Jason L. wrote:
>
> 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.

TG--Jason, I will give you a detailed response to this, but I probably won't get to it before Sunday (at the earliest). Alyday, if you want to do some of the heavy lifting, be my guest.



TGJB