Indyann breaks down

[Premier Turf Club]

Originally Posted by George Sands

Ian certainly believed in bouncing back when he posted (superbly) about it on the Thoro-Graph board. And a gentleman on Ian's website (brilliant handicapper, beyond brilliant on grass) spoke so much about bounce theory (he believed in it) that it would take months to post it all here.

Ian still believes in bouncing, especially when it comes to cheap/older horses. CH is right in some instances there are other explanations but over the last few years I have spent enough time around some good horsemen to know that there are times where a "bounce" is the most logical explanation. I don't believe it as literally as Len or Jerry might but I absolutely use probability patterns in my handicapping. Basically what I do is assign a horse an "effective top" and then some pattern grade A thru F that reflects their ability to run that top (or in the case of developing horses, even better).

That being said, in order for the pattern / bounce theory to work at all you need very good figures to begin with which is why I am a big believer in the service that CJ, Ragozin and TG provide.

The guy GS is referring to is Chris Larmey who goes by the name Derby1592. He is by far the best sheet reader I have ever known personally. He only plays casually but makes money every year doing this with no rebate.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Premier Turf Club

Ian still believes in bouncing, especially when it comes to cheap/older horses. CH is right in some instances there are other explanations but over the last few years I have spent enough time around some good horsemen to know that there are times where a "bounce" is the most logical explanation. I don't believe it as literally as Len or Jerry might but I absolutely use probability patterns in my handicapping. Basically what I do is assign a horse an "effective top" and then some pattern grade A thru F that reflects their ability to run that top (or in the case of developing horses, even better).

That being said, in order for the pattern / bounce theory to work at all you need very good figures to begin with which is why I am a big believer in the service that CJ, Ragozin and TG provide.

The guy GS is referring to is Chris Larmey who goes by the name Derby1592. He is by far the best sheet reader I have ever known personally. He only plays casually but makes money every year doing this with no rebate.

Over the years, I learned a few things about horse development by reading the analysis of major stakes races done on the TG and RAGs boards.

However, both camps market their figures in a way that suggests that "their product is all you need" and that almost everything is in the figures. That puts them in the position of having to make selections based almost exclusively on figures and figure patterns.

IMO that's actually kind of a silly position to put yourself in because so few serious horseplayers actually believe that figures and figure patterns are all you need. Yet at the price they are charging for figures, they are appealing to serious horseplayers.

Many of their customers are looking at lots of other things and actually believe that pace, bias, quality of competition, trip, and other less tangible aspects of ability routinely have an impact on race results and figures despite the marketing.

I can't speak for either Len or Jerry, but based on his selections I suspect that Len is actually a much more comprehensive thinker than he lets on.

To me, the whole trick is to recognize the difference between fluctuations in figures that result from actually being knocked out by a fast race and those that result from other things, including randomness. If you classify almost all downward moves off a fast race as "being knocked out" like they do, you wind up with a very exaggerated view of how likely it is for a horse who "legitimately earned a top figure" to bounce because of being knocked out.

Proponents of bounce theory are constantly throwing out legitimate big figure horses expecting them to bounce and they wind up repeating WAY WAY more often than they are expecting.

I sometimes believe it would be possible to put together a winning strategy based exclusively on "anti bounce theory" because these days so many people overestimate the probabilities that a horse won't repeat a huge effort "in some specific circumstances".

All that said, I think Len is a great handicapper and I hope to pick up some more insights from him in his area of expertise over time.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by George Sands

I'm not sure that any book has done as much to promote bounce theory as "Beyer on Speed." Beyer was preaching to the unconverted in chapter two.

George,

This is true to some degree.

He acknowledged that there are some figure patterns and horses that are unlikely to repeat a fast race, but he's also a huge proponent of bias, trip and to a lesser degree pace and their impact on figures. So there are simply an enormous number of situations that one camp would classify as a bounce that he would disagree strongly about and give another explanation.

[George Sands]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

However, both camps market their figures in a way that suggests that "their product is all you need" and that almost everything is in the figures. That puts them in the position of having to make selections based almost exclusively on figures and figure patterns.

Thoro-Graph: Sire stats, dam-side stats, jockey stats, bias notes, trouble notes, Race Shapes (pace figures), trainer stats done by percentage, trainer stats done in terms of speed figures, ground loss from previous races for projecting today's ground loss, etc.

[Robert Fischer]

good trainer and jockey stats on Thoro-Graph

[George Sands]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

George,

This is true to some degree.

He acknowledged that there are some figure patterns and horses that are unlikely to repeat a fast race, but he's also a huge proponent of bias, trip and to a lesser degree pace and their impact on figures. So there are simply an enormous number of situations that one camp would classify as a bounce that he would disagree strongly about and give another explanation.

On the subject of a DRF computer study that appears in the book, Beyer wrote:

"And it confirms Ragozin's central tenet that a peak performance is apt to be followed by a decline."

This is from someone who had ridiculed sheet theory for years. However, I agree with your point about Beyer classifying more races as non-bounces. But my point was based on the influence of the person doing the writing. Beyer has a big audience (by racing's standards), and in this book he was admitting that he had been wrong. Ragozin even praised him for this in his own book.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by George Sands

Thoro-Graph: Sire stats, dam-side stats, jockey stats, bias notes, trouble notes, Race Shapes (pace figures), trainer stats done by percentage, trainer stats done in terms of speed figures, ground loss from previous races for projecting today's ground loss, etc.

I agree that other valuable information is available at TG. In fact I sometimes think the other info is more valuable than the figures these days. But there are huge gaps in the area of trip, pace, bias etc.... that are commonly used by handicappers that are borderline taboo there.

If I said that horse "A" was part of a fast competitive pace chasing a higher quality horse and would have tired badly but he got carried by a big speed bias and the fact that the rail path was best, I would get laughed out of town (and often have).

If I said that horse "B" got 4 TG points subtracted from his speed figure because of the huge amount of ground he lost on both turns, but horses with that trip were running very well all that day, yet the rail didn't seem dead either, I might get barred. (and probably did)

[cj]

A horse runs these figures on TG, spaced a month apart, most recent first:

4, 7, 8, 6, 7, 5

Obviously, the likelihood of this horse running better than four next time are slim. I would say the chances of a repeat are 1 in 6, and a regression 5 in 6. It has nothing to do with "bouncing", but the fact the horse probably just had ideal circumstances when he ran his 4.

I am not saying a horse never regresses from a tough race or series of races, but the amount of times it is simply attributed to a bounce is ridiculous. Nothing beats knowing everything you can about how the figures are earned, and I think using the term "bounce" is a lazy way out.

[George Sands]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree that other valuable information is available at TG. In fact I sometimes think the other info is more valuable than the figures these days. But there are huge gaps in the area of trip, pace, bias etc.... that are commonly used by handicappers that are borderline taboo there.

If I said that horse "A" was part of a fast competitive pace chasing a higher quality horse and would have tired badly but he got carried by a big speed bias and the fact that the rail path was best, I would get laughed out of town (and often have).

If I said that horse "B" got 4 TG points subtracted from his speed figure because of the huge amount of ground he lost on both turns, but horses with that trip were running very well all that day, yet the rail didn't seem dead either, I might get barred. (and probably did)

CH,

First of all, I don't trust somebody until he has been banned from the Thoro-Graph board at least once. So you are, as you know, better than fine in my book.

I use TG every day and I think the numbers are terrific, but I'm always happy to argue the point with you because I like the way you look at things.

Regarding your third paragraph: You didn't get banned for making that point once. You got banned for making it 847 times. And no, I do not think you should have been banned. Now, if you want to make the point an 848th time, and do it here, I would love that because it would be mad fun. I will take JB's side, since it deserves to be represented. You take your side again. Nobody gets banned (except possibly me if Indulto chimes in).

[the little guy]

I think Jerry once called me out on his board after I said publically people who believed in bounce were lazy.

Are you sure you are ready to fill the big shoes of Jerry Brown?

[George Sands]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Are you sure you are ready to fill the big shoes of Jerry Brown?

Want to have some real fun? Seriously? Ask him.

By the way, he did "call you out" on your bounce comment, but only after calling you his friend.

Myself, I've been waiting for an opportunity to call you out for the speed-figures-are-of-little-use-on-turf comments that you made in that "Six Secrets" book.

[the little guy]

I could probably qualify that thought with a larger discussion....if I didn't have a boatload of replays to watch.

I think they are less reliable than dirt figures as they are more dependant on pace and you need to analyze a lot more variables in turf racing than dirt racing and thus they are less significant in turf racing. I guess you could say that while I think it is always important to understand as well as possible how a figure is earned, that process is much more complicated in turf racing.

[George Sands]

Originally Posted by cj

A horse runs these figures on TG, spaced a month apart, most recent first:

4, 7, 8, 6, 7, 5

Obviously, the likelihood of this horse running better than four next time are slim. I would say the chances of a repeat are 1 in 6, and a regression 5 in 6. It has nothing to do with "bouncing", but the fact the horse probably just had ideal circumstances when he ran his 4.

I am not saying a horse never regresses from a tough race or series of races, but the amount of times it is simply attributed to a bounce is ridiculous. Nothing beats knowing everything you can about how the figures are earned, and I think using the term "bounce" is a lazy way out.

This horse just ran a one-point new top and is getting 30 days rest. Even with all the in-between numbers and the reaction to the 5 and the 6, his chances of running another new top are, to my mind, better than you have them here. But getting to your main point:

I'm not a sheet purist to the extent Brown and Friedman are. I handicap by placing Thoro-Graph and pace figures side by side, and then marrying them to what I see on videotape. The result of this is that in effect I'm often looking at patterns that are less jagged (less "bouncy") than the ones Brown and Friedman are looking at. CH and I have discussed this at great length. We agree on general approach, but I don't believe in taking it as far as he does. Thus, I will often see bounces where he (and you?) sees biases, etc.

In any event, Brown and Friedman have hit on an approach that works extraordinarily well for them in practice--in the trenches. It has stood the test of time. It would take all the chutzpah I could muster, and then some, for me to tell them that what they are doing is "lazy," and that they should shelve their approach and start watching videotapes the way TLG, CH, and I do--especially given that their approach has allowed them to make very nice livings selling their work at fairly hefty prices.

[sevenall]

Originally Posted by cj

A horse runs these figures on TG, spaced a month apart, most recent first:

4, 7, 8, 6, 7, 5

Obviously, the likelihood of this horse running better than four next time are slim. I would say the chances of a repeat are 1 in 6, and a regression 5 in 6. It has nothing to do with "bouncing", but the fact the horse probably just had ideal circumstances when he ran his 4.

I am not saying a horse never regresses from a tough race or series of races, but the amount of times it is simply attributed to a bounce is ridiculous. Nothing beats knowing everything you can about how the figures are earned, and I think using the term "bounce" is a lazy way out.

Although, if this was the entire race record of a 3-year old...I might look for him to improve (with a better than 1 in 6 chance) after he slightly improved on his lifetime "5".

Your point is spot on though CJ. The "bounce" really depends on the circumstances of the race (pace, trip, layoff, etc).

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by George Sands

CH,

First of all, I don't trust somebody until he has been banned from the Thoro-Graph board at least once. So you are, as you know, better than fine in my book.

I use TG every day and I think the numbers are terrific, but I'm always happy to argue the point with you because I like the way you look at things.

Regarding your third paragraph: You didn't get banned for making that point once. You got banned for making it 847 times. And no, I do not think you should have been banned. Now, if you want to make the point an 848th time, and do it here, I would love that because it would be mad fun. I will take JB's side, since it deserves to be represented. You take your side again. Nobody gets banned (except possibly me if Indulto chimes in).

847 was enough.

I guess getting banned twice under two different IDs rates pretty high.

Seriously though, it's impossible for me to discuss races intelligently from my perspective without bringing up some aspects of trip, pace, figure fluctuation, quality of competition etc.... that call into question some aspects of Sheet and TG methodology. I see others bring the same things up all the time too, but it's core to my play/handicapping and unavoidable in almost every race. I never really understood why that should be more of an issue with me specifically other than I refused to go along with the cult leader and bow before him when I disagreed. I very rarley called a figure into question - just what it meant, how it was earned, how to use it etc...

I belong on this and CJ's board anyway. It's all for the best. I hope all is well with you.