is that an indication the first number was wrong? Again, I am offering no opinion on whether either race was fast or not, just that there was not enough information to create an ACCURATE figure. You don't need figures to know that an open lengths maiden special win on a major circuit is a pretty good race. If Chilukki's first out number was 3 to 6 points slower first time out (or even faster, for that matter) would her second out win (and number on Ragozin) look "wrong"?

4- These days, if you throw out the turf races, you are left with about 50 horses. Whether or not the horses come back in the same race (which happens a lot with early season maidens because there aren't that nmany races), each horse becomes an information bit you use to make later figures. I said "to some degree" because Ragozin does make variants differently than I do, but I would add that I don't use early season 2 year old races to make variants. I also made clear that the "self fulfilling" aspect was a minor consideration in attacking his argument-- the major reason one can't draw conclusions based on 2 year olds "getting back" to their numbers is because the horses are changing so quickly. I will be having another field day with this and related subjects later this week, when we exhaust this one.

"To think Friedman would then allow the shaky figures for this race to poison later races is to think Friedman is an idiot". Len has said he is going to be posting the 00 Wood horses. Hold that thought.

5- Speed charts lay out both the points per time interval for a particular distance, and comparitive par times on a "standard" (or average) day at the track in question. For the first purpose we use them all the time, for the second we use them as a starting point. If you set the pars in stone you can get in real trouble-- aside from the obvious errors Ragozin makes with sprint/routes, the 7f at Laurel and 1 1/8 at Keenland are two examples.

Depending on how you look at it, we either never update speed charts, or do so every day.

On your imaginary day, "suggests" is a key word. But if the evidence seemed pretty solid, I would definitely go 3/4.5/3. A point and a half is nothing, considering timing mechanisms, wind gusts, and track maintenance issues. 3/6/3 is the decision I get paid to make...

...that, and understanding what the correct overriding philosophy should be.

Your last part misses the point. There was no recalcitrance on Friedman's part about Chilukki-- he SET OUT to explain how they came up with the number. He only stopped when my post made it clear he was in way over his head.

I was in the Ragozin office for 9 years, working there and as a client, and I had arguments with Ragozin about this stuff then. Paul worked there for 12 years after I left, so I know about the things they have done since then. (One of which is totally crazy and the real reason they did the Chilukki race the way they did. What I've been doing is trying to get Friedman to come out and say it, but he has figured out that he's dead if he does. It's an arbitrary correction). I understand how the Ragozin operation makes figures, and judging by Friedman's post, better than he does.



TGJB