TGJB,

Appreciate your tone on this, sincerely.

"If the scenario you described were in effect-- if the ONE race in Feb had set him back--
it is much more likely he would have gone back in his last."


I see your point but I've seen plenty of 3-yr-olds run one scary fast race on Ragozin and take 2-3 races to fall apart, with the only super-fast number being that one... And I think Buddy went backwards on Saturday...

"This is a parallel universe situation-- your acceptance of the premise that Ragozin figures are correct and therefore their methodologies must be correct, and explanations for their behavior justified, make my position an impossibility."

I think "correct" is too strong a word. I think "figures that I'm most comfortable with that I have the most success with," makes more sense. I also the parallel universe goes both ways, of course.

"conflicts with basic logic (Chilukki, Keenland 4 1/2f races) that believing in what they do must produce."

I think many Ragozin players think this isn't "basic" logic, but logic applied to the most unusual of situations. I will certainly say that any figures culled from 4.5 furlong races should certainly have ~ next to them...

"And I try to get them to post the races so that you guys can see what I see."

When was the last time this worked?

"Let me just say this-- you are absolutely right that it would be wrong to place much reliance on Ragozin off-track figures, either as a bettor or in making future figures,"

If you want to argue your methodology is better for off-tracks or drying out tracks, you certainly know more than I on this stuff. Can I suggest you have yoru own dogma at work here, and it results in more horses running well on your numbers on these surfaces, as compared to Ragozin? But long before I became a Sheets player I started taking just about everything about off-track performances with a grain of salt... You seem much more comfortable trying to tackle the nuances of drying out tracks than anyone else out there, in applying yoru methodologies quite aggressively, and I'm not convinced that's such a good thing.

"The reason drying out and wet days are in the most dispute is because those are the days when the variant tends to change during the card,"

Right, and the question is whether it changes as much as you say, or not as much as you say.

"which is one of the things that is effectively not ALLOWED to happen under the rules the Ragozin office uses to make figures"

This is where a lot of Ragozin players disagree with you. Rather consistently in the last couple years, when pressed on this point, Friedman has noted that specific drying out surfaces are indeed changing speed. He doesn't think they change as much as you do, but he DOES think they change. I believe the Ragozin book does indeed note that this happens.

"FP's Wood figure detemined that years Derby figure, regardless of what Friedman says, and if you looked carefully at the Derby figures at the time you know that."

I strongly suspect there is a more comprehensive explanation for the Derby figures that year than FP's number in the Wood.

"But both what the other horses in that race ran and what BG did pairing up in his very next start (a figure Ragozin and I agreed on) are pieces of evidence that our figure is right."

Sorry, I don't find that evidence all that compelling.

"And leaving aside both your position and the far more negative one of several Ragozin players,"

I'll be happy to introduce you to a couple other Ragozin players who didn't read Buddy's line so poorly.

You make some interesting points, but when so many of the arguments are about drying out tracks and 4.5 furlong races, my skepticism remains high.