The Ragozin's: The Counterculture of Figure Methodology

[jeebus1083]

Over the years, I've become a die-hard fan of speed figures, and the methodologies behind their construction. Even though the pari-mutuel value of speed figures has declined in recent years, they still paint a vivid photograph of each individual horse's abilities and capabilities. When Andy Beyer's breakout hit "Picking Winners" was first released 35 years ago, he introduced horseplayers to the construction of speed figures, laying out step-by-step, the mathematics involved in boiling down a raw final time into a single number. A couple of years later, Dr. William Quirin introduced a similar approach emphasizing the measurement of pace in addition to speed, albeit on a different scale. The speed figure generation was born, and the pari-mutuel game, which was tough before, became even tougher, as legions of horseplayers became an informed majority.

Within every culture is a counterculture, a group that goes against the grain, marching to their own drummer. If the works of Beyer and Quirin represent the consensus and conformity of mainstream horse racing betting, then the work of Len Ragozin would represent a guarded counterculture. Several decades ago, long before Andy Beyer's name was associated with speed figures, Ragozin, along with his father, developed and refined an elaborate speed figure methodology that not only measured time compared to the resiliency of a track surface, but somehow, also incorporated wind speeds, jockey weight, and loss of ground into the calculation, effectively transforming the conventional speed figure into a performance rating.

Over the years, Ragozin - using the selling points of wind, weight, and ground loss incorporation - has successfully sold these figures to everyone average Joes to horse owners and breeders, to high-rollers. I have even purchased these sheets on occasion, supplementing them with my own handicapping routine for major race days, as I find that the key strength behind the Ragozin layout being the recognition of form cycle patterns, rather than the numbers themselves (more on that later). An awareness of certain patterns can sometimes be the Key to the Mint, where one can knock a favorite, and back another runner whose form pattern appears to be on a positive enough upswing suggesting that a big effort is forthcoming.

However, the process behind the Ragozin figures remains mystery to everyone except Ragozin and his confidantes. This mystery is what has cemented Ragozin's place in horse racing's counterculture. We know that wind, weight, and ground loss are incorporated into the final time. Self-explanatory. But how can one trust the validity of a speed figure if they don't know what was put into it? It's one thing to superficially say that "we made adjustments to account for wind, weight carried and ground loss on turns", but without confirmation as to how this was arrived at, the horseplayer is essentially at the mercy of the figure-maker, left to trust on blind faith, that the figure is accurate. One can argue that the "proof is in the pudding", citing the success of bettors, tournament players, and stables over the course of years, and the studies done showing how The Sheets were more profitable than Product B or Product C, but again, it's a superficial talking point. Is it really "the numbers" that people are having success with, or is it really the ability to read into a set of patterns?

If the mathematics behind Ragozin Figures are in the same league as the "laws are like sausages..." analogy, they are probably too complex and time-consuming for the individual to figure out anyway. However, the fact that Ragozin to this day, continues to shrowd his methodology in the veil of mystery, makes it hard for me to view his actual figures as credible.

[lamboguy]

len freedman never wanted to sell his numbers, just like the the matties don't sell theirs which are the best pace numbers known to man these days.

i am pretty familiar with the ragozin numbers having used them before they went public. i beat the game with them, but i think i beat it mathematically because i ran around vegas betting house quinella's based on those numbers.

as far as the matties numbers are concerned, i am not involved, but do know a few that are. they don't pay but they have to create input into making the numbers.

personally, i don't use pace or sheet numbers for the brunt of my betting. i look at them to see where i am at, but the ultimate selection is not based on any number solely or partially. having used the ragaozin numbers to generate house quinella's turned out to be quite profitable until i got thrown out of every casino that took them in the desert, and i got knocked out of business. that was years ago though, in the late 70's and early 80's.

i think the methodology that i use today is alot better than any number or computer generated system can bring. my methodogy involes information on horses that is exempt from the public.

[illinoisbred]

Whether one believes in Len Ragozin's methodology or not, the complete set of seminar tapes along with printed material put out years ago is an excellent investment.

[markgoldie]

I'm not really sure that's it's totally accurate to categorize Ragozin as a member of a counter-culture. Beyer, yes, because before his published works, it was roundly believed that the teletimer had no place in thoroughbred handicapping; it was all about class-finish when it came to determining the strengths of horses. Cramer, yes, because his out-of-the-box thinking is counter to the normal methodologies of handicapping.

But Ragozin is a figure guy first and foremost; embellished figs, but figs nonetheless. But this is somewhat tangential to your purpose. The central question you pose appears can you trust something if you have no idea in the world how it's made? Hmm. I don't know, ever get on an airplane?

At any rate, knowing at least a little bit about the "Sheets" and how they are formatted is enough to convince me that I don't need to pay the high price for the information contained therein.

Couple of reasons: While ground loss is relevant and important, it is many times created by the animal itself who is bearing out during the race. So it's quite probable that the horse will be losing ground due to an outside run in today's event. When these horses draw inside? Even worse sometimes because they are trying to get out and the jockey can't let the horse run until he gets clearance to move off the rail. So while ground loss affects performance, there is no exact science as to which animals will be similarly losing ground today.

Form cycles: They exist beyond doubt. The problem is that their apparent repetition in some horses is historical and not very predictive. And so the horse who goes "up-down-up-down," is just as likely to go "down-down or up-up" in a current sequence. I think it was Fotias who did a large data-base analysis of Beyer numbers relative to form cycles and as I recall, the only major revelation was that it is very difficult for a horse to move forward more than three times in a row.

Weight and wind effects: If there is a precise way to judge these effects, it has escaped me in my long career. Finding a way to profitably game these variables would be a true counter-culture revolution. But so far, the world awaits the arrival of the book, "Using Weight and Wind to Fortunes at the Races." For my money, they might want to throw in "Astrology" as well.

Anyway, if the Ragozin followers are making money, I doubt they care to see the sausage being made.

[Cratos]

Over the years, I've become a die-hard fan of speed figures, and the methodologies behind their construction. Even though the pari-mutuel value of speed figures has declined in recent years, they still paint a vivid photograph of each individual horse's abilities and capabilities. When Andy Beyer's breakout hit "Picking Winners" was first released 35 years ago, he introduced horseplayers to the construction of speed figures, laying out step-by-step, the mathematics involved in boiling down a raw final time into a single number. A couple of years later, Dr. William Quirin introduced a similar approach emphasizing the measurement of pace in addition to speed, albeit on a different scale. The speed figure generation was born, and the pari-mutuel game, which was tough before, became even tougher, as legions of horseplayers became an informed majority.

Within every culture is a counterculture, a group that goes against the grain, marching to their own drummer. If the works of Beyer and Quirin represent the consensus and conformity of mainstream horse racing betting, then the work of Len Ragozin would represent a guarded counterculture. Several decades ago, long before Andy Beyer's name was associated with speed figures, Ragozin, along with his father, developed and refined an elaborate speed figure methodology that not only measured time compared to the resiliency of a track surface, but somehow, also incorporated wind speeds, jockey weight, and loss of ground into the calculation, effectively transforming the conventional speed figure into a performance rating.

Over the years, Ragozin - using the selling points of wind, weight, and ground loss incorporation - has successfully sold these figures to everyone average Joes to horse owners and breeders, to high-rollers. I have even purchased these sheets on occasion, supplementing them with my own handicapping routine for major race days, as I find that the key strength behind the Ragozin layout being the recognition of form cycle patterns, rather than the numbers themselves (more on that later). An awareness of certain patterns can sometimes be the Key to the Mint, where one can knock a favorite, and back another runner whose form pattern appears to be on a positive enough upswing suggesting that a big effort is forthcoming.

However, the process behind the Ragozin figures remains mystery to everyone except Ragozin and his confidantes. This mystery is what has cemented Ragozin's place in horse racing's counterculture. We know that wind, weight, and ground loss are incorporated into the final time. Self-explanatory. But how can one trust the validity of a speed figure if they don't know what was put into it? It's one thing to superficially say that "we made adjustments to account for wind, weight carried and ground loss on turns", but without confirmation as to how this was arrived at, the horseplayer is essentially at the mercy of the figure-maker, left to trust on blind faith, that the figure is accurate. One can argue that the "proof is in the pudding", citing the success of bettors, tournament players, and stables over the course of years, and the studies done showing how The Sheets were more profitable than Product B or Product C, but again, it's a superficial talking point. Is it really "the numbers" that people are having success with, or is it really the ability to read into a set of patterns?

If the mathematics behind Ragozin Figures are in the same league as the "laws are like sausages..." analogy, they are probably too complex and time-consuming for the individual to figure out anyway. However, the fact that Ragozin to this day, continues to shrowd his methodology in the veil of mystery, makes it hard for me to view his actual figures as credible.

Phil Bull, a mathematician and the founder of Timeform preceded both Beyer and Ragozin by many years with a solid quantitative methodology for handicapping racehorses.

However this is part of the problem with current handicappers and horseplayers, they look only to the recent past for solutions to their handicapping.

I am not saying that you shouldn’t use Ragozin or Beyer; or that Phil Bull’s methodology should be your choice for your handicapping, but I am saying be thorough in your research and understand how the puzzle was put together over time.

[Tom]

What else would you use to judge a figure's credibility than how it works for you?

If you had all the inside info you wanted to know, what more would that get you?

[lamboguy]

What else would you use to judge a figure's credibility than how it works for you?

If you had all the inside info you wanted to know, what more would that get you?i said exempt, i meant exemt from people that sit at home and don't watch horses train. when you watch horses train and know what you are looking for you can compare one outing from the next and see improvements or setbacks. as far as i know there are no sheets or pace numbers that build in training into their figures.

[thaskalos]

Andy Beyer has written extensively about the shortcomings in including ground loss in the horse's speed figure. But there is an aspect of the Ragozin figures that hardly anyone talks about...

They employ their own timers...and time each race FROM THE GATE...without the run-up that is found in the timings of other publications. It's a noteworthy improvement IMO. Len Ragozin, in his book "The Odds Must Be Crazy", also writes that more than a few of the races in every meet are just plain wrong...do to malfunctioning teletimers.

If only Ragozin could be talked into providing a figure which includes everything, except the ground loss...

[classhandicapper]

I've spent a lot of time discussing figure methodology with Jerry Brown, Len Friedman, CJ, read everything Beyer said on the subject, and made figures of my own in NY for years.

I think it's a very good idea to know as much as possible about the methodology and beliefs of the figure maker because they do have differences that impact their numbers (sometimes significantly). If you don't know what you are looking at, you are in danger of making some very significant misjudgments.

[misscashalot]

....If the mathematics behind Ragozin Figures are in the same league as the "laws are like sausages..." analogy, they are probably too complex and time-consuming for the individual to figure out anyway. However, the fact that Ragozin to this day, continues to shrowd his methodology in the veil of mystery, makes it hard for me to view his actual figures as credible.

Beyer is a scientist whose very nature is complete 100% transparency in order to allows others to advance the mission.

Ragozin is a businessman. And as what-his-name said, "the business of America is business."

Tweedle-dee Tweedel dum

[ManeMediaMogul]

A "number" is just a gauge of a horse's ability regardless of how intricately developed or expensive to acquire that number is.

It is also historical - something that happened in the past.

Since horses are living, breathing beings, reducing their performance to a number and betting blindly on those numbers without delving into their current condition is not very wise.

Horse "A" who runs 2s and 3s on the sheets will ordinarily beat horses who run 4s. But if he gets a little sick between starts, he may run a 5 or 6 and leave you with a fist full of uncashable parimutuel tickets.

I say why pay for information you get for free with your Brisnet pps or the DRF. Those figs are certainly good enough to gauge the fastest horses in the race.

[illinoisbred]

A "number" is just a gauge of a horse's ability regardless of how intricately developed or expensive to acquire that number is.

It is also historical - something that happened in the past.

Since horses are living, breathing beings, reducing their performance to a number and betting blindly on those numbers without delving into their current condition is not very wise.

Horse "A" who runs 2s and 3s on the sheets will ordinarily beat horses who run 4s. But if he gets a little sick between starts, he may run a 5 or 6 and leave you with a fist full of uncashable parimutuel tickets.

I say why pay for information you get for free with your Brisnet pps or the DRF. Those figs are certainly good enough to gauge the fastest horses in the race.
All you write is true. However, astute "sheet " users are far from players who take a static approach to numbers. Impending improvement,gauged by a variety of patterns, and developmental theories, and how they apply to young horses,mainly 3 yr olds and lightly raced 4 yr olds are their forte. They approach racing as a dynamic game,and relish opportunities where the horse thats run 5 or 6's has a good liklihood of overwhelming those with 2or 3's. If anything, a good reader errs on the early side of impending good form by a race or two. They rarely are still there when its too late.

Years ago,when I attended the track,a guy I became quite friendly with was an avid,daily sheet player(Thoro-Graph). The horses he came up with on a regular basis and performances exhibited on the track were truly astounding.

[bisket]

I've spent a lot of time discussing figure methodology with Jerry Brown, Len Friedman, CJ, read everything Beyer said on the subject, and made figures of my own in NY for years.

I think it's a very good idea to know as much as possible about the methodology and beliefs of the figure maker because they do have differences that impact their numbers (sometimes significantly). If you don't know what you are looking at, you are in danger of making some very significant misjudgments.
if you know what horses a handicapper plays the majority of the time; you can figure out their methods. i like to trade info with many different types of handicappers because if you know where another player is coming from it can help complete horizontal exotics at a much better rate. i think many times thats the obstacle to overcome with horizontals: a horse or horses may fit your routine as an in the money finisher or winner, but that only gets you so far. you only have your own vision. i think horizontals require another set of eyes scrutinizing the info. my hit rate increases when i'm sitting at the track with a couple of trusted friends discussing a race WITH CIVILITY!!!!!! then compiling a ticket. unfortunately thats tough to achieve on a forum like this :bang: an abundance of testosterone is the stumbling block on most occassions :D

[46zilzal]

Ragozin was on FRONTLINE many years ago and he, himself, stated that in the long run the game would beat 99% of the players even with his evaluations....Can play a good banjo too and was black listed from Life magazine when he admitted that he was a card carrying member of the Communist party.

So what...he has never plotted to over throw the government.

[Hedevar]

if you know what horses a handicapper plays the majority of the time; you can figure out their methods. i like to trade info with many different types of handicappers because if you know where another player is coming from it can help complete horizontal exotics at a much better rate. i think many times thats the obstacle to overcome with horizontals: a horse or horses may fit your routine as an in the money finisher or winner, but that only gets you so far. you only have your own vision. i think horizontals require another set of eyes scrutinizing the info. my hit rate increases when i'm sitting at the track with a couple of trusted friends discussing a race WITH CIVILITY!!!!!! then compiling a ticket. unfortunately thats tough to achieve on a forum like this :bang: an abundance of testosterone is the stumbling block on most occassions :D

It has nothing to do with testosterone. It has to do with the ability to write and understand the English language and a modicum of respect for your fellow horseplayers. Neither of which you know anything about.

[how cliche]

All you write is true. However, astute "sheet " users are far from players who take a static approach to numbers. Impending improvement,gauged by a variety of patterns, and developmental theories, and how they apply to young horses,mainly 3 yr olds and lightly raced 4 yr olds are their forte. They approach racing as a dynamic game,and relish opportunities where the horse thats run 5 or 6's has a good liklihood of overwhelming those with 2or 3's. If anything, a good reader errs on the early side of impending good form by a race or two. They rarely are still there when its too late.

Years ago,when I attended the track,a guy I became quite friendly with was an avid,daily sheet player(Thoro-Graph). The horses he came up with on a regular basis and performances exhibited on the track were truly astounding.

Everything you wrote above appears true to my knowledge of the best sheets players I've met thus far. The horse's age and the possibility of improvement for where the runner is in his/her career is paramount to their analysis. I hear this a lot in conversation from them. "I'm playing on the come." In other words, They're spending their handicapping effort searching for the runners who haven't posted their big performance yet. Easier to spot improvement patterns on the sheets are in larger numbers with 2 3 & 4 year olds. Those patterns can also be spotted using conventional figures, but it's more difficult to do.

[illinoisbred]

Everything you wrote above appears true to my knowledge of the best sheets players I've met thus far. The horse's age and the possibility of improvement for where the runner is in his/her career is paramount to their analysis. I hear this a lot in conversation from them. "I'm playing on the come." In other words, They're spending their handicapping effort searching for the runners who haven't posted their big performance yet. Easier to spot improvement patterns on the sheets are in larger numbers with 2 3 & 4 year olds. Those patterns can also be spotted using conventional figures, but it's more difficult to do.
I agree How Cliche. I think their "explosive" theory works quite well with conventional figures on lightly raced 3 and 4 yr olds that are still predominately sprinting. Once they begin routing,pace becomes such a great factor in dictating the potential final number/figure.

Often mentioned here,and I think rightly so,are criticisms of ground loss and the sheets accounting for it. My personal observations were that sheet players DO seem to gravitate toward older routers that consistently run that way.

[NYPlayer]

I agree How Cliche. I think their "explosive" theory works quite well with conventional figures on lightly raced 3 and 4 yr olds that are still predominately sprinting. Once they begin routing,pace becomes such a great factor in dictating the potential final number/figure.

Often mentioned here,and I think rightly so,are criticisms of ground loss and the sheets accounting for it. My personal observations were that sheet players DO seem to gravitate toward older routers that consistently run that way.

I prefer the patterns on younger horses since you can often bet on horses that are improving. Generally, the bigger the jump the horse has to make the better its odds.

I also use the sheets for older routers, and I agree about pace being a factor. However, the reason it's a factor is because routes are usually run around 2 turns and going wide on both turns pretty much nullifies any chance for a horse to win. If you look at a field of claimers and they all project to run about the same number, the game becomes finding the horse that saves ground.

[skate]

i said exempt, i meant exemt from people that sit at home and don't watch horses train. when you watch horses train and know what you are looking for you can compare one outing from the next and see improvements or setbacks. as far as i know there are no sheets or pace numbers that build in training into their figures.

sheets and pace figures are the result of....?

[rrbauer]

...If the mathematics behind Ragozin Figures are in the same league as the "laws are like sausages..." analogy, they are probably too complex and time-consuming for the individual to figure out anyway. However, the fact that Ragozin to this day, continues to shrowd his methodology in the veil of mystery, makes it hard for me to view his actual figures as credible.

Beyer's methodology and Ragozin's methodology are both based on fps models. I did a correlation analysis on about 800 horses' last ten (or less depending on horses' starts) figs from both camps back about 1990 (Beyer figs available from BRIS at that time) and it rang in at about .86. I believe that if the Raggies weren't adjusted for weight, ground loss, etc. that the correlation would've been much closer to 1 with the primary difference being track variant. Frankly, the only thing differentiating these products is marketing.

[matthewsiv]

The rags are the best figures available to the
general public at the track.

Whether you can read them or not is a different matter.

[lamboguy]

sheets and pace figures are the result of....?
some human being plugging in fractional and whole race times together and coming out with a projected early middle and late pace analysis.


i have no problem with numbers, but i find there are alot of variables that decide races that no number can generate. and those variables take place more often than not

[garyoz]

Beyer's methodology and Ragozin's methodology are both based on fps models. I did a correlation analysis on about 800 horses' last ten (or less depending on horses' starts) figs from both camps back about 1990 (Beyer figs available from BRIS at that time) and it rang in at about .86. I believe that if the Raggies weren't adjusted for weight, ground loss, etc. that the correlation would've been much closer to 1 with the primary difference being track variant. Frankly, the only thing differentiating these products is marketing.

I don't remember Beyer figs ever being available from Bris. In 1990-91 The Racing Times had Beyer Figs. Think they were the first. Also did you buy the figs directly from Ragozin? Just curious.

Much of the nuance in Ragozin figures are small moves and projecting development moves. IMHO, No way Beyers are close to Ragozin figures in their potential. Also, hand timed, run up times, etc. Ultimately projection methodology also plays a role.

[Tom]

At one time, BRIS offered a Beyer report - last 10 Beyers for each horse, not in PP format, just a list, track, date, Beyer......I tell you what, making money was easy for a while - not many people had access to them, and not all tracks were covered, but top fig horses were paying $10-$16 several times a day. This was in the old BRIS BB days.

[Stillriledup]

I'm not really sure that's it's totally accurate to categorize Ragozin as a member of a counter-culture. Beyer, yes, because before his published works, it was roundly believed that the teletimer had no place in thoroughbred handicapping; it was all about class-finish when it came to determining the strengths of horses. Cramer, yes, because his out-of-the-box thinking is counter to the normal methodologies of handicapping.

But Ragozin is a figure guy first and foremost; embellished figs, but figs nonetheless. But this is somewhat tangential to your purpose. The central question you pose appears can you trust something if you have no idea in the world how it's made? Hmm. I don't know, ever get on an airplane?

At any rate, knowing at least a little bit about the "Sheets" and how they are formatted is enough to convince me that I don't need to pay the high price for the information contained therein.

Couple of reasons: While ground loss is relevant and important, it is many times created by the animal itself who is bearing out during the race. So it's quite probable that the horse will be losing ground due to an outside run in today's event. When these horses draw inside? Even worse sometimes because they are trying to get out and the jockey can't let the horse run until he gets clearance to move off the rail. So while ground loss affects performance, there is no exact science as to which animals will be similarly losing ground today.

Form cycles: They exist beyond doubt. The problem is that their apparent repetition in some horses is historical and not very predictive. And so the horse who goes "up-down-up-down," is just as likely to go "down-down or up-up" in a current sequence. I think it was Fotias who did a large data-base analysis of Beyer numbers relative to form cycles and as I recall, the only major revelation was that it is very difficult for a horse to move forward more than three times in a row.

Weight and wind effects: If there is a precise way to judge these effects, it has escaped me in my long career. Finding a way to profitably game these variables would be a true counter-culture revolution. But so far, the world awaits the arrival of the book, "Using Weight and Wind to Fortunes at the Races." For my money, they might want to throw in "Astrology" as well.

Anyway, if the Ragozin followers are making money, I doubt they care to see the sausage being made.


I had a stretch of time where i was purchasing the Thorograph sheets every day and using them as a supplement to my handicapping. I stopped buying them because i feel that the Beyer Numbers are good enough (and they're free). When i watch replays to handicap, i factor in ground loss, but you make an excellent point that horses who get a good Rag/TG number by losing ground are likely to be ridden the same way the next time.

Also, so many big bettors, trainers and important people have these numbers, so having them isn't as valuable as it used to be. To make money in racing you have to know something that 'everyone else' doesn't know. "Everyone" has some sort of sheets, so their value isn't as good as it used to be.

[thaskalos]

Also, so many big bettors, trainers and important people have these numbers, so having them isn't as valuable as it used to be. To make money in racing you have to know something that 'everyone else' doesn't know. "Everyone" has some sort of sheets, so their value isn't as good as it used to be. Speed figures are not like power ratings...where every horse is represented by one single figure.

The speed figures of every horse fluctuate race to race...and that makes THE INTERPRETATION of the figures, as crucial as the figures themselves.

Just because two people have the same set of figures...doesn't mean that they will end up betting on the same horses.

[rrbauer]

I don't remember Beyer figs ever being available from Bris. In 1990-91 The Racing Times had Beyer Figs. Think they were the first. Also did you buy the figs directly from Ragozin? Just curious.

Much of the nuance in Ragozin figures are small moves and projecting development moves. IMHO, No way Beyers are close to Ragozin figures in their potential. Also, hand timed, run up times, etc. Ultimately projection methodology also plays a role.

BRIS had available a horse's last ten starts (running lines) that had Beyer figs and this was before the days of the Racing Times and perhaps it overlapped with RT's first year. The Beyer figs were not available (that I recall) in any of their other data products. You can call Happy Broadbent (at BRIS) and confirm that-I"m not making it up. Date might've been a year, or so, earler, but I'll stick to that general time frame.

I had brought back about 1500 sheets from a Vegas trip and culled from those to get horses that had significant starts AND which I had pp data with Beyer #'s in my data base. It was a time consuming project but I spent a lot of time in those days on horse-racing related time-consuming projects. One of the many byproducts from that effort was a conversion algorithm (and chart) to produce a Beyer from a Raggie; or, vice-versa. It was good enough that a couple of the guys at Ragozin's NY office (whom I had showed it to at one of the Horseplayer Expo things in LV) called me and asked for a copy.

The "nuances" that you mention are in the interpretation of the figures, not in the figures themselves. I agree that the "run up" distance/times can have an impact and that Ragozin was one of the first to recognize/use that. However, there were many tracks that Ragozin did not have "a man at the track" so that any figure adjustment for visual input was not possible. Today with replays available from just about everywhere support of those adjustments is easier.

I've also had sheet players from some tracks tell me that so-and-so (Ragozin's man) missed a lot of ground loss and other trip issues. That's one of those anecdotal things that is always hard to judge. There are many other issues that affect figures (regardless of who is making them). One of them is surface changes that impact par times which can lead to overstating/understating efforts until new pars are brought into play. One time when Santa Anita put in its first Tifgreen Bermuda turf couse that was producing very fast final times, I never saw so many horses running 3's and 4's as I did on the sheets that showed those turf races.

I've always felt that one the greatest attributes of the sheets was their time-phased graphical presentation and the ability to make quick visual assessments from them. Pure genius IMO.

[jeebus1083]

BUMPED, in light of the new thread on Ragozin being sold.

[Tom]

I posted in that thread before I saw this one.
Glad I said the same thing then!:D

[Fastracehorse]

I'm not really sure that's it's totally accurate to categorize Ragozin as a member of a counter-culture. Beyer, yes, because before his published works, it was roundly believed that the teletimer had no place in thoroughbred handicapping; it was all about class-finish when it came to determining the strengths of horses. Cramer, yes, because his out-of-the-box thinking is counter to the normal methodologies of handicapping.

But Ragozin is a figure guy first and foremost; embellished figs, but figs nonetheless. But this is somewhat tangential to your purpose. The central question you pose appears can you trust something if you have no idea in the world how it's made? Hmm. I don't know, ever get on an airplane?

At any rate, knowing at least a little bit about the "Sheets" and how they are formatted is enough to convince me that I don't need to pay the high price for the information contained therein.

Couple of reasons: While ground loss is relevant and important, it is many times created by the animal itself who is bearing out during the race. So it's quite probable that the horse will be losing ground due to an outside run in today's event. When these horses draw inside? Even worse sometimes because they are trying to get out and the jockey can't let the horse run until he gets clearance to move off the rail. So while ground loss affects performance, there is no exact science as to which animals will be similarly losing ground today.

Form cycles: They exist beyond doubt. The problem is that their apparent repetition in some horses is historical and not very predictive. And so the horse who goes "up-down-up-down," is just as likely to go "down-down or up-up" in a current sequence. I think it was Fotias who did a large data-base analysis of Beyer numbers relative to form cycles and as I recall, the only major revelation was that it is very difficult for a horse to move forward more than three times in a row.

Weight and wind effects: If there is a precise way to judge these effects, it has escaped me in my long career. Finding a way to profitably game these variables would be a true counter-culture revolution. But so far, the world awaits the arrival of the book, "Using Weight and Wind to Fortunes at the Races." For my money, they might want to throw in "Astrology" as well.

Anyway, if the Ragozin followers are making money, I doubt they care to see the sausage being made.

But still, whether the horse may be bearing out or not, a high adjusted speed figure is too hard to ignore. And, for problems on the rail, the inside to outside post position draw can be formidable.

Nice comments on form cycles - I actually don't like the term - because it lends credence to the theory that horses somehow cycle like a brain alpha wave - however, horses do become sharp - and it isn't an exact science like you alluded to.

Weight? Bug boys are often signs of trainer intent.

fffastt

[098poi]

I think with form and cycles it is important to remember that horses are entered in races by human beings not pre entered 4 or 6 races ahead of time. A horse is entered in a race most specifically based on his last race, how well did he do, how well did he come out of it (health etc.) A horse coming off a good or winning effort may be entered at the same or higher class conditions and then his performance may reflect his inability to compete at that level. A glance at speed figures and finish positions may tell you nothing if you don't take in to context what the conditions for each race was and why they were there. A good, bad form cycle may be due more to the races the horse was in and not the best indicator of his overall "form" or health.

[Fastracehorse]

I think with form and cycles it is important to remember that horses are entered in races by human beings not pre entered 4 or 6 races ahead of time. A horse is entered in a race most specifically based on his last race, how well did he do, how well did he come out of it (health etc.) A horse coming off a good or winning effort may be entered at the same or higher class conditions and then his performance may reflect his inability to compete at that level. A glance at speed figures and finish positions may tell you nothing if you don't take in to context what the conditions for each race was and why they were there. A good, bad form cycle may be due more to the races the horse was in and not the best indicator of his overall "form" or health.

And don't take bad figures out of context either as they be form-darkening :)
I like that term better than form cycle.

fffastt

[mountainman]

They lost me at "loss of ground," perhaps the most misunderstood (and deceptive) aspect of trip handicapping. And that's where it belongs, trips, not as a dubious component in final time figs.
As to form cycles, I believe very much in them, and consider their interpretation more art than science, but I would add that fluctuations in performance are often a function of infirmity. And distinguishing soundness issues from normal t-bred cycles can often be done and is crucial to good handicapping. What it really boils down to is recognizing when a horse is merely off form-as opposed to permanently impaired.

[cj]

Ground loss is a tough one. For one, all ground loss is not equal, but some treat it that way. Losing a length of ground while running easily is not the same as losing ground when running hard.

A horse four wide on the first turn of a dawdling pace is expending very little extra energy. A horse moving four wide on the second turn when the pace picks up and horses are flying is totally different. The opposite is true of a fast paced race. The ground loss early hurts a lot more than ground loss on the second turn when the pace is collapsing.

[setup]

Moreover, let's consider the following cases:

1) horse is 5 wide on the turn without cover
2) horse is 5 wide on the turn but drafting

Is this distinction being made, I wonder?

[cj]

Moreover, let's consider the following cases:

1) horse is 5 wide on the turn without cover
2) horse is 5 wide on the turn but drafting

Is this distinction being made, I wonder?

Nope, it isn't, and that is certainly another factor.

[George Sands]

Moreover, let's consider the following cases:

1) horse is 5 wide on the turn without cover
2) horse is 5 wide on the turn but drafting

Is this distinction being made, I wonder?

The argument that you seem to be making here can be applied in different directions. For example: Beyer does not adjust for cover. Therefore, if cover affects clockings, Beyer's approach to variants is flawed. Therefore, Beyer's variants are imperfect. Therefore, Beyer should not make variants. Variant-making should be left to the individual horseplayer.

[Dave Schwartz]

Moreover, let's consider the following cases:

1) horse is 5 wide on the turn without cover
2) horse is 5 wide on the turn but drafting

How much adjustment should be made for w/wo cover?

[turninforhome10]

I think with form and cycles it is important to remember that horses are entered in races by human beings not pre entered 4 or 6 races ahead of time. A horse is entered in a race most specifically based on his last race, how well did he do, how well did he come out of it (health etc.) A horse coming off a good or winning effort may be entered at the same or higher class conditions and then his performance may reflect his inability to compete at that level. A glance at speed figures and finish positions may tell you nothing if you don't take in to context what the conditions for each race was and why they were there. A good, bad form cycle may be due more to the races the horse was in and not the best indicator of his overall "form" or health.

Agreed. Like when a high percentage jock rides a horse back after a poor performance. Sometimes a horse may loose contention early and then just get wrapped up for next time.

[setup]

The argument that you seem to be making here can be applied in different directions. For example: Beyer does not adjust for cover. Therefore, if cover affects clockings, Beyer's approach to variants is flawed. Therefore, Beyer's variants are imperfect. Therefore, Beyer should not make variants. Variant-making should be left to the individual horseplayer.

When you do a proof, you start off with your assumptions at the top and then incorporate them. At the top of 'Beyer's proof', you don't find any mention of 'ground covered' and thus there's no inference to or mention of 'cover'. So, Beyer is not in this discussion.

Unfortunately, based on what I've read here, as I have never looked at the ratings that are the topic here, these ratings do account for ground covered. So, it all comes down to whether the 'trip' person noting the paths around the track is aware of the drafting thing. Now, I also read that how these ratings are made is pretty much a secret. So it's anyone's best guess as to what's happening there. I imagine, however, that those paying a good sum for the ratings probably have complete confidence in the trip person and thus the overall product.

[mountainman]

Ground loss is a tough one. For one, all ground loss is not equal, but some treat it that way. Losing a length of ground while running easily is not the same as losing ground when running hard.

A horse four wide on the first turn of a dawdling pace is expending very little extra energy. A horse moving four wide on the second turn when the pace picks up and horses are flying is totally different. The opposite is true of a fast paced race. The ground loss early hurts a lot more than ground loss on the second turn when the pace is collapsing.

I've heard that theory before about first-turn ground-loss on a slow pace and consider it more complicated than merely assessing the rate of travel. Running style must also be considered, as should the effect of early position on strategy. A speed-type, for instance, might theoretically be comfortable prompting a slow pace while racing wide, but the imperative to dispense with inside rivals puts the jock in quite a bind. And slow fractions sometimes thrust ground saving horses without much speed into the pace picture, which in turn emboldens their riders to maintain position and make life miserable for horses hung wide. Consider how infuriating it is when your rider squanders an early-speed advantage by not crossing over into the first turn, and instead allowing slower horses to race on equal terms down closer to the rail. In short, running style and tactics must be factored into the equation.

While I do agree that early ground loss in a fast paced race makes for a debilitating trip, I consider loss of ground on the second turn (of a rt race, of course) to be far less significant-and something that simply goes with the territory for certain horses. Such instances depend, too, on whether the wide mover in question is able to surge past rivals before getting hung wide off the elbow.

One thing we probably agree on is that ground loss should be considered separately from speed-figs, rather than factored into the number.

[PhantomOnTour]

Ground loss is a tough one. For one, all ground loss is not equal, but some treat it that way. Losing a length of ground while running easily is not the same as losing ground when running hard.

A horse four wide on the first turn of a dawdling pace is expending very little extra energy. A horse moving four wide on the second turn when the pace picks up and horses are flying is totally different. The opposite is true of a fast paced race. The ground loss early hurts a lot more than ground loss on the second turn when the pace is collapsing.
Ground loss is not a function of speed, is it?
4 wide is 4 wide regardless of how fast one is traveling.

The physical exertion may be different but the actual ground loss (or extra ground covered) should be constant, huh?

[George Sands]

When you do a proof, you start off with your assumptions at the top and then incorporate them. At the top of 'Beyer's proof', you don't find any mention of 'ground covered' and thus there's no inference to or mention of 'cover'. So, Beyer is not in this discussion.

Do you actually know people who can read stuff like this without laughing?

[setup]

Do you actually know people who can read stuff like this without laughing?

Truth hurts, I guess.

It's one thing to offer the product, hell, even emphasize it; quite another to handle criticism of it. I know, it's all about marketing.

[HUSKER55]

Would one of you fine gentlemen please describe what is meant "with cover" and "without cover"?

Thanks

[speed]

Would one of you fine gentlemen please describe what is meant "with cover" and "without cover"?

Thanks
It's a harness racing term. Think of the horse second over, he is covered up. The horse first over is without cover. With cover is much more important if the move is made into a strong wind. Have taken trip notes that include wind direction at calder for 25 years. It is far from an exact science. Some days it truly is a major factor.

[George Sands]

Truth hurts, I guess.

It's one thing to offer the product, hell, even emphasize it; quite another to handle criticism of it. I know, it's all about marketing.

I think it's all about taking your first look at it before you make your first post about it. Instead, you seem to be relying on a post from Jeebus, who is probably the only person in the world who knows less about the Ragozin Sheets than you do.

[thaskalos]

In my opinion...Ragozin was wrong in including ground loss into his speed figure calculations, while, at the same time, leaving out certain other aspects of the race, which affect a horse's performance even more than ground loss does.

Take pace, for example.

How can Ragozin contend that his speed figures are "complete"...when the pace factor is completely ignored?

Let's assume that two horses are engaged in the heated, neck-to-neck speed duel...and, at the turn for home, a middle presser circles four wide around them...and nips them at the wire.

According to Ragozin...the wide-circling presser would get a higher rating than the other two speed horses, because of the ground loss aspect.

But what about the other dynamics of the race, which favored the presser greatly...while putting the front runners at a terrible disadvantage?

Yes, the presser lost ground on the last turn, but he enjoyed a perfect trip up to that point...by sitting behind the dueling front-runners.

How can the presser deserve his higher Ragozin rating, under circumstances such as these?

IMO...the speed figure should either remain only a "pure" speed figure...or else...it should contain the other important elements found in the running of a race -- and not just the ground loss.

Give me the "pure" figure, I say...and I can make the other adjustments myself.

[George Sands]

In my opinion...Ragozin was wrong in including ground loss into his speed figure calculations, while, at the same time, leaving out certain other aspects of the race, which affect a horse's performance even more than ground loss does.

Take pace, for example.

How can Ragozin contend that his speed figures are "complete"...when the pace factor is completely ignored?

Let's assume that two horses are engaged in the heated, neck-to-neck speed duel...and, at the turn for home, a middle presser circles four wide around them...and nips them at the wire.

According to Ragozin...the wide-circling presser would get a higher rating than the other two speed horses, because of the ground loss aspect.

But what about the other dynamics of the race, which favored the presser greatly...while putting the front runners at a terrible disadvantage?

Yes, the presser lost ground on the last turn, but he enjoyed a perfect trip up to that point...by sitting behind the dueling front-runners.

How can the presser deserve his higher Ragozin rating, under circumstances such as these?

IMO...the speed figure should either remain only a "pure" speed figure...or else...it should contain the other elements found in the running of a race -- and not just the ground loss.

Give me the "pure" figure, I say...and I can make the other adjustments myself.

Three things:

1: Your part about Ragozin completely ignoring pace is false.

2: The idea of a "pure" speed figure being made by someone who literally does not know how far the horse ran seems odd to me.

3: People are free to adjust the Ragozin figures for various factors as they please, just as they are free to adjust the Beyers or other ground-free figures.

[lamboguy]

the HERTZ of all speed figures that i have ever seen are the ones that paul mattes makes. they are always accurate and have the correct bias race to race. every single racing program is done by hand. he does not sell them, and i don't get them. since i don't get them, i don't use any speed figures in my handicapping. a matter of fact i really don't bet to many races that can be handicapped with any speed figure or past performance product.

i did have a great experience years ago with rag sheets. i actually went to the same place to get the sheets every day when i was out in the dessert 25 years ago. the store opened up at 6 in the morning, and i got there at 5 to make sure those sheets weren't sold to anyone else. i was buying 3 tracks a day for about a year until we got shutoff all over town from betting house quinella's.

[thaskalos]

Three things:

1: Your part about Ragozin completely ignoring pace is false.

2: The idea of a "pure" speed figure being made by someone who literally does not know how far the horse ran seems odd to me.

3: People are free to adjust the Ragozin figures for various factors as they please, just as they are free to adjust the Beyers or other ground-free figures.

Hold on a second here...

Let me say at the outset that I am not attacking you, or your opinions here...

In fact...I don't even know what your opinions are on this matter.

I remember some of your posts from the past...and I know that you are a very advanced player.

All I am doing here is stating my own opinion...which might very well be wrong.

You say pace is not ignored in the "sheets".

Does that mean that, in the scenario I presented above, The dueling front-runners would somehow receive "extra credit" in The Sheets...to account for their brutal pace trip?

Are we even sure that the outside path is not the preferable path to be on...in some cases?

And finally...how do we adjust the Ragozin figures, without knowing what his "scale" is?

[George Sands]

the HERTZ of all speed figures that i have ever seen are the ones that paul mattes makes. they are always accurate and have the correct bias race to race.

The Matties figures are indeed outstanding, and they, too, include groundloss, but the idea that they are always accurate is hilarious. This business does not allow for anything like that kind of accuracy.

[lamboguy]

The Matties figures are indeed outstanding, and they, too, include groundloss, but the idea that they are always accurate is hilarious. This business does not allow for anything like that kind of accuracy.there is no speed figures that are going to be 100% accurate, but for the few days that i happened to have seen those numbers, they amazed me enough to know that if i don't have them to handicap i am at a serious disadvantage. i just simply gave up handicapping anything that involves past performances

[George Sands]

Hold on a second here...

Let me say at the outset that I am not attacking you, or your opinions here...

In fact...I don't even know what your opinions are on this matter.

I remember some of your posts from the past...and I know that you are a very advanced player.

All I am doing here is stating my own opinion...which might very well be wrong.

You say pace is not ignored in the "sheets".

Does that mean that, in the scenario I presented above, The dueling front-runners would somehow receive "extra credit" in The Sheets...to account for their brutal pace trip?

Are we even sure that the outside path is not the preferable path to be on...in some cases?

And finally...how do we adjust the Ragozin figures, without knowing what his "scale" is?

Thaskalos,

When I say that the Sheets do not completely ignore pace, I am not saying that they adjust for pace as frequently as you or I might. They make figures in a manner that comports with their overall philosophy, and theirs is a philosophy that believes that pace matters sometimes but is generally overrated. They will adjust the figures of horses they believe got too fried early to run the final time of which they were capable. They will occasionally adjust a horse individually for a slow pace, which became controversial in the case of Zenyatta. They will mark entire races as "pace" races and make a blanket adjustment that amounts to cutting the race loose.

What would they do in the scenario you present? It would depend on their opinion of how much the pace affected the final time, but in most cases they would not adjust it.

Are we sure that the outside path is not preferable to the inside path? No, nor are we sure that the inside path is not preferable to the outside path. This particular argument, if its headed where I think it is, cuts both ways.

And now, if I may, I'd like to get back to the question of what is "pure." You consider Beyer "pure," correct? Well, what Beyer does is take a clocking, adjust it for the official distance of the race, and then adjust it for a variant. What Ragozin does is take a clocking, adjust it for (among other things) groundloss and distance, and then adjust it for a variant. OK, how is using the listed distance more "pure," in speed terms, than using the actual distance travelled? Where is the purity in using a final time and a listed distance while ignoring the actual distance?

Finally, never worry for a second about offending me. I've read many of your posts, and I think they are delightful.

[George Sands]

And finally...how do we adjust the Ragozin figures, without knowing what his "scale" is?

I'm sorry. I neglected to address this part.

We do know what his scale is. This whole thing about Ragozin being so complex and impenetrable? Not to put too fine a point on it, it's nonsense.

[jeebus1083]

I'm sorry. I neglected to address this part.

We do know what his scale is. This whole thing about Ragozin being so complex and impenetrable? Not to put too fine a point on it, it's nonsense.

Then what is his scale?

[George Sands]

Then what is his scale?

You made those Ragozin-is-impossible-to-understand posts without bothering to visit his website? Wonderful. At long last, I have seen it all. Or perhaps I am being too optimistic.

[jeebus1083]

You made those Ragozin-is-impossible-to-understand posts without bothering to visit his website? Wonderful. At long last, I have seen it all. Or perhaps I am being too optimistic.

I have been to his site, I've read "Odds Must Be Crazy" and I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

I don't care for your condescending attitude either. What have I missed?

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos,

When I say that the Sheets do not completely ignore pace, I am not saying that they adjust for pace as frequently as you or I might. They make figures in a manner that comports with their overall philosophy, and theirs is a philosophy that believes that pace matters sometimes but is generally overrated. They will adjust the figures of horses they believe got too fried early to run the final time of which they were capable. They will occasionally adjust a horse individually for a slow pace, which became controversial in the case of Zenyatta. They will mark entire races as "pace" races and make a blanket adjustment that amounts to cutting the race loose.

What would they do in the scenario you present? It would depend on their opinion of how much the pace affected the final time, but in most cases they would not adjust it.

Are we sure that the outside path is not preferable to the inside path? No, nor are we sure that the inside path is not preferable to the outside path. This particular argument, if its headed where I think it is, cuts both ways.

And now, if I may, I'd like to get back to the question of what is "pure." You consider Beyer "pure," correct? Well, what Beyer does is take a clocking, adjust it for the official distance of the race, and then adjust it for a variant. What Ragozin does is take a clocking, adjust it for (among other things) groundloss and distance, and then adjust it for a variant. OK, how is using the listed distance more "pure," in speed terms, than using the actual distance travelled? Where is the purity in using a final time and a listed distance while ignoring the actual distance?

Finally, never worry for a second about offending me. I've read many of your posts, and I think they are delightful.

When I used the term "pure speed figure", I never intended it to be interpreted as an endorsement of Beyer's figures...nor do I consider these figures to be in any way better than "The Sheets". I am very impressed with Ragozin's work...and only wish that his figure format was a better fit for my own handicapping style.

I only used the word "pure" to distinguish those figures which offer only a "pure" speed measure from point (a) to point (b)...from the ones that provide trip or pace factor additives. No further statement as to the "quality" of these figures was intended.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply...as well as the totally unexpected compliment at the end. I feel exactly the same about your posts...and only wish there was some way to persuade you to post here more often in the future.

I thoroughly enjoyed our little exchange here. It reminded me of why I fell in love with this board in the first place...

[jeebus1083]

I think it's all about taking your first look at it before you make your first post about it. Instead, you seem to be relying on a post from Jeebus, who is probably the only person in the world who knows less about the Ragozin Sheets than you do.

I missed this one... Again, why the pompous potshots?

[MightBeSosa]

The argument about giving extra credit to wides is , oh, about 40 years old at least. I know this as I made the argument back then and I'm sure someone made it before me.

Forget about some wide runner passing tired duelers, what about giving ++ on a dead rail day, for running on the best part of the track? Kinda lame aint it:rolleyes: ?

So the only time it makes sense to give a better fig to a wide runner is on a fair track or a rail + day. But I don't think they ever did that.

That said, the numbers are powerful enough in other ways to overcome these flaws. I always thought that their simplicity , vs having to wade through dozens of factors in the form was a big plus.

[George Sands]

Forget about some wide runner passing tired duelers, what about giving ++ on a dead rail day, for running on the best part of the track? Kinda lame aint it:rolleyes: ?
So the only time it makes sense to give a better fig to a wide runner is on a fair track or a rail + day. But I don't think they ever did that.

Hmm, so you are saying that the Beyer approach to groundloss is superior when the rail is bad, but the sheets approach is better when the rail is normal or good?

I'm thinking it might be possible to live with that state of affairs, but the thing is, it isn't necessary. Just as Beyer users are free to keep groundloss in mind as they use ground-free figures, sheet users are free to remove the ground adjustment from the figures for days when the rail was bad. And contrary to what has been stated by a couple of people here, it's so [I forgot the profanity policy here; better to be safe] ####ing easy you could train a cow to do it.

[Fastracehorse]

In my opinion...Ragozin was wrong in including ground loss into his speed figure calculations, while, at the same time, leaving out certain other aspects of the race, which affect a horse's performance even more than ground loss does.

Take pace, for example.

How can Ragozin contend that his speed figures are "complete"...when the pace factor is completely ignored?

Let's assume that two horses are engaged in the heated, neck-to-neck speed duel...and, at the turn for home, a middle presser circles four wide around them...and nips them at the wire.

According to Ragozin...the wide-circling presser would get a higher rating than the other two speed horses, because of the ground loss aspect.

But what about the other dynamics of the race, which favored the presser greatly...while putting the front runners at a terrible disadvantage?

Yes, the presser lost ground on the last turn, but he enjoyed a perfect trip up to that point...by sitting behind the dueling front-runners.

How can the presser deserve his higher Ragozin rating, under circumstances such as these?

IMO...the speed figure should either remain only a "pure" speed figure...or else...it should contain the other important elements found in the running of a race -- and not just the ground loss.

Give me the "pure" figure, I say...and I can make the other adjustments myself.

I would assert that the reason pace is the most important factor in adjusting speed figures is because there is such a large grade of paces that horses can encounter; because of the huge disparities of abilities. When horses are Maidens they are trying to find their level. So, you have Maidens that are going to be world beaters running against horses who are going to be 10 claimers.

This is more important in creating a speed figure for the well beaten horses; because they may be competitive at another level that isn't that bad. And without a speed figure, you are looking for 'The Precious' in muddy water.

In your above example; the ground loss would still be the most important factor in the adjustment; despite the pace dispute; because the horses are within a few lengths of each other in ability; and as you said, "nipped" at the wire. That is why ground loss is a very important factor when creating figures - it helps to separate horses of similar ability. The irony is; some horses do their best running wide on the outside, despite the ground loss, because they stay out of trouble - and horsemen know this, and often ask for horses' best efforts when they draw wide.

So simply put; pace overall is the most important factor when adjusting figs; but ground loss is often the most important factor in races where the field is very competitive.

fffastt

[Robert Goren]

At one time, I was into betting horses who had "troubled" trips last out. What I discovered is that a lot of them got in to same trouble again, so adjustment I made for their "trouble' was for naught. I must admit the few times I have looked at the sheets, I felt like I am trying to read Chinese. However if one can figure them, they could be of real value in determining where a horse is in it form cycle. The one question I would have for sheets users is .... Has the advent of super trainer changed the way would look at one their charges? It seems to me the only time one of their horses "bounce" is when it is vanned off.

[classhandicapper]

The problem I have with ground loss being incorporated into the figure is that even though we can measure the number of extra feet a horse traveled by being wide, IMO running on the outside is not the same as running on the inside and not all wides are the same thing.

1. Dirt tracks tend to be banked a little on the turn as you move away from the rail path. The whole purpose of banking the track is to make it a little easier for the horses to handle the turn. That may mildly offset some of the ground loss.

2. When you are wider, you are making a slightly less sharp turn. That may mildly offset some of the ground loss. IMO, you can visually see that most horses handle wider turns (like at Belmont) better than sharp turns (like on the AQU inner)

3. Some horses simply prefer to run outside

4. As mentioned by others, biases are an issue

5. IMO, there is a difference between running an extra 2 lengths loafing at the back of the pack 3w around the first turn and being used 3w to get the lead on the first turn or making a sweep on the second turn when the race is picking up.

If I had my way, I would have a raw speed figure like Beyer accompanied by ground loss notes like 3w1t, 4w2t etc... with a clear definition of how much each path was worth so I could subjectively add value to the raw figure depending on the conditions of the race.

It wouldn't matter to me if a number was also given to me with the ground loss added in for people that want it that way. I would simply ignore it. But I don't want to have to subtract it out and then add it back in another way and I don't want to have have to watch 100s of replays to get the ground loss.

This is one of the reasons I spend most of my energy on graded stakes. I can handle the work load of watching most of the stakes and seeing the trips, ground loss, biases, pace etc... and forming more precise opinions about the horses.

[George Sands]

Classhandicapper,

It sounds to me as if you should use Thoro-Graph (which is what I use).

When I read discussions about sheets and Beyers and bad rails, one of the things I wonder about is why there is so little discussion of something that seems rather fundamental: If bad rails are important, then knowing when the rail was bad is important. If Beyer is going to claim, as he has done, that sheets do not work well on bad-rail days, then wouldn't there perhaps be something to be said for Beyer pointing out when an analysis of his figures and the positions of the horses suggests that a particular day had a bad rail? Thoro-Graph does this.

Also: Thoro-Graph tells you on the sheets how much ground horses lost on the turn. No, they don't do the math for you if you think groundloss was less important on a given day and thus want to adjust the figures, but I consider that to be one of those "Where there's a will, there's a way" things.

In addition, Thoro-Graph makes pace figures, which Beyer doesn't do--even though Beyer has written books about how important pace is.

Seems an easy call to me. You should use Thoro-Graph. Plus my analysis of personalities has convinced me that you will take a preternatural liking to the guy who makes their figures.

[the little guy]

Plus my analysis of personalities has convinced me that you will take a preternatural liking to the guy who makes their figures.
Now that's funny. Really funny.

[MitchS]

A "number" is just a gauge of a horse's ability regardless of how intricately developed or expensive to acquire that number is.

It is also historical - something that happened in the past.

Since horses are living, breathing beings, reducing their performance to a number and betting blindly on those numbers without delving into their current condition is not very wise.

Horse "A" who runs 2s and 3s on the sheets will ordinarily beat horses who run 4s. But if he gets a little sick between starts, he may run a 5 or 6 and leave you with a fist full of uncashable parimutuel tickets.

Well said and very true!

[bob60566]

I have to ask what angle does the handicapper play on these sheets or is there one out there that will beat the top four selections on other sheets, Bris and DRF.

Mac:confused:

[classhandicapper]

Classhandicapper,

It sounds to me as if you should use Thoro-Graph (which is what I use).

When I read discussions about sheets and Beyers and bad rails, one of the things I wonder about is why there is so little discussion of something that seems rather fundamental: If bad rails are important, then knowing when the rail was bad is important. If Beyer is going to claim, as he has done, that sheets do not work well on bad-rail days, then wouldn't there perhaps be something to be said for Beyer pointing out when an analysis of his figures and the positions of the horses suggests that a particular day had a bad rail? Thoro-Graph does this.

Also: Thoro-Graph tells you on the sheets how much ground horses lost on the turn. No, they don't do the math for you if you think groundloss was less important on a given day and thus want to adjust the figures, but I consider that to be one of those "Where there's a will, there's a way" things.

In addition, Thoro-Graph makes pace figures, which Beyer doesn't do--even though Beyer has written books about how important pace is.

Seems an easy call to me. You should use Thoro-Graph. Plus my analysis of personalities has convinced me that you will take a preternatural liking to the guy who makes their figures.

I don't disagree with much of what you are saying about Thoro-graph.

Basically.....

1. I don't want to do the math to back out the ground loss just to add it back my own way, but I do think those ground loss and bias notes are some of the better features of the product.

2. I sometimes have a problem with the way Thor-Graph does its track variant calculations and race result interpretations.

IMO, by breaking out so many races, they are sometimes building aspects of trip (especially pace) right into the figure via the track variant (and may not be aware of that). That's a problem for me. I want to make judgements like that on my own because IMO each horse is impacted differently within the same race. I also don't want to risk double counting trip if it's already built in.

3. Considering Jerry has barred me from his forum 3 times under 3 different names for bringing up some of these issues (granted probably way too often because HE made it personal) I'm not particularly anxious to support his product. I'll just be honest about it. It's very good, just not for me. So no, I don't think either of us is likely to be the best man at the other's wedding. :lol:


4. I like CJ's work the best because it is most similar to what I used to do when I wasn't so lazy. Plus, he's probably better at it than I was and doesn't give me grief when I disagree with him. :lol:

[Fastracehorse]

Is that at almost every major track, they are usually the #1 factor predictive of picking the winner - irrespective of mutuel. That is different than saying that "figs are the #1 factor that lead to every winner."

Of course, one would have to have experience with these types of metrics to determine this. And, probably my method in determining the #1 factor could be somewhat skewed because I am figure player ; for example, I noticed that I didn't measure the quality of jockey on most winners as a factor ( although I was/am cognizant of switches to top jocks and bugs); and hence, I am confident that I am making a fair assessment to the best of my ability.

Also, I'm not saying figures are the most potent factor in this determination; because I've noticed less common factors that are very reliable.

The next most common factor was being fresh. And I didn't notice the length of freshness; just the fact they are fresh.

So, figures are important. Furthermore, I don't do these exercises to show the efficacy of figures - just to get a feel for different venues; and of course, there are differences.

fffastt

[NYPlayer]

...if the Ragozin followers are making money, I doubt they care to see the sausage being made.

It's not really required is it? Besides, interpreting the numbers, finding the optimal races to bet, and fine-tuning your bets as the odds fluctuate is a specialty in its own right. All of that is hinged on trusting the numbers - that the geeks did the job right.

[sammy the sage]

I have/use such figures as you describe. They include an adjustment for weight only and are available here: www.XXXXXXXXX.com

Doubt you'll get much BY REQUIRING sign up before seeing TRUE samples and pricing...I'm certainly not giving info to UNKNOWN.... :faint:

ps...you might want to check w/site owner HERE...he doesn't take kindly to freeloading PRODUCT pusher's...since he has LEGIT paying advertiser's.

[pondman]

Within every culture is a counterculture, a group that goes against the grain, marching to their own drummer..

Counter culture? Thought this was about running with a juicer, and dropping a piece of pooh, a horse with such a bad PP into a soft spot.

It's sounds more of the same. Nerds moving around a decimal point, with no regards for the idea that all living things can have a bad day.

Not going to knock all figures, because I'm seeing some good work being done with pace in California. But these speed methods are going task your mental health. Is that grind worth it?