Let me take a shot at this while everyone else is asleep.

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

Translation: You're implying that you didn't have time to reply until now. How did you find the time to discuss the O2X pattern Sunday and Monday on the Sheets board?

Patent: "...Jerry, you have made it clear that your methodology makes certain unverified assumptions about equine behavior."

Equine behavior? Good God, David. Anyway, you're wrong. JB assesses the speed of the track based on the performances of the horses who run over it. And these assessments are verified by the pairs, trios, and tight cycles that you detest. Love them or loathe them, tight cycles are not sustainable unless the numbers are accurate. Barring fudging within a race, which JB doesn't do, bad numbers will perpetuate themselves and eventually result in loose cycles, jagged edges, and grotesque-looking patterns. You'll have lots of different patterns to read, but the patterns will have no basis in reality.

Let me ask you a question, David. You believe that watering and other maintenance can affect the speed of the track from race to race. You have made that clear. What do you think of this quote from Ragozin's book?

"I set tougher standards: the horses' lines must look as reasonable as possible--BUT ALL THE FIGURES MUST USE THE SAME VARIANT UNLESS RAIN OR A FREEZE OR A THAW CHANGES THINGS."

Doesn't this sentence "invalidate" Ragozin's figures in your eyes? What do you think of Ragozin's boast that his figures are "accurate to a few inches" at some tracks. Is this a lie? Leaving everything else aside, isn't the rounding to .25 by itself sufficient to make this one of the biggest whoppers ever told? Is your faith in Ragozin blind? Remember Springsteen's "War" on the live album: "Blind faith will get you killed."

Patent: "I stand by the creation/evolution comparison."

Stand by it as long as you wish, but at some point, please get around to presenting some evidence for it.

Patent: "I do believe that Quixote clearly enjoys sprinting because I believe the Ragozin numbers."

David, David, David: Besides classically begging the question, this seems teleological: "Quixote prefers sprinting because if Quixote doesn't prefer sprinting, Ragozin's numbers look even worse."

Patent: "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 percent."

On page 64 of his book, Ragozin uses the same math that JB did. JB wrote that he was discussing "final time," not variant ranges. David, this is where your habit of starting new strings to reply to old statements is beginning to grate.

Patent: "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."

This is total nonsense, David. JB replied to this, but you ducked it and started a new string. JB didn't say graded horses run better than other horses. He said they are treated better and their races are exceedingly unlikely to collapse as if on cue. In truth, Ragozin "collapsed" this race by tying it to the Preakness.

Patent: "Of course your figures will 'fit' better because of your underlying assumptions about how horses run."

See above. Whether they "fit" or not, inaccurate numbers boomerang on their maker because horses run back against different competition. Inaccurate numbers lead to ugly, contorted patterns in the future, not to the pretty numbers you find so off-putting. Have you ever made figures, David?

Patent: "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."

To write that paragraph is to prove oneself capable of writing anything. Let's pretend for a second that it's not completely ludicrous. If this is Ragozin's philosophy, how should he proceed? Should he raise his prices, which would reduce his sales and hassles but increase his profit-per-sale? Or should he allow his employees to get caught on tape telling flat-out lies about TG in order to gain more customers and hurt his own odds?

Patent: "That's because he [JB] doesn't care about the track surface. He cares about making the numbers come out the way he wants them too."

Now you're into motive, David, and with all due respect, your reasoning is idiotic. Of course he cares about track surface. The whole premise of the projection method is that looking at previous performances is the best way to assess today's track surface. Think about what you are saying. You're saying that JB intentionally makes inaccurate figures because he wants pretty numbers. And you're saying that he knowingly sells inaccurate numbers and knowingly uses inaccurate numbers for buying and placing horses. To be honest, I've always respected you. That's one reason I never replied to you--on either board--until the other day. But this is a descent into madness.

Patent on the Sheets board, possibly deleted by Wednesday morning: "I have heard that you guys blew 2 of the 7 variants at Havre de Grace April 12 1948--the day Citation lost before winning 16 in a row. Please post all numbers for that day. I'll give you 1000 dollars."

Felicitous comparison. I can see you're itching to see the numbers for the 13th race. Personally, I'll be happy to wait until Patrick Morgan begs for all the numbers.