HP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuckles,

>
> You're another one. Just endlessly repeating
> nonsense. You even keep going after Ghostzapper
> has run holes in the wind over and over again.
> The facts don't have any impact on you. You don't
> think much of Ghostzapper? Really? Tell us
> again.
>
> HP


HP, lets talk about something novel. Lets talk about figures, whatayousay? To do this, lets create what is referred to in the scientific community as a “hypothetical”. Lets say there’s a day’s racing card at an eastern track. Because completely unchanging surfaces are so rare in a day of horseracing, lets assume in our hypothetical the surface received rainfall the previous night and was in a drying out condition throughout the race day. Lets further assume that in the drying out condition the track is gradually changing with the passage of time between each race to become more glib or faster. Late on the card, one of the Stakes features on the day is run and on a par time for respective class comparison the race comes up a little slow, however these horses are in a class where you can anticipate them running tops or near tops on a fairly regular basis per a relatively new statistical analysis regarding such. Additionally, in the past on the respective performance figures they have been relatively consistent in the performance figures they have earned.

The scenario: The track has been becoming faster yet the consistent Stakes horses have run slower on a par time review. Do you give them full faith and credit for being as good as they have been or do you figure them down on the “objective” basis of their raw race time? In other words did they run another hole in the wind?

Now the answer to that question seems straightforward, but is it? Now, to make our hypothetical more interesting assume you don't have a handle on a drying out condition and the Stakes horses run a bit slow.

lol






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2005 10:06AM by Chuckles_the_Clown2.