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. (1133 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? (2302 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/28/2002 10:51PM |
Didn't we already talk science? (1307 Views)
|
Treadhead |
05/29/2002 12:10AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1206 Views)
|
JimP |
05/29/2002 12:33AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1116 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/29/2002 12:43AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1151 Views)
|
Treadhead |
05/29/2002 01:11AM |
Re: Didn't we already talk science? (1097 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 03:27PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1205 Views)
|
Mall |
05/29/2002 02:12AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1207 Views)
|
tegger |
05/29/2002 03:39AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1162 Views)
|
Mark O'Keeffe |
05/29/2002 04:58AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1201 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/29/2002 08:23AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1219 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/29/2002 04:28PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1173 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/29/2002 05:02PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1075 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/29/2002 05:35PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1131 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 06:11PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1133 Views) |
David Patent |
05/29/2002 07:18PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1170 Views)
|
JimP |
05/29/2002 07:37PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1098 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 08:16PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1093 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/30/2002 12:48AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1159 Views)
|
teekay |
06/03/2002 08:17PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1216 Views)
|
mandown |
05/29/2002 09:58PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1126 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/30/2002 12:25AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1075 Views)
|
mandown |
05/30/2002 02:46AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1206 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/30/2002 03:48AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1192 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/30/2002 09:29AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1187 Views)
|
Patrick Morgan |
05/29/2002 05:03PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1158 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/29/2002 05:15PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1140 Views)
|
Patrick Morgan |
05/29/2002 05:38PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1212 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/30/2002 10:25PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1233 Views)
|
Mall |
05/30/2002 10:48PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1103 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 12:02AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1186 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 03:37AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1267 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 07:25AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1108 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 07:30AM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1155 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 12:42PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1208 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 12:45PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1127 Views)
|
David G. Patent |
05/31/2002 12:50PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1268 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 01:16PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1117 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 04:41PM |
Re: jerry (1257 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 05:34PM |
Re: jerry (1128 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 05:56PM |
Re: jerry (1123 Views)
|
David Patent |
05/31/2002 06:02PM |
Re: jerry (1174 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 06:20PM |
Re: jerry (1192 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 06:32PM |
Re: jerry (1082 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 06:55PM |
Re: jerry (1165 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
05/31/2002 07:35PM |
Re: jerry (1082 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 08:33PM |
Re: jerry (1058 Views)
|
Jason L. |
05/31/2002 09:44PM |
Re: jerry (1153 Views)
|
Michael D. |
05/31/2002 10:05PM |
Re: jerry (1210 Views)
|
Jason L. |
05/31/2002 10:34PM |
Re: jerry (1151 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 11:06PM |
Re: endless bitchy catfights (1165 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
06/01/2002 07:21AM |
Re: jerry (1178 Views)
|
Jason L. |
06/01/2002 08:32PM |
Re: jerry (1232 Views)
|
TGJB |
06/02/2002 04:13PM |
Re: jerry (1327 Views)
|
Jason L. |
06/03/2002 07:40PM |
Bill Clinton Medallion of Merit (1267 Views)
|
Anonymous User |
06/01/2002 03:15AM |
Re: jerry (1151 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 08:27PM |
David: Two More Things To Think About (1130 Views)
|
Mall |
05/31/2002 08:42PM |
Re: David: Two More Things To Think About (1045 Views)
|
BrettFavre |
05/31/2002 09:34PM |
Re: David: Two More Things To Think About (1152 Views)
|
tgab |
05/31/2002 10:20PM |
Re: David: Two More Things To Think About (1115 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 11:04PM |
Re: jerry (1203 Views)
|
HP |
05/31/2002 06:12PM |
Re: Mild Dissent. (1152 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/31/2002 04:07PM |
Re: alydar (1200 Views)
|
superfreakicus |
05/31/2002 04:37PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1133 Views)
|
Patrick Morgan |
06/03/2002 11:53PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1154 Views)
|
Alydar in California |
06/04/2002 07:37AM |
Re: David, David, David. (1077 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 03:15PM |
Re: David, David, David. (1079 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 03:10PM |
track speed (1165 Views)
|
nunzio |
05/29/2002 11:37AM |
Re: Last Words? (959 Views)
|
HP |
05/29/2002 01:20PM |
Re: Last Words? (1165 Views)
|
TGJB |
05/29/2002 05:50PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|