Jason wrote: "The more data you have, the more confident you can be."

That depends on how accurate it is and how well you interpret it. Examples:

1: TG and Rags both estimate the wind. Since TG cuts loose more races than Rags, Ragozin relies more on wind estimates. If you're doing a race in isolation, wind doesn't matter. In his book, Ragozin says he adjusts the raw times based on the wind. Wind estimates are based on observations from people who are a good distance from the horses. Observers watch the flags right before the race goes off. Then they watch the race and hope the wind doesn't change. Does anyone really trust this process? (Has it changed?) Wouldn't you prefer to minimize your reliance on it?

2: Ragozin makes use of claiming race averages when trying to determine how fast horses were EXPECTED to run today. Do you trust these averages?

3: Ragozin relies more heavily on time charts, which are based on averages. At SA, 109.60 might equal 143.00. These times enable him to compare horses who run at different distances. But relationships between distances can change from meet to meet. They can also change within a meet, from day to day, and within a day. When these relationships change, things can get treacherous. Wouldn't you prefer to minimize their use?

4: Ragozin ignores bad rails when making variants. TG takes them into consideration. Which way do you prefer?

5: Go to the archives and read Bruno De Julio's comments about work done on tracks and how this changes their speed. Also, go to the Del Mar site and read the interview with Steve Wood, who is the track superintendent at DM and SA. Read about what he does to the track before AND between the races.

Jason wrote: "By definition, if you get rid of 'anomolies' you are going to have a smoother pattern."

No one is arguing that you won't have a smoother pattern today. The problem is that these horses, who will have INACCURATE numbers for their last race, will run back against different competition. And when they do, the man making the figures is constrained by the results charts. Patterns that are artificially smooth will become rougher because your figures will show slower horses beating faster horses. When this happens, you have no choice but to give the winner a better number, which will tend to make the pattern rougher.

Jason wrote: "David's point is, maybe that is true, but there would have to be a lot of anomolies [before your numbers fall apart]."

Any sentence that begins with "David's point is" is in serious trouble. See above. No one is arguing that a bad number now and then will make the figures fall apart. Patent threw that nonsense in there after he decided he had to back off his TG-has-no-use-to-him BS. But keep in mind that a bad number for one horse means it was a bad number for EVERY horse in that race. And bad numbers stay on the sheet and can lead to more bad numbers.