Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (587 Views)
Posted by: (IP Logged)
Date: September 01, 2005 09:42AM
I'd be willing to bet that the win percentage for both products will be very similar if the sample size is large enough. In fact, I'd bet they will be so close you won't be able to tell whether the difference can be attributed to the quality of the product or randomness. The ROI result will at least partly be a function of whose figures are contributing more money to the pools - also not a matter of quality.
I've done some smaller studies on different sets of speed figures that I thought were of high quality (never TG and RAG though) and they always produced very similar net results despite the fact that they often disagreed on who the fastest horse was. It was enough to convince me that very small differences in the figures don't matter much to the win percentage and that it's highly likely that no one has a monopoly on mistake free figures when we are talking about a length here or there.
I think the real trick is those occasional races where there is a huge discrepancy due to either methodology or interpretation. IMO, those don't show up often enough to infuence the aggregate results heavily, but if you have a preference for some reason, IMO that should probably decide whose figures you use.
Come on, Len. Knock it off. (1311 Views)
|
TGJB |
08/31/2005 06:24PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (714 Views)
|
kev |
08/31/2005 08:13PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (730 Views)
|
jimbo66 |
08/31/2005 09:54PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (650 Views)
|
kev |
08/31/2005 10:20PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (680 Views)
|
jimbo66 |
08/31/2005 10:50PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (587 Views) |
|
09/01/2005 09:42AM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (637 Views)
|
miff |
09/01/2005 10:39AM |
Study, What Study? (666 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
09/01/2005 12:31AM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (649 Views)
|
sighthound |
09/01/2005 02:59AM |
Here We Go Again (680 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 03:36PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (610 Views)
|
jimbo66 |
09/01/2005 04:01PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (610 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 04:06PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (663 Views)
|
jimbo66 |
09/01/2005 04:32PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (696 Views)
|
richiebee |
09/02/2005 03:46AM |
Re: Here We Go Again (642 Views)
|
richiebee |
09/01/2005 04:16PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (633 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 04:21PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (607 Views)
|
miff |
09/01/2005 04:22PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (625 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 04:30PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (585 Views)
|
miff |
09/01/2005 04:39PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (699 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 04:42PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (673 Views)
|
|
09/01/2005 05:01PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (681 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 05:06PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (637 Views)
|
miff |
09/01/2005 05:07PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (635 Views)
|
richiebee |
08/31/2005 10:18PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (658 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 11:57AM |
please JB (684 Views)
|
horsegoer |
09/01/2005 11:00AM |
Re: please JB (690 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 11:39AM |
Re: please JB (651 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
09/01/2005 11:45AM |
Re: please JB (675 Views)
|
|
09/01/2005 11:48AM |
Re: please JB (594 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
09/01/2005 11:58AM |
Re: please JB (622 Views)
|
horsegoer |
09/01/2005 12:19PM |
Re: please JB (635 Views)
|
|
09/01/2005 01:10PM |
Re: please JB (695 Views)
|
jimbo66 |
09/01/2005 01:27PM |
Re: please JB (639 Views)
|
|
09/01/2005 01:30PM |
Re: please JB (668 Views)
|
kev |
09/01/2005 06:29PM |