First of all -- GET OUT YOUR CHECKBOOK, JERRY.

Hey Alydar -- See below. My comments are in brackets.

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?

[No, I am implying that I chose not to venture over to this board because I had better and more fun things to do. Problem?]

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.

[Alydar -- Just ask Jerry. Jerry's figs are based upon his views that horses run more predictable patterns (tight cycles) than Ragzin believes. As a result he changes his variants to reflect his views about what number the horses should have run. That's how he 'verifies' them. He has his variants going up and down like yo-yos on any given day. If he was using the actual track condition as a basis for the numbers you would have seen some kind of consistent results based on the maintenance or weather conditions. I'm sorry but just as a coin will eventually come down every time I flip it (physics at work), a track has certain characteristics that are consistent depending on the amount of moisture, depth, granularity, etc. If the same conditions prevail, the track should be the same speed. Changing the conditions in the same direction will result in the same change in track speed. It does not go both ways. But Jerry's variants go all over the place. A drying track gets faster, slower, and faster depending on what needs to happen to it for Jerry's numbers to work. There is no consistency to his adjustments. Ask to see a sample of 50 racing cards or so at the same track. And you know what, a 'grotesque' pattern is just what a lot of these horses run. Just because it's ugly doesn't make it wrong, unless you a priori believe that ugly patterns are wrong -- here we go with that whole creationism problem again.]

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?

[Alydar -- I do not believe that routine maintenance like watering has any measurable effect on the track speed. That's what my last post said. Certain conditions can change the conditions of the track but the water truck passing over the track does not make the next race significantly faster than the previous one. Though it would be interesting to know whether the amount of water that a water truck dumps is equal to or more than the amount of water that evaporated from the Pimlico track between the Preakness and 13th race. If so, don't you think that the watering affect could slow the track down or speed it up (Jerry doesn't have it straight either) 8 points every time? Hmmm?]

"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."

[No blind faith here. I'm sure that Ragozin blows a fig from time to time. But I'm talking about an overall methodology here. Like I said, I will take science over faith anytime].

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.

[See my previous posts. See physics. See chemistry. See meteorology. To be a bit less glib, at the risk of repeating myself -- the kinds of things we are talking about -- firmness of a turf course, resiliency of a dirt surface, are all eminently understandable physical things. They will react consistently under the same sets of conditions. Brown has been able to watch tens of thousands of races; thousands at each track. If he was serious about getting the track condition right he should be able to back up his variants with some kind of experience like -- "on 5 different occasions I have seen horses run 8 points faster on the Pimlico track when the track has dried out for an additional hour when the track had been drying out 'x' amount of hours . . . . I mean, wouldn't you think he'd have some kind of matrix by now? I wouldn't expect him to share the whole thing but I'd ask if he could share some part of it with us to see if it makes any sense. Jerry's been rattling the pipes about THE 13TH RACE!! for so long now. How about letting us see where he pulls some of his variants out of? He can't because he pulls them out of his mind, Alydar and he admits it. Again, if I saw some kind of consistency to Brown's adjustment I might have more respect but it's just goofy what he does sometimes.

Bottom line, Alyday -- Wouldn't you want some kind of empirical physical support from the guy who you pay all of this money to? I don't expect to 'prove' you wrong, but at least admit that you are making a leap of faith -- one that is very different than the one I am making. I am simply agreeing that I believe what I see. If you read the whole book 'The Odds Must Be Crazy' you will get a much better idea about how Ragozin makes variants than Brown represents on this board.]

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."

[Alydar -- I think you mean tautological. Teleology is just the study of knowledge. Tautology is a circular argument or truism. BTW, of course it's a tautology. So is Jerry's point on this. That's why so much of this stuff is just running around in circles].

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.

[Alydar. Sorry, wrong again. While a 4 point change might represent 2% of the final time (I'm not disagreeing with that math, nor would Ragozin), that is not the same as saying that the turf course only dried out by 2%, which is what Brown suggested. The question is whether a course can really get 1.4 seconds faster in 2-3 hours under the conditions that prevailed that day. My sense is no way -- not even close. And Brown's 'answer' -- which is part of his interesting habit of changing his argument or trying to rephrase the question (see his triple change of point on the Schafer) -- was nonexistent. Again, don't you think that with all of the races he's watched he'd have some empirical support for his adjustment??]

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.

[Alydar. No, he did not respond to my horse-by-horse analysis. He did, of course, flip flop on his point for the third time. He didn't respond specifically because he can't refute that those individual horses in that individual race were almost all a bunch of ouchy pigs recently coming off of big races or layoffs. If he did, please cut and paste it into a message on a string. If he did not, please stop throwing around big words like 'nonsense' when what I wrote was exactly the opposite of nonsense.]

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?

[Alydar. Again, I have no problem with a pretty pattern, as long as it's based on what the horse ran not on what JB thinks horses run. And yes, I have made figures in the past. Way back when I went to the races a lot more, but found the Sheets to be a lot more accurate and that they saved me a bunch of time].

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?

[Again with the unsupported adjectives. You're trying to analyze Ragozin as if it is a publicly traded profit maximizing firm, which it isn't. It's a bunch of communist/socialists who use their profits for God knows what. But you cannot dispute that 1) Their customer service is lousy -- that was my first point. Not ludicrous. Or 2) that if too many people use the product that its value is diluted. Are you really arguing with that?]

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.

[Alydar. It's not about motive, it's about philosophy. Brown changes the variant because he doesn't think that horses do this or that. As a result, in my belief, he ends up with inaccurate numbers. I don't think its intentional. But he will do some pretty interesting gymnastics (e.g., an 8 point variant change) to make his numbers come out the way he thinks they should. This doesn't happen every race, of course, but when the pre-ordained 'ranges' are in jeopardy of being exceeded, you will see some pretty eye-opening variant changes.]

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.

[Just saw the numbers. And guess what -- they look about right. Is that a surprise? Let me guess. Jerry's going to post some hyperbole-laden diatribe about how bad Ragozin blew the number. And on we go. . . .]