Okay, we’re going to close out the first round of this “debate” today. This is a re-post of Alydar’s original 3 questions and my responses for those who have not seen them, and it will be followed in another post by his rebuttal (I gave him one even though I said I wouldn’t), his answers to my questions, and my response.
As many of you know, Alydar has been barred from this site for life-- anyone wanting to know why should read my post ("Re: Silence"), below. In several of his thousands of posts on the Ragozin board he challenged me to a debate and likened it to Lincoln/Douglas, and I informed him that Ragozin and I would be Lincoln/Douglas, Friedman and I would at least serve the purpose of Lincoln/Douglas, but that he and I would be Lincoln/A Guy, so he doesn't get to "debate" me. But I offered him the chance to e-mail me questions which I would post and answer under certain guidlines, and he has sent me the first three, so here they are, unedited.

1-- "Who is Mandown? What did you think of his comment on David Patent's lack of 'objectivity'?"

This is an Alydar special-- an arcane point that only Alydar, in the whole world, cares about. I'm not going to out Mandown, but he has an affiliation with this company (does some work for us), which Alydar only knows because I told him so in an e-mail, and Alydar thinks this info is the missing gap on the Watergate tape.

Mandown's point was not that David Patent worked for Ragozin (as far as we know he does not) or even that he had a bias, but that he ACTED on his bias. There are those that don't-- I have even heard that there are some Republican and Democratic members of Congress that occasionally vote their consciences, although I find that hard to believe. You can have a partisan interest and try to act in an impartial fashion-- I have done so on those occasions when I have congratulated Friedman on this site, like for his win in that handicapping contest.

Mandown was correct about Patent, and you don't have to take my word for it-- you might be able to dig up David's original comments, found on the Rag board right after the Preakness, but you can DEFINITELY find my response destroying it on this site ("Okay, David", 5/20). The evidence that I destroyed it, and that it was full of crap, is this-- what you won't find is even a WHISPER of a response to my post from Patent on either board, even though he must have seen it, since he posted in the days immediately following. Regardless, David, you are not barred, so feel free to respond to it at any time.

So in the real world, Mandown was right, David was playing games with the truth because of his bias, and I proved it.

2-- "Why did you say in your seminar that you came up with the weight correction on your own? It's not true, as you knew at the time. Any chance Ragozin's people hear stories of this type?"

So I had two guys listen to the audio intro tape, and I watched the video version myself (quite an experience-- it was made 10 years ago, and I hadn't seen it in 8. I had more hair then, and in general it held up pretty well. The audio one, found on this site, has Chip Vinai's voice-- he wrote the script, I edited it). Neither one says we invented the weight correction, or were the first to come up with it, or even that we came up with it on our own.

When I first started to make figures, as I have said here several times, I used a lot of what Ragozin did as a starting point (not the wind formula, we came up with that on our own). As I worked with the data and looked at an awful lot of races I checked out the premises, to see if they worked-- you do this by trial and error. I ended up changing some things, like the ground loss formula, and the way I handled lots of variant making situations.

There are two problems in coming up with an accurate weight correction:
a- horses don't all weigh the same, and their weights are not made public. 10 pounds will not have the same effect on a 900 pound 2yo filly as it will on a 1200 pound older male.
b- the way the game itself is constructed would make it close to impossible to come up with an accurate large population study even if you had the weights of the horses. Horses add weight with success, not just in handicaps but in allowances and claimers-- being in good form (recent success) carries a penalty. If someone does have an idea of a study we could do, I would love to hear about it.

So what we do is to try to come up with something close, that works for the average size horse, so that the distortion won't be too great on either end. You do this by trial and error, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT RAGOZIN DID AS WELL.

What we said in the intro seminar was: "To answer the question of how much (weight matters), we have studied tens of thousands of races to measure how much effect weight has". That is correct. We started by using what Ragozin used, looked at an awful lot of track days, and unlike some other things, found the correction was about right, and that there was no way to come up with anything better.

As an aside, I love Friedman's defense of the weight correction as being absolutely accurate. He always points to the Fall Highweight, a race run once a year, with a field consisting of only mature male horses, as proof. And he says the proof is that the figures in that one race come up tight, despite every Ragozin guy pointing out that there are few pairups on their sheets. One race, with maybe 10 horses and maybe 2 pairups, is proof of a correction used thousands of times a year.

3- "Rising Graph: You are not an owner. OK. What are you called? Do you feel at all strange solicting money from people, choosing their horses, managing their horses, telling the rider how to ride (save ground at all costs) their horses, and then betting against their horses?"

This is a reference to a post I made recently on the Rag board about a Graph racing horse. I boxed 3 horses, including that one, and they ran 1-2-3. Alydar originally tried to make it look like I was violating the rules by betting the race in such a way that I would cash even if the filly I managed didn't win (she ran second), then found out I am not an owner so the rule does not apply, and he is trying this. He is trying to make it look like I did something dishonest, remeniscent of Friedman's slimy insinuation that I was advising Graph racing to sell a filly while telling another client to buy her (in reality, the buyer was not my client).

a- In dealing with stables I am generally referred to as a stable manager, but there is no official designation, and I am not licensed, so I am breaking no rule.
b- I don't always tell riders to save ground at all costs. If there is a dead rail I tell them to avoid it, in two turn races with a closer I sometimes tell them to save ground on the first turn and not be too wide on the second, and with some riders (Pat Day) I usually don't say anything.
c- I ALWAYS manage horses, which includes the rides, in such a way as to benefit my clients the most-- I have now been doing this for more than half my life, and while some have accused me of screwing up, no one has ever suggested that I have not done that. Until now, by a guy who has no direct dealings with any horses I have ever managed, and is just throwing crap against a wall to see what sticks.
d- When I BET a race, I make a judgement of what every horse's chances are, including my own, and bet accordingly. Often that means betting on my horses, sometimes against them, but it NEVER means that I am managing AGAINST my horses to cash a bet. I am doing nothing ethically wrong, and everyone who has ever dealt with me knows it.

Okay, Alydar-- since I have answered your first 3 questions, I would like you to answer 3 of mine, on the Ragozin board, since you said in your e-mail to me "I will reply on the SHEETS board."

1- Do you have INDEPENDENT information about Ragozin employees lying about me or my company, or doing other things to us that you consider nasty or unethical? By this I mean information not gained on the two boards, about activities taking place in the real world, at racetracks. If so, I don't need you to reveal your source-- but what were the activities?

2- You are a very serious race watcher. Did you watch the last Breeder's Cup Mile, and did you see where Touch Of The Blues was on the second turn? Did Ragozin's trackman get it right? After I brought this up, did you believe Friedman's response on the Ragozin site was accurate and truthful? If they did get the ground wrong, and since they didn't change either the ground or the figure, does that tell you anything about the ethics of the Ragozin operation, the accuracy of their figures, or the degree to which they care about accuracy vs. PR?

3- This one only requires a one word answer-- Since you are definitely not known to have a bias in my favor, I would like to know whose figures you think are more accurate, Thoro-Graph or Ragozin?

A GUY once posted on this site 3 rules about getting involved in a civil war. He should have paid attention to the last one. There is a similar rule about getting involved in debates-- make sure the position you will be defending is defensible.

I look forward to your responses to my questions on the Ragozin board, and your e-mail to me with the next 3 questions. I will give you answers here, along with my own next set of questions. Forgive me, but I think there is a tiny little chance you might not answer my questions ("You DIDN'T answer my questions...I'm NOT going to answer your questions on the Ragozin site...I DIDN'T agree to that..."), but of course, your not answering, or evading (which I have not) will be an answer.



TGJB