Chicago Barn to Wire BRIS
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


October 23, 2014, 03:48:00 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Graded Stakes Committee to use Thoro-Graph numbers  (Read 3739 times)
Marcus Hersh
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1103




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2009, 04:31:30 PM »

Using the numbers really is only one tool. And it doesn't solve the main problem with the current grading system, namely, that the races are graded BEFORE a group of horses run in them. Grade the races AFTER we know who has run in them, and then you can plug in all the methodologies and come up with a meaningful grade.

I guess the chief argument against grading in retrospect would be that horsepeople want to choose the most important races in advance. But 'best' race easily correlates to 'race with highest purse' if you don't put a grade on the race before it's run.
Report to moderator   Logged
General Powell
Guest

« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2009, 05:17:10 PM »

Using the Million is a bad example, especially if looked at over a five year period. A better local example is the Secretariat, which needs a financial enhancement in a bad way, with the hope of attracting some additional stakes winning horses.  If the TG figures and more objectivity is used, many of the graded races that NYRA puts on should quickly be downgraded or ungraded .
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2009, 05:20:44 PM »

Let's see...first, it's:

I put in quite a bit of time and effort some years back, and found they were good enough speed numbers, but that the cult-like "sheets reading" was little more than nonsense.

Then, later in the same post, it's:

... when you see sheets authorities falling on their face with their sheets reads, it tells you something you don't need to work very hard at all to learn.

So, which is the truth?

A person can make the same sort of "pattern" assumptions off any reasonable set of pp's and spend a lot less money in doing so. It's all about "value", you know.

Not if the data is inconsistent or downright erroneous, as I discovered with the Beyers -- and as an aside, I'd like to thank Marcus Hersh for his comments about the Great Lakes Downs numbers -- that takes incredible guts for someone to post what Mr. Hersh posted about his employer's flagship speed numbers. My experience with Steven Crist and others at DRF is that they are not at all receptive to questions and allegations about faulty Beyer numbers.

Of course it's all about "value", but in many cases, you get what you pay for. Having used Beyer numbers, and then later TG numbers, over a fair number of years, I submit that I am qualified to make such advanced value judgments; you're so hard to pin down that we don't know if you spent time and energy learing to use Sheets, or was it Rags, or maybe it was neither and you watched a friend try it, and do you use Beyers now, or BRIS numbers? For all we know, you might still be using your old "number 4 horse" system -- quite the "value" in that method, mainly in that it leaves more money for beer without much impacting your ROI.

Irrelevant to the facts under discussion, as always, as are yours.

Sorry -- you opened that door by attacking TG & the Rags and their users and customers, so an inquiry into your credentials is completely appropriate. It's not like you've ever come out here and demonstrated even the slightest modicum of handicapping ability, using whatever handicapping methodology / products you use, so for you to come out here are continue to rip on TG users et. al. is the ultimate definition of "blowhard"...a title which will be immediately rescinded if you could cough up just a tiny little bit more credentials other than, "I once had enough money to own shares of cheap racehorses in partnership", and "I post alot to the Internet about horse racing".
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2009, 05:52:24 PM »

Using the Million is a bad example, especially if looked at over a five year period.

I dunno, Joe.

It would seem that Gio Ponti would need to continue to do well to "validate" the Million's ongoing Gr. I status -- the editions with Spirit One and Jambalaya winning vs. "not much" had Grade II written all over them.

That's not a good most recent three-year trend, and I don't think we will see horses of the stature of The Tin Man and Powerscourt again in Chicago for "only" a $1 million purse.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2009, 06:07:07 PM »

Let's see...first, it's:

Then, later in the same post, it's:

So, which is the truth?

Both, as you asked two different questions/made two separate assertions.

I did work on it quite a bit for myself, and I did see recognized experts fall flat on their face a lot, watching which took little to no work. 

No need to dishonestly try and confuse two issues into one.

Quote
Not if the data is inconsistent or downright erroneous, as I discovered with the Beyers -- and as an aside, I'd like to thank Marcus Hersh for his comments about the Great Lakes Downs numbers -- that takes incredible guts for someone to post what Mr. Hersh posted about his employer's flagship speed numbers. My experience with Steven Crist and others at DRF is that they are not at all receptive to questions and allegations about faulty Beyer numbers.

Speaking of which, haunting the two sheets forums from time to time can be quite entertaining, particularly when someone alleges one of the other guy's numbers is wrong ... well, actually that happens quite a bit. 

Quote
Of course it's all about "value", but in many cases, you get what you pay for. Having used Beyer numbers, and then later TG numbers, over a fair number of years, I submit that I am qualified to make such advanced value judgments

You are qualified to say you believe in them and they work for you.

Quote
You're so hard to pin down that we don't know if you spent time and energy learing to use Sheets, or was it Rags, or maybe it was neither and you watched a friend try it, and do you use Beyers now, or BRIS numbers?

You wouldn't have that problem if you didn't intentionally try to confuse issues, as you did above.

Quote
For all we know, you might still be using your old "number 4 horse" system -- quite the "value" in that method, mainly in that it leaves more money for beer without much impacting your ROI.

For all we know, you never did really win any contest at all, as we've never been told exactly what contest that was, and when. I mean, hell, at least when Sway Back claimed to have won a contest, he told us which one that was, so we could check up on his claim.

Quote
Sorry -- you opened that door by attacking TG & the Rags and their users and customers, so an inquiry into your credentials is completely appropriate.

Well, of course, it's always appropriate for you, because it's your standard M.O. to start attacking the messenger to confuse the issue and divert attention. Each and every time. However, each and every time, it is also irrelevant. The numbers either stand on their own merit, or they don't.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2009, 07:32:23 PM »

Both, as you asked two different questions/made two separate assertions.

No, that's wrong -- it was all part of the same question. I wrote:

That's a fairly breezy assessment. Tell us whether YOU have actually put in the time and effort to use TG or the Rags -- this "observes in others" stuff is a much too convenient way out for (as mentioned before) someone who doesn't want to do the work.

That's one question (or assertion, if you must), that your broke into two pieces.  

I did work on it quite a bit for myself, and I did see recognized experts fall flat on their face a lot, watching which took little to no work.

And yet -- we still can't pin you down.

Was it the Rags -- the Len Ragozin / Len Friedman product, or was it the Sheets -- the Thoro-Graph / Jerry Brown product? And when / how long ago did you make this attempt?

You wouldn't have that problem if you didn't intentionally try to confuse issues, as you did above.

I'm trying to sort things out, to see what YOUR prior experiences are, but if I can't get a straight answer from you, yeah, things might get confused. Don't know where the "intentionally" comes from, unless you are attempting some sort of smokescreen. I'm going to try to ensure that you run out of places to hide on this issue, though.

For all we know, you never did really win any contest at all, as we've never been told exactly what contest that was, and when. I mean, hell, at least when Sway Back claimed to have won a contest, he told us which one that was, so we could check up on his claim.

I prefer to remain anonymous, so think whatever you please about whether I really did win a contest or not. I paid a few bills after I won, then proceeded to piss away most of the money, but in a brief flash of betting genius I bought a shitload of an extremely undervalued stock that is now at almost 11 times what I paid for it -- thank you, market panic over a black president! So I lucked out a bit.  

What is irrefutable is that I have participated in, and won, contests RIGHT HERE on this forum, using Thoro-Graph numbers. (Two posters who were bitter opponents in the political posting wars -- ChiTownSteve and Mel -- were man enough to participate, and then tip their cap to me when I bested them.) You were invited, several times, but you didn't participate -- apparently, your arms, hands, and fingers shrunk back into some sort of upper-body inguinal canals you must have, and you couldn't reach the keyboard. Every time, every contest, no ClockerTerry.

Let's see you spin that.

Well, of course, it's always appropriate for you, because it's your standard M.O. to start attacking the messenger to confuse the issue and divert attention. Each and every time. However, each and every time, it is also irrelevant.

Ah yes -- having run out of semi-valid defenses, out come the even weaker complaint about ad hominem attacks.  Roll Eyes  I surely didn't see that one coming.
 
In this case, YES, the messenger gets attacked, because:

a) you aren't carrying a message for anyone else -- it's YOUR message, and,

b) when asked for some sort of qualifications or credibility or basis for your message, it turns out that it's simply your *opinion*, with hardly any discernable facts or palpable experience presented so that we might trust your opinion.

So, you give us little more that hot air, then complain miserably that you are being attacked when we point out that you just gave us more hot air. WTF is that all about? Are you some kind of "Internet Forum Victim", or something?

The numbers either stand on their own merit, or they don't.

True enough, I suppose.

But YOU, someone who may or may not have any experience with Thoro-Graph (I predict we still won't know long after this thread is old and forgotten), someone who can't and / or won't demonstrate his handicapping ability here, someone who has precious little other credentials other than former partial horse ownership and a shit-ton of Internet posts -- YOU are the self-proclaimed arbiter of whether the TG numbers are in fact standing on their own merit??

Far, far from it. Light-years away. Times infinity. Then add 7, for ground loss, and the radiant value of all of your hot air.  
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2009, 08:12:17 PM »

No, that's wrong -- it was all part of the same question. I wrote:

That's one question (or assertion, if you must), that your broke into two pieces.  

You're right, I did, because you falsely linked two unrelated assertions together - one about willingness to do the work, and the other claiming an observation of others proved such an unwillingness. B does NOT follow A.

Quote
And yet -- we still can't pin you down.

Was it the Rags -- the Len Ragozin / Len Friedman product, or was it the Sheets -- the Thoro-Graph / Jerry Brown product? And when / how long ago did you make this attempt?

It was both, mostly Rags, and it was probably at least 10 years ago.

Quote
I'm trying to sort things out, to see what YOUR prior experiences are

I told you what they were. They are good speed numbers, as far as speed numbers go, but the rest of what goes with them, the casting of the chicken bones, is cultist mumbo jumbo, IMHO. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not, even in the most experienced hands. A good knowledge of, and strategy for, betting is far more important to long term success than speed numbers.     

Quote
I prefer to remain anonymous, so think whatever you please about whether I really did win a contest or not.

And meanwhile, my success in the few contests I've ever bothered to play, back when Scott was running them at Hawthorne, is a matter of record on this forum.

Quote
What is irrefutable is that I have participated in, and won, contests RIGHT HERE on this forum

Hey, great. Good for you. How on earth that pertains to the graded stakes committee and their use of TG numbers is beyond me, though. I can't help noticing that you have pointedly ignored the items I specifically pointed out as being subjective and flawed. I think this happened the last time, too, when we were discussing the problem of speed numbers on poly, and how Beyer was manning up and adjusting his, and your "out" on that one was "Sheets players know they have to make a mental adjustment", if I remember that exchange correctly. Are numbers like that something we really want taken very seriously when grading stakes races?
Report to moderator   Logged
DoctorLock
Full Member
***
Posts: 222


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2009, 09:02:36 PM »

I'm not a Sheet user; neither bragging nor questioning their usefullness, just wanted to make that clear before offering my opinion on their participation in this issue.

This reeks of incompetence. That simple. It's akin to allowing the BCS to select college bowl games, or allowing a Heisman Trophy vote to go to writers who might have seen the nominees once that year...maybe.

Watch all the important preps, and then watch them again, and again, and again, if you have to. Analyze the competition, using your own guidelines, not those created by an independent agency, used strictly as a handicapping tool by industry players and gamblers. Even the Win-And-Your-In baloney takes the responsibility off Breeders' Cup official. Find a gaggle of competent people to make tough decisions and roll with it.

While they will make mistakes of omission (probably often), much like the NCAA in March, the list of players will still be a compelling watch (event!) and almost all of the time, the best runners will certainly be included.

Obviously, racing is high objective, but maybe leave enough subjectivity to make it less mechanical. I think the Sheets, Byers, etc. should not be part of the graded equation.
Report to moderator   Logged

DoctorLock
Full Member
***
Posts: 222


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2009, 10:43:55 PM »

I realize i was mixing and matching a graded stakes argument and a Breeders' Cup one, but it's still a matter of qualifying events based on visual evidence, as well as numbers to make decisions. My argument is those numbers should should not include someone elses formula. Let the Graded committee create their own numbers, if they need that kind of numerical data to decide what grades out.
Report to moderator   Logged

Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2009, 11:28:09 PM »

It was both, mostly Rags, and it was probably at least 10 years ago.

And meanwhile, my success in the few contests I've ever bothered to play, back when Scott was running them at Hawthorne, is a matter of record on this forum.

Really? I've been around since way before the old forum was destroyed by "Kubrat, the Turkish Hacker", and I've NEVER heard of this, so stating that your success in contests "is a matter of record on this forum" probably isn't true (i.e., not well known here on BTW) -- unless you want to dig out some posts and show me what I've missed.

I believe you, though. I'll extend you that courtesy, even though you challenge and cast doubt on most everything I say I've done and accomplished.

(Lemme think...most recently, cash buy-in contests...couple of years before that, the Mitch D. contests on the 3rd floor...back a couple more years to the Joe Scurto contests..."hot dog and coke" contests a for a few years...)

Hey, when were those Scott M. contests, where you had your success -- about 10 years ago?

Hey, great. Good for you. How on earth that pertains to the graded stakes committee and their use of TG numbers is beyond me, though.

You are deliberately ham-handing the point I was trying to make, which was, you don't use TG numbers (now), and you demonstrate less handicapping knowledge than me and just about anybody else here, yet you'll have us believe that somehow it's YOU that is qualified to pass judgment on things TG related, such as the Graded Stakes Committee using their information for decision making purposes. That's preposterous. I don't care how many different ways you try to shade the issue, spin it, recast it in your own words -- you have no business commenting on this. That won't stop you from doing so; it will just be with zero credibility behind it. 

I can't help noticing that you have pointedly ignored the items I specifically pointed out as being subjective and flawed.

Sorry, all I can find in this thread is you repeating over and again that the Sheets are highly subjective and flawed...not anything specific. Are you thinking of another thread...or am I just too tired to see exactly what you are talking about?

I think this happened the last time, too, when we were discussing the problem of speed numbers on poly, and how Beyer was manning up and adjusting his, and your "out" on that one was "Sheets players know they have to make a mental adjustment", if I remember that exchange correctly.

I don't remember it exactly that way. At least, I don't remember needing an "out" for TG simply because Beyer f'd up HIS synthetic figs. (Double entendre intended.)

Beyer "manned up", you say? His numbers were wrong! That's not "manning up" -- that's simply correcting an error (or errors) in your flawed methodology (probably the stupid "projections"). That's what you are *supposed* to do, if you make figures -- fix your mistakes. You don't get any "extra credit" for this. If your lucky, you get to stay in business.

TG toyed with the idea of changing their scales, and in the end, they couldn't justify it. (You didn't get notified personally about this? Hey -- just how important are you in this industry, anyway?)

What TG concluded was: races tend to be run slower on synthetic surfaces, and we have to let the numbers fall where they may. It took awhile to reach that decision, but it was the right one.

(Crude example: if a synthetic track comes up "3 seconds slow" (if you'll excuse the shorthand) EVERY DAY, over time, as compared to a dirt track, then the variant for the synthetic track isn't "minus 15", so that it syncs up nicely with the dirt track -- it's a ZERO variant for the syn. track, and you simply DO NOT EQUATE it to any dirt track. Period. Synthetic racing can be very peculiar at times, and the last thing a horseplayer needs when betting on this stuff is contrived numbers.)

So if I did write anything about any sort of "mental adjustment" us TG users had to make, it had to along the lines of "take slow figs on poly with a grain of salt because races are run slower -- horse may jump up when returning to dirt". We have even better ways to quantify this now, and it's still a learning curve, for sure, but that's where the power of pattern analysis comes into play, as many horses have now been through a fair number of "dirt meeting to poly meeting and back to dirt meeting" cycles, or from one kind of syn to another, etc.

That was the initial battle ALL of the fig makers had to overcome: what is this synthetic stuff, and how does it play? It wasn't easy for anyone to figure out quickly, but man oh man, did anybody whose methodology dealt less in math and more in class projections get exposed!
Report to moderator   Logged
mottoman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2882




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2009, 08:06:43 AM »

Horsevoice - I'm not familiar with the sheets at all, but what do they cost and do you buy them monthly or what? 
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #36 on: October 27, 2009, 10:13:26 AM »

Really? I've been around since way before the old forum was destroyed by "Kubrat, the Turkish Hacker", and I've NEVER heard of this, so stating that your success in contests "is a matter of record on this forum" probably isn't true (i.e., not well known here on BTW) -- unless you want to dig out some posts and show me what I've missed.

No, I don't care to jump through any hoops on your command, but the posts are there.

Quote
I believe you, though. I'll extend you that courtesy, even though you challenge and cast doubt on most everything I say I've done and accomplished.

I challenged ONE thing you say you've accomplished. That cannot be "everything".

Quote
(Lemme think...most recently, cash buy-in contests...couple of years before that, the Mitch D. contests on the 3rd floor...back a couple more years to the Joe Scurto contests..."hot dog and coke" contests a for a few years...)

Hey, when were those Scott M. contests, where you had your success -- about 10 years ago?

No, not 10, but awhile. The last contests I participated in was that initial long series Joe Scurto ran - also with some success. After that, I quit playing because playing contests distracted from actual wagering. 

Quote
You are deliberately ham-handing the point I was trying to make, which was, you don't use TG numbers (now), and you demonstrate less handicapping knowledge than me and just about anybody else here, yet you'll have us believe that somehow it's YOU that is qualified to pass judgment on things TG related, such as the Graded Stakes Committee using their information for decision making purposes.

No, no, no. I didn't pass judgment on the Committee using the numbers. In fact, as long as that was the thread, I had nothing to say on the matter. What I passed judgment on, eventually, was your preposterous post :

"It could make the system better, but it's going to take guts to tell "Swanky Track X" that their Big Big Grade I race, "The Snobbiblob", is being downgraded due to recent substandard participation and resulting poor performance figures of same.

It would be pretty cut and dried if the TG guys themselves were making the call ("nobody in here can less than a 2?...sorry, not a Grade I race"), but put those same numbers in the hands of people who influenced by things other than hard numbers, and all bets are off."

You, who have never owned even the ass end of a horse, preferring instead to get what actual knowledge he has of actual flesh and blood horses by the lazy man's method of watching others, and who have never graded a stakes and have no personal knowledge what's involved in the process, presume to know that grading stakes based on a set of flawed and subjective performance numbers, of any variety, is somehow going to make the process better.

Quote
That's preposterous. I don't care how many different ways you try to shade the issue, spin it, recast it in your own words -- you have no business commenting on this. That won't stop you from doing so; it will just be with zero credibility behind it.

That must make your credibility on how to grade stakes, and what criteria to use, somewhere in the minus realm.   

Quote
Sorry, all I can find in this thread is you repeating over and again that the Sheets are highly subjective and flawed...not anything specific.

I mentioned the wind and ground loss adjustments and how the two premium figs services both do them different. That's not science, it's subjective. I also brought up the problem with synthetic numbers. Synthetics have exposed a flaw in all speed numbers. You choose to simply ignore these things.

Quote
Beyer "manned up", you say? His numbers were wrong! That's not "manning up" -- that's simply correcting an error (or errors) in your flawed methodology (probably the stupid "projections"). That's what you are *supposed* to do, if you make figures -- fix your mistakes. You don't get any "extra credit" for this. If your lucky, you get to stay in business.

TG toyed with the idea of changing their scales, and in the end, they couldn't justify it. (You didn't get notified personally about this? Hey -- just how important are you in this industry, anyway?)

And so this flaw remains embedded in their numbers. They didn't fix it. That makes using these flawed numbers even more iffy for the Graded Stakes committee. How can they properly compare a dirt number to a synthetic number? Unless of course, they are going to take the years long course in rocket science necessary to understand them, make apologia for their flaws and subjectivity, and in a cult-like manner accept without question their secret underpinnings, like a real sheets user.

Quote
What TG concluded was: races tend to be run slower on synthetic surfaces, and we have to let the numbers fall where they may. It took awhile to reach that decision, but it was the right one.

So they're hardly the surface-neutral measure of "performance" anymore, and you can't compare them apples to apples, like you would have the GS committee do. "No 2? No G1.? And this sudden decision to let the numbers fall where they may comes from the same fig service that apparently believes in "smoothing" its numbers?

Quote
the last thing a horseplayer needs when betting on this stuff is contrived numbers.

Indeed. What he (and the GS Committee) needs is numbers he can compare from one track to the next. That's sort of the genesis of the whole speed numbers business, isn't it?
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #37 on: October 27, 2009, 10:47:55 AM »

Horsevoice - I'm not familiar with the sheets at all, but what do they cost and do you buy them monthly or what? 

Motto -- the basic answer is: $25 per track per day.

That sounds pricey, because it is. If you have, say, a 9 race card at Keeneland and 3 of them are maidens loaded with first-time starters, you essentially got screwed out of 1/3 of your purchase price -- the maidens haven't run so you have very little to go on other than breeding and works to go on, and you don't need TG for this.

Fortunately, Thoro-Graph has an array of plans and options that can bring the effective "cost per race" down considerably.

My favorite is the Create-a-card option, which lets you cherry-pick ANY 9 races running at ANY track they cover for $25 (one racing day only -- you can't pick 5 on Saturday and 4 on Sunday for $25).

If you like more than 9 races, you can buy a 2nd set of 9 races for $20.

Third sets and beyond are $15 each.
 
There is a daily spending cap of $120 -- if you buy THAT much product in one day, TG will let you download anything and everything they have for that day. (If you are routinely spending that much money on a daily basis, call Thoro-Graph and ask for a customized plan -- you'll get some sort of discount.)

As you might imagine, using Create-a-card takes some upfront legwork, if you want to spend your money wisely:

* How's the weather for the tracks you want to consider buying races for? Are the fields scratched down to nothing -- 5 or 6 horses? You probably don't need TG to find the 3/5 standout in these races.

* ...or are the fields already short, a la Golden Gate. Pbbbbbt.

* Maybe you want all turf races. Are they on the turf at Okie Dokey Downs today?

* Local knowledge: you scope the race out, recognize the participants, and realize that it's going to be one of 3 regulars at about a $7 mutuel. Move on -- you don't need TG for this.

When I am following my own procedures, I buy the DRF, do some cursory handicapping simply for the purpose of identifying possibly playable races, then making up my roster. I usually land on 18 races and spend $45 on TG -- this usually gives me 8 - 10 potential plays a day, which is plenty of action for me.

Simply for a benchmark, I am wagering anywhere from $1K to $4K, roughly 2 days a week, with more days and more money wagered if I am running hot, but that hasn't happened much lately.

As a guide, I would say that if you are capitalized to be able to bet $75 or more into each race you play, you can well afford (and benefit) from Thoro-Graph; much less than that, and I'd say just use the DRF.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #38 on: October 27, 2009, 11:46:51 AM »

No, I don't care to jump through any hoops on your command, but the posts are there.

Well then, as I said: I will extend you the courtesy of believing you, but until said posts are produced I dispute the idea that your contest success is a "matter of record" on this forum. I've read damn near everything here, for years, and somehow I missed that? Someone prove it.

I mentioned the wind and ground loss adjustments and how the two premium figs services both do them different. That's not science, it's subjective.

Because two different services do wind and ground loss differently, they are BOTH wrong?

LOL! *THAT* is what you have been hanging your hat on? This is your "proof" that the numbers are subjective and flawed??

Sorry, that doesn't follow at all; in fact, it's close to being the mother of all bad assumptions I've ever read about speed figures! And it is CLEARLY an assumption on your part. Honestly, where do you come up with this crap?

Now...if it your contention that the RAGS do wind and ground loss wrong, I can't argue with you: I don't really know that much about the Rags. That's why I keep my mouth closed about them.  Wink

I also brought up the problem with synthetic numbers. Synthetics have exposed a flaw in all speed numbers. You choose to simply ignore these things.

Nope. I have been simply been ignoring your absurd, groundless statements, like "Synthetics have exposed a flaw in all speed numbers". You're wrong. You have built a tower of assumptions that may pertain to your 10 year old experience with the Rags, but are completely faulty when it comes to Thoro-Graph. The Rags ARE NOT THE SAME as TG.

No, no, no. I didn't pass judgment on the Committee using the numbers. In fact, as long as that was the thread, I had nothing to say on the matter. What I passed judgment on, eventually, was your preposterous post :

"It could make the system better, but it's going to take guts to tell "Swanky Track X" that their Big Big Grade I race, "The Snobbiblob", is being downgraded due to recent substandard participation and resulting poor performance figures of same.

It would be pretty cut and dried if the TG guys themselves were making the call ("nobody in here can less than a 2?...sorry, not a Grade I race"), but put those same numbers in the hands of people who influenced by things other than hard numbers, and all bets are off."

You, who have never owned even the ass end of a horse, preferring instead to get what actual knowledge he has of actual flesh and blood horses by the lazy man's method of watching others, and who have never graded a stakes and have no personal knowledge what's involved in the process, presume to know that grading stakes based on a set of flawed and subjective performance numbers, of any variety, is somehow going to make the process better.

That must make your credibility on how to grade stakes, and what criteria to use, somewhere in the minus realm.

Get off it.

1. You also have never graded a stakes race, nor do you have any personal knowledge of what's involved in the process.    

2. You have taken the lazy man's method of assuming that because of your negative experience with the Rags that it automatically transfers over and applies to TG -- when you actually know no such thing.

3. You somehow think having owned a share in a few cheap platers automatically puts you "ahead" of people who haven't, in all things horse. I disagree. The art owner may or may not know more than the art critic about his acquistions -- but it's anything but "automatic". Same with horses.

4. I analyze data of all sorts and make recommendations, all the time, in my job and in everyday life. You likely do, too. As as example, I did this last fall when I voted for a new U.S. President. Did you vote? If you did -- were you ever a U.S. President before you voted? If not, how on earth could you possibly have the requisite knowledge to make such a decision? (That's the sort of impossible strawman argument you love to construct. It's certainly what you are trying to do when you lord your trivial horse ownership experiences over those of us that haven't owned horses.)    

So they're hardly the surface-neutral measure of "performance" anymore, and you can't compare them apples to apples, like you would have the GS committee do. "No 2? No G1.? And this sudden decision to let the numbers fall where they may comes from the same fig service that apparently believes in "smoothing" its numbers?

That's sort of the genesis of the whole speed numbers business, isn't it?

Maybe Ragozin smoothes their numbers (I don't know), and Beyer aims to be surface-neutral, but TG does neither of these things. Once again, you seem to have erroneously lumped TG in with the rest in your faulty towers of assumption. Better bone up on TG again before opening your mouth again -- you are looking sillier and sillier with each post about Thoro-Graph.  
« Last Edit: October 27, 2009, 11:50:43 AM by Horse Voice » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #39 on: October 27, 2009, 03:39:02 PM »

Because two different services do wind and ground loss differently, they are BOTH wrong?

No, what I said originally was that since they did them differently, and used different assumptions, then one of them must always be wrong. Maybe both are. Who knows. It is a subjective adjustment that's not open to examination because it's secret, just like the daily variant.

Quote
Sorry, that doesn't follow at all; in fact, it's close to being the mother of all bad assumptions I've ever read about speed figures! And it is CLEARLY an assumption on your part. Honestly, where do you come up with this crap?

No, it's not an assumption, it's something I learned from someone who knows far more about sheets and number making than you. One must always be wrong.

Quote
Now...if it your contention that the RAGS do wind and ground loss wrong, I can't argue with you: I don't really know that much about the Rags. That's why I keep my mouth closed about them.  Wink

Sheets or TG, no real difference. Even ground loss is a guess at best, because they don't know exactly how far that horse ran, only an approximation.
 
Quote
Nope. I have been simply been ignoring your absurd, groundless statements, like "Synthetics have exposed a flaw in all speed numbers".

They have. The current numbers methodology assigns synthetic figs "too big" to bad horses, and "not big enough" to good horses. That's been the discussion, not some universally slower daily variant like you claimed earlier.

Quote
You're wrong. You have built a tower of assumptions that may pertain to your 10 year old experience with the Rags, but are completely faulty when it comes to Thoro-Graph. The Rags ARE NOT THE SAME as TG.

Sure. And anyone who swears by the Rags will be glad to tell you so, at nauseating length. The assumption that TG is The One True Number is the truly laughable assumption. It's slightly different from the Rags. That's all.
 
Quote
1. You also have never graded a stakes race, nor do you have any personal knowledge of what's involved in the process.

That makes two of us unqualified to say what would make the process better, then - but of course, I didn't.

Quote
2. You have taken the lazy man's method of assuming that because of your negative experience with the Rags that it automatically transfers over and applies to TG -- when you actually know no such thing.

I said I also used TG, and know them to be exactly the same as the Rags - good enough speed numbers, as speed numbers go, but wrapped up in a bunch of cultist bunk and hokum about their mystery and magical powers. They're just numbers, and have their subjective assumptions and flaws.

These days they have some extra bells and whistles like the pace figs and the breeding info, but that's not anything the GS committee will be using. 

Quote
3. You somehow think having owned a share in a few cheap platers automatically puts you "ahead" of people who haven't, in all things horse. I disagree.

Oh. I see. When it comes to knowing about horses, the lazy man's approach of simply sitting back and observing is good eough. Well, that's certainly convenient.

Quote
Maybe Ragozin smoothes their numbers (I don't know), and Beyer aims to be surface-neutral, but TG does neither of these things.

No no, no no. TG is the one that stands accused of smoothing numbers, by the Rags guys. Don't you follow the great debates of our time?

Subjective assumptions about wind, ground, and daily bias, among other things. A flaw in the basic design that synthetic racing has exposed. Accused of smoothing numbers. I don't think the GS Committee is going to be leaning too heavily on these numbers, much less making them the centerpiece of grading.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #40 on: October 27, 2009, 08:11:03 PM »

                                                                                                                                                             .
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #41 on: October 27, 2009, 10:08:08 PM »

                                                                                                                                                             .

I agree with you on that.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.136 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy