Okay, first things first--

I would suggest to anyone who is going to take the time to read this that they first read the top of this string, where I quoted Friedman's original post, and replied to it. Then you should go to the Ragozin board and read his 8/5 2:51 post "Re RE RE Question for Len", which went up while I was gone. I'll deal with that one quickly, if I have time I'll deal with the long boring one at a later time.

1-- First of all, you will note that in my post I asked several questions, none of which Len addressed. No surprise there.


2-- "...the truth remains that none of this can be settled by clever argument-- the only test is whether the numbers produce predictable results and that test takes place at the betting windows and not on BBs..."

a) Hence my repeated offers to have a handicapping contest over a long period of time with Len, and hence his declining repeatedly.

b) Hence my prediction of what the horses will do next time out-- it's a test, just like Len said, and if I'm right you will be able to see the results.

c) Actually, you can settle some things by debate-- that's why people do it. Like whether an approach makes logical sense, and whether a position is defensible, or just dogma-- that's what my QUESTIONS were all about. And all "blathering" aside, Len talked an awful lot without answering them. Again.

d) Len, please-- you keep talking about "success at the windows". Our guys have done astonishingly well in handicapping contests, and have won the last 3 NTRA National Championships. What the hell are you talking about? My guys are creaming yours in the only game where the the results are made public.


3-- You gotta love Len's Derek Jeter analogy. Except I wasn't talking about just one "player", I was talking about a group, and batting averages are purely statistical. There's no judgement involved-- UNLESS the conditions change.

Len, pay attention-- here's the correct baseball analogy:

A group of 10 players (not just one) plays in Colorado, and are traded to other teams. I say, conditions in Colorado are such that batting averages are inflated, I predict that at least seven of the 10 will hit at least 30 points worse next season. Get it? I am saying you need to apply a different variant to Colorado than Shea, for example. (And if you don't believe me, talk to Bill James).

My prediction was that 75% of the horses in the last two races on the day in question (with the exception of one horse I specified) would go forward at least 3 points next time out ON RAGOZIN, which is an awful lot, and an awful high percentage. I felt pretty safe, because if they did those races with the others, as Len says, they got them wrong by a lot more than that.

But tell you what, Len-- since you are basically taking the position that ANY horse that runs badly is likely to go forward next time ("regress to the norm"), let's do this-- lets also look at all the horses in the FIRST FOUR dirt races that day that ALSO ran at least 3 points off their tops, and compare the two groups. I will bet you that at least TWICE AS HIGH a percentage of the ones that ran in the last 2 races go forward at least 3 points on your figures. That's absolutely apples to apples, and if you are right, they should not. Right?



4-- Tell you what-- let's both respect the intelligence of our customers. I'm going to post the dirt races from the day in question, with the numers they ran. The last two took place after they sealed the track, and I used about a six point different variant than for the earlier races.

Len, why don't you do the same-- post the sheets for the day, with the numbers they ran, and let everyone take a look at just what we're talking about. And, not to sound like John McEnroe, why don't you just answer the damn questions?





Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2005 07:53PM by TGJB.