Order Online |
Complete Menu of
TG Data products |
Customize a Value
Package of Select
TG Data |
Order The Last Figure for Any Horse |
Free Products |
Download and Review previous days' data. |
With detailed comments |
Email notification when your horse races |
Information |
For newcomers.
Samples and Tutorials |
Consulting services and Graph Racing |
Where to buy TG around the country |
Historical
races and handicapping articles |
Handicapping |
Major handicapping contest winners |
|
|
Re: David, David, David. (1122 Views)
Posted by: David Patent (IP Logged)
Date: May 29, 2002 07:18PM
Actually, Jerry, they used the same variant. See Friedman's post on the subject.
To your other points:
1) I have made figures before so I don't need a lecture on the subject. Your first sentence reveals exactly what I have been saying all along -- that the past determines the future; and that's why you get into trouble messing with variants, making them faster, slower, faster to so that the 'tight ranges' are not violated.
2) The dead horse is beaten.
3) Jerry, all I know is what the number was -- it was a 19. It was early in the year 1990 or 1991 I think. I'm sure you think Ragozin got the number wrong, so what's the point of discussing this?
4) However you want to characterize the % change -- and I still believe that it is more meaningful to deal with realistic ranges -- I asked for some historical data to back up your adjustment. You gave none. Zippo. Zilch. And we both know why, don't we?
5) You are still failing to engage on the specific horses involved. Yes, graded horses tend to run better, yes they tend to run more close to their tops. But my point was, and is still unrefuted by you that the specific horses in the Schafer all figured to bounce and all but 1 of them (Bowman's Band) were not typical graded stakes horses but allowance-types who happened to be entered in a graded stake race whose particular patterns were awful going into the race. Now, you can always claim that Ragozin's numbers in the prior races for these horses were all wrong, but if I look at the Rag. sheets and try to say what percent chance those horses had of running well, it was about 80/90% to run bad for most of them. You arbitrarily pick 50/50 but 1) look at the percentage of good numbers most of those horses were running and 2) the % of the time they bounced off big efforts. That will give you a clue that 50/50 was wildly optimistic for that bunch. And even if the chance of all running bad was 2% that's still 1 race in 50, which happens 2-3 times a day in America.
6) Fair enough. However, I think it's fair to say that the content on this board is more confrontational to the competitor than vice versa, which I don't have a problem with in theory, though the substance of most of the posts is, shall we say, less than enlightened.
Last Words? (2282 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/28/2002 10:51PM |
Didn't we already talk science? (1295 Views)
|
Treadhead |
05/29/2002 12:10AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1195 Views)
|
JimP |
05/29/2002 12:33AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1105 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/29/2002 12:43AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1140 Views)
|
Treadhead |
05/29/2002 01:11AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1086 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 03:27PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1194 Views)
|
Mall |
05/29/2002 02:12AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1195 Views)
|
tegger |
05/29/2002 03:39AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1151 Views)
|
Mark O'Keeffe |
05/29/2002 04:58AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1189 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/29/2002 08:23AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1208 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/29/2002 04:28PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1162 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/29/2002 05:02PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1061 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/29/2002 05:35PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1118 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 06:11PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1122 Views) |
David Patent |
05/29/2002 07:18PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1159 Views)
|
JimP |
05/29/2002 07:37PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1087 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 08:16PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1081 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/30/2002 12:48AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1144 Views)
|
teekay |
06/03/2002 08:17PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1204 Views)
|
mandown |
05/29/2002 09:58PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1114 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/30/2002 12:25AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1064 Views)
|
mandown |
05/30/2002 02:46AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1196 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/30/2002 03:48AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1179 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/30/2002 09:29AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1176 Views)
|
Patrick Morgan |
05/29/2002 05:03PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1146 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/29/2002 05:15PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1128 Views)
|
Patrick Morgan |
05/29/2002 05:38PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1200 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/30/2002 10:25PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1205 Views)
|
Mall |
05/30/2002 10:48PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1092 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 12:02AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1176 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 03:37AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1254 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 07:25AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1092 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 07:30AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1141 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 12:42PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1197 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 12:45PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1116 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 12:50PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1258 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 01:16PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1105 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 04:41PM |
Re: jerry (1246 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 05:34PM |
Re: jerry (1115 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 05:56PM |
Re: jerry (1111 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/31/2002 06:02PM |
Re: jerry (1164 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 06:20PM |
Re: jerry (1182 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 06:32PM |
Re: jerry (1071 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 06:55PM |
Re: jerry (1154 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 07:35PM |
Re: jerry (1072 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 08:33PM |
Re: jerry (1046 Views)
|
Jason L. |
05/31/2002 09:44PM |
Re: jerry (1142 Views)
|
Michael D. |
05/31/2002 10:05PM |
Re: jerry (1198 Views)
|
Jason L. |
05/31/2002 10:34PM |
Re: jerry (1140 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 11:06PM |
Re: endless bitchy catfights (1155 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
06/01/2002 07:21AM |
Re: jerry (1164 Views)
|
Jason L. |
06/01/2002 08:32PM |
Re: jerry (1209 Views)
|
TGJB |
06/02/2002 04:13PM |
Re: jerry (1315 Views)
|
Jason L. |
06/03/2002 07:40PM |
Bill Clinton Medallion of Merit (1257 Views)
|
Anonymous User |
06/01/2002 03:15AM |
Re: jerry (1140 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 08:27PM |
David: Two More Things To Think About (1118 Views)
|
Mall |
05/31/2002 08:42PM |
Re: David: Two More Things To Think About (1035 Views)
|
BrettFavre |
05/31/2002 09:34PM |
Re: David: Two More Things To Think About (1128 Views)
|
tgab |
05/31/2002 10:20PM |
Re: David: Two More Things To Think About (1104 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 11:04PM |
Re: jerry (1191 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 06:12PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1140 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 04:07PM |
Re: alydar (1186 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 04:37PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1121 Views)
|
Patrick Morgan |
06/03/2002 11:53PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1142 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
06/04/2002 07:37AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1066 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 03:15PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1067 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 03:10PM |
track speed (1154 Views)
|
nunzio |
05/29/2002 11:37AM |
Re: Last Words? (946 Views)
|
HP |
05/29/2002 01:20PM |
Re: Last Words? (1152 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 05:50PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|