In re: Indulto's flattering request for my input -- here goes (and I hate myself for this because I am going to throw a tidbit Classhandicapper's way).

There is no question that each set of figures reflect certain judgments on the part of the figure maker and his trackmen. I am not intending to be sexist here -- if there are female figure makers and/or trackwomen out there, I would like to meet you and apologize in person.

Beyer's figures (which I ignore) reflect the judgment that weight and ground are better evaluated by the individual doing the handicapping rather than by the figure maker.

Thorograph and Ragozin -- the two best products I am aware of -- already reflect in their figures certain areas where the figure makers are uncertain about the data or the consequences of the data.

Thorograph uses boxes where a figure cannot be made and also uses "?" when there are certain types of doubt (although based on recent posts, I am now unsure about "time?" -- this either means, (a) there is doubt as to the accurate timing of the race and we used the time we judge to be the most accurate or (b) the time we used is quite a bit different from the official time, but we know that our time is right and the official time is wrong. I understand TGJB to be saying that the symbol means (b), but if that is the case, I am unsure as to why this needs to be signified).

Ragozin will use the "~" in certain cases to reflect various types of uncertainty. Also, I, personally, take all numbers which reflect a track condition of ".." or some of the other unusual track conditions symbols ragozin uses with an extra grain of salt.

We also know from last year's Breeders Cup that Off Poorly symbols or trouble symbols can be a big deal when it comes to judgments affecting the evaluation of a horse's performance. The pace notations (slow, fest, etc) are of the same ilk. All of these are items which could have affected a figure, but the figure maker is saying be aware that the figure may not encapsulate everything relevant.

Now for the issue before us -- numbers which are potentially uncertain as a result of the variant. TGJB has admitted here that there are occasions where a variant was particularly difficult to make and there are rare cases where he will go back and change numbers already awarded because with more information he is able to better assess the variant. I do not know how Ragozin handles such a situation because Ragozin (or Robespierre) does not entertain much discussion of the arcana of variant making. I really do not know if Ragozin would ever say a variant was difficult to make or whether retroactively evaluating variants is something that should be done from time to time.

I understand people having concerns about retroactively making variants and the risks of creating a certain circularity in the numbers. However, I also recognize that there are cases where a variant is extremely difficult to make and a judgment can be wrong no matter how good a figure maker's judgment is. I have confidence that TGJB is very aware of these issues and uses his best judgement in this area. I also trust his judgment and note that he is willing to expose his judgment to criticism here, in the marketplace of ideas, and engage in constructive dialog about his figure making which to me gives his figures a certain credibility. As I have mentioned previously, TGJB has a track record of responding well to people who bring to his attention errors in his figures and he will admit a mistake and correct it.

Now, I am not interested in knowing whether a particular race was "cut loose" or for some reason the variant differs from other variants used in the same day. If the figure maker uses a different variant and is confident in it, that is good enough for me. When I buy figures, I do not want all the raw data that went into them. What I am paying the figure maker for is to take all the chaotic data, use his judgment, and give me something that reasonably encapsulates the relevant information to evaluate how a horse performed on a given day. If he feels good about it, then so do I. In other words, I do not want to know what is in the sausage or how it was made, all I want to know is that it is delicious and safe to eat.

So, I think CH's general idea of informing us about the intricacies of how the particular variant used was arrived at, is gruesome overkill and completely unnecessary (and quite frankly would overload me with information that is either irrelevant or misleading if the final figure is good). However, if a figure maker had a tough time coming up with a particular variant, and he believes there is a 50% or better chance that such instance may end up being one of the rare times that a variant might need to be changed retroactively, then I think some sort of a symbol would be helpful (maybe a v?). I am saying this hoping that it is really a rare case. A sheet full of "v?"s would not be very helpful, but I would understand a few sprinkled here or there (and ideally, over time, each "v?" would be eliminated one way or the other).

If Indulto is asking about input on the ins and outs of each figure maker's variant making, I am not the right person to ask. I really have no special insight. I will say that one very interesting case of differences between the two sets of sheets came up in the context of Musique Toujours. From the sheet reading perspective, I already wrote a detailed analysis comparing the ragozin sheet and the thorograph sheet leading up to the race in which he was claimed. If somebody wanted to get into why the sheets were so different for the same horse, a person who knows more about figuremaking could go behind each figure and determine what went on in the figuremaking. Again, I am not the right person to do that.