SoCal,

"You are saying you know something 100% "

You are correct.

I do think it is 100% certain that 3-4 preps is generally not a bad thing. I also think anyone that argues otherwise is probably arguing with that conclusion just for the sake of arguing - because he dislikes me.

"However, judging by your latest emission, you still seem to think it is incontrovertible that one approach is better than another."

Absolutely not. I never said anything even remotely resembling that. If I were a trainer though, I'd let someone else prove it.

I know that 3-4 preps is fine based on the history of the race.

I do not consider a sampling of speed figures from the last 10 or so Derbies to be 100% conclusive. I consider it worthy evidence to be considered, but I am not as focused on figures as some people and the sample is just as small.

"Then, you have the gall to say we rejected your 'evidence' due to our dogmatism."

I never asked anyone to accept countering evidence. I was explaining how I use the "concept" of "margin of safety" in my betting when I am unsure of something.

I must admit I was a little surprised at the resistance to the thinking - but not to the stats.

The ROI evidence suggested that the group had been a very poor bet so far. It also seems as though if you refine it a little further by looking at odds and finish position, they still underperformed.

That evidence is also very far from conclusive.

Hence "my" dilemma.

As far as "I" am concerned there isn't enough evidence one way or the other about whether 1-2 preps is just as good as 3-4.

It may be.
It may not be.
It may be for some horses and not others.
It may be for some trainers and not for others.

Forgive me if my standard of proof is higher than yours and if I tend to take a conservative attitude when I bet my money. Until I am convinced, I think it is prudent for me to insist on a slightly higher price on the board for horses like B&R than I would otherwise ask for.



Post Edited (04-11-05 15:26)