As Alydar and I have explained, you can't artificially make figures come out in a tight range without either retroactively changing earlier figures, or screwing with the relationships within races. So, I was thinking--Friedman and Ragozin are on record as saying they sometimes go back to change an earlier figure (sometimes a whole day) based upon what the horses do later. Now,

1. I'm on record as being against it--I can only recall doing it twice in 10 years or so. As I have mentioned before, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

2. First question--what's the "scientific basis" for the change or the decision in general to base the figures on later figures?

3. What's the reason for doing it? Okay, I'll help with that one--to get it right, as defined by HAVING THE FIGURES FIT WITH OTHER FIGURES THE HORSES HAVE RUN. In other words, to make the figures fit in a tight range, like we have. The measure of accuracy for all figure makers (including Ragozin) is that tight range--if your figures are dovetailing, you know with confidence you're there, and even if you blow an individual race or day (we all do) the overall accuracy of your database will keep you from going off the rails (losing a circuit vs. other circuits, routes vs. sprints etc.).

Listen--all these rules Ragozin has? He didn't have them when I was there, when he did all the hard numbers himself--he used his judgement. He instituted rules based on averages (or averages of his judgement, which is even wilder) when other people began doing most of the hard numbers, because he didn't trust their judgement (or anyone else's). Which is not to say that even in the old days he didn't tie together independent events, he did--but no "rules", no "science".



TGJB