Gee, don't you guys ever go out and enjoy the sun?

I'm back from enjoying the Memorial Day weekend. No, I have not expired, but do have a day job.

A couple reply comments to Jerry on his latest reply to my last messages.

First, an overall comment: To a large extent these debates are stupid because Jerry, you have made it clear that your methodology makes certain unverified assumptions about equine behavior. Those users of yours who want to take your assumptions on faith are welcome to do so. But to me and many others, you have it backwards.

I stand by the creation/evolution comparison. The TG view reminds me of the creationists who argued that God had put the fossils there to test our faith and make it appear to non-believers that the earth was more than 6,000 years old. How do you argue against that? Maybe I'm stupid but when I see fossils and see the carbon and radium dating results, I tend to believe my eyes.

Lastly, your constant harping on the 13th race at Pimlico is now just funny. An 8 point change in the variant between races? Okee dokey. BTW, in your book is there a consistent effect on track variant when it dries? When it gets wet? Does it sometimes get faster and slower as it dries on the same day? Ever wondered whether it might make sense to figure out whether you should test those assumptions?

On to a couple of specifics:

1) I do believe that Quixote clearly enjoys sprinting because I believe the Ragozin numbers. And I have seen open length wins when a horse 'x's. I remember Bayakoa winning in the slop at Santa Anita with a 19 once -- in a 'Graded' Stakes race. Of course that was with Ragozin numbers so they probably had it wrong.

2) The turf course. Jerry -- your math here is just wrong. Unless you believe it is possible for a horse to run a time of 0:00, the difference is not 2%. If a turf course has a variability of plus or minus 10 seconds for a mile, then the 4 point (it looked more like 5 or 6) adjustment you made works out to an 8-10% improvement in the speed of the course in 2-3 hours. Given that they have a pretty good way of measuring the firmness of a course (that meter that they use in Europe a lot), you'd think that you could do better than just the assertion that you made and use some real data.

3) The Schafer field -- I gave you a horse-by-horse breakdown of the race and you gave basically nothing in response except to repeat your previous post that 'graded' horses run better than other horses. I will take your non-response as a concession.

While I grant that in general, 'graded' horses run better, you need to look at the specific horses to determine what they are likely to do.

What is most entertaining is that you have changed your characterization of the race three times. Your initial post of May 23 asserted that it was not possible that "an entire field of older graded stake horses bounced 6 points". [direct quote]

Then, on May 24 you changed your argument to say that every horse "RAN AT LEAST 6 POINTS OFF THEIR TOP". [direct quote]

Then, your latest post on May 25 goes back to the assertion that they can't all "bounce AT LEAST 6 POINTS". [direct quote]

Please, make up your mind! My point was that, taking each horse one by one, almost every horse in the field figured to run at least 6 points if not more off of their top. That is not the same as claiming that each horse was going to bounce 6 points. And, incidentally, not every horse bounced 6 points on the Ragozin sheets.

4) Of course your figures will 'fit' better because of your underlying assumptions about how horses run. No one is claiming that your numbers look perfect for every horse in every race. But once you have decided that horses can't do this or that, then you will by definition have a tighter range of numbers and a resulting 'prettier' looking sheet for most horses. Which is exactly why I find your product less than helpful.

5) I admire your marketing aggressiveness. It's what you have to do to try to sell more product. Why do you think Pepsi is always dissing Coke but Coke never talks about Pepsi?

In many ways, Ragozin discourages having too many customers. Why? For one, they are not graduates of the 'The Customer Comes First' school of business. Second, if too many people use their product, its value is diluted.

Coda: This kind of dialogue is fun for people like me but in the end it is pretty pointless. I have tried both products and found one to be the one I prefer based on the results I got. It is also based on a methodology that I agree with and is put out by the guys who were doing this stuff first.