Re: Consistency in the ROTW (444 Views)
Posted by:
TGJB (IP Logged)
Date: November 15, 2004 05:26PM
First of all, Alan did ROTW and he isn't here today to say why he picked it. But we choose a race that either will be of public interest or enable us to illustrate ways to use or data, or both. It almost never has to do with whether there is a good bet in the race, but with whether there are things to discuss. It's a teaching tool.
Second of all, it's pretty tough on the math (or in looking at the sheets for the race) to think that anyone was BETTER than 5/2 to win the race with that many horses with competitive numbers. Here's the point-- Wegalia was either the most likely winner, co-most likely winner, or a likely winner, any way you look at it we gave him a very good shot. He was not a bet at a very short price, AND NEITHER WOULD ANYONE ELSE IN THE RACE BE. NO MATTER WHO ENDS UP WINNING.
This aside-- recognize the ROTW for what it is, as everyone else does. It's not a pick, and even if it were, we are giving away both data and analysis without charge. It has nothing to do with what you pay for other data, and if that's a problem, stop buying it. If you want to comment on ROTW before the fact, I welcome it, and from what little I've seen you have a good opinion-- all the better. That kind of discussion is productive-- this is a pain in the butt for no reason.
TGJB