We keep mixing up "science" and "statistics". Science, as I am using it, consists of objectively verifiable facts. A horse going x wide means that it ran x further distance. A wind of x speed will impede the progress of horse weighing y pounds by z amount. A horse carrying x pounds is impeded by y amount. Statistics is a tool of science to take past outcomes and predict future outcomes. By definition, such analysis cannot be proved "correct" it can only be proved to be accurate withing a certain range of confidence. The more data you have, the more confident you can be.

Now, nobody makes a variant based upon science. That is because it is impossible to do so. You can only make assumptions based on science and engage in a predictive statisitical analsyis.

To the extent that I believe more in Ragozin's method than yours, it is that I believe their statistical analysis and assumptions are more rigorously derived. Their analysis is based upon more data points and is not adjusted for any "anomoly."

Based on what you have said, you really do not make a track variant (at least sometimes). By a track variant, I mean that based on a statistical analysis of the races run that day, compared with past races, you come up with a number that normalizes any figures to some predtertimed baseline. That variant is than plugged into an algorithm with the raw number to get an adjusted number. If that variant is to change during the day, which should be rare, it should do so in a consistent manner.

You seem to think that it is unnecessary (at least sometimes), to even have a variant. That is because you look at the horses who ran in that particular race and determine what number they are most likely to run and then use that baseline to adjust the numbers in that race based on position. When this does not conform to what a consistent variant would tell you, you basically make the number consistent by changing each race based on your "judgment." You then explain it by variations in the track, as that is the only way it could be explained, therefore it must be true. Math and statistics are thrown out the window. My quibble with you, is that I do not believe that to be an accurate way of determining numbers in the long run. In a particular race or a particular day, it certainly may be more accurate, particularly where the statisitical analysis is compromised by limited data (this is one reason why you always attack Ragozin on Triple Crown, Triple Crown prep and BC days because the normal claiming races are not being run and you have races being run at distances that are not normally run at the track, thus the data is usually limited on these days).

As to your issue of changing numbers, I really do not see a problem. All that is doing is recognizing that based on future events, the statistical analysis now shows that they were probably wrong. Again, they were probably wrong because of the limited available data, thus more data helps them get it correct. If it happened a lot, it would concern me because it would demonstrate that they were wrong a lot. When it happens once in a while, it confirms that the number maker is being honest and rigorous.

As for the tight ranges, the entire debate is a red herring. By definition, if you get rid of "anomolies" you are going to have a smoother pattern. If you want me to find a professor of statistics to prove this, I will. Now your point is that, if you were wrong, eventually your numbers would fall apart because the "anomolies" would turn out to be true and your future numbers would drift back toward the "amomoly." David's point is, maybe that is true, but there would have to be a lot of anomolies and even then, it would take a long time to surface.

Now, saying that you got one race, the Peter Pan to provide a smooth pattern for all horses does not prove a damn thing about your methodology. At most, it proves you got the past numbers of those particular horses correct, and given that most of those horses had only run a few races, it doesn't even do that. If you turned over all of your sheets over the past decade, identified those races where you adjusted for "anomolies" and then had an expert statistician determine whether these number hold up, then maybe I would give your theory some credit.