Chuckles and Janis, together again. A team for the ages. CH, you ended up in a zoo-- I bet if you had it to do over again you would have controlled yourself.

1-- CH-- what got you in trouble here to begin with was your insistence that all conversations be your conversation, at length and ad nauseum. There is nothing wrong with having that conversation, and we did, many times. But this is a DIFFERENT conversation, despite there being situations where the two conversations overlap, and you never understood that. You can't have your conversation (the effects of pace on final time and figures) without FIRST establishing whether the track does or does not change speed, independent of pace. The issue at hand (and in the conversation you interrupted repeatedly, which eventually got you barred the first time) was NOT your issue.

2-- CTC-- I knew I recognized the writing, couldn't place it. Are you still posting here under other names?

3-- Tom/Ayn Rand/Halle Barry/Ben Bloomberg/Janis Joplin etc.-- as you know, I don't generally speak to you, since it only encourages your childish outbursts (and as you know, Richie had it right). However, since (despite showing your constant lack of intellectual honesty in every sentence, like when trying to deflect my question) you raised a good point (albeit one you know I have addressed before, but, hey, the guys on your board might have missed it, and think you actually have something)--

There are several problems with trying to do track speeds for different paths. Some you touched on (sample size, track speed changing throughout the day). But also-- a) horses mostly don't stay in the same paths throughout the race, and b) just as it would be a false assumption that track speed in general stays the same, it would be equally false to assume the RELATIONSHIP between paths stays the same while the track is getting wetter, dryer, more compacted, etc. throughout the card, or that paths in different areas of the track are the same speed. Ergo, your sample size becomes nonexistant-- just individual horses, the same ones you are trying to apply the variant to. Doesn't work. (In point of fact, if they did stay in the same paths, and track speed was a constant, there would be some statistically relevant things you could do. But it don't work like that).

But I have to point out that at least we (TG) are aware of the issue-- which is why we have the computer search for dead rails, which we mark. AND WE DON"T USE THOSE HORSES TO MAKE VARIANTS-- a decision you can't make if you are not aware of the issue (see: Ragozin 2001 BC numbers).

Anyway, on the larger issues-- the problem is that all you guys who shoot off your mouths on these issues have not worked with serious data for a serious amount of time (as I have pointed out before, at this point I have done more track days than Friedman, Ragozin and Andy put together). You haven't worked with lots of days with data fine tuned for wind, weight, ground, etc., so you don't know what you are talking about, in actual practice. If you did, you would see the following-- that (independent of the theoretical situations CH was talking about, and without even knowing about the science discussed in "Changing Track Speeds", or even having track maintenance info) there are some situations where it is so obvious the track has changed, that you yourselves would break out the races. From that point on, it only becomes a question of applying individual judgment as to WHEN to do it.

Tom-- let's pretend for a moment that you have some character, and a real intellectual curiosity to debate and get to the heart of this matter, rather than just a petulant child's desire to get back at me for throwing you off this board. If you do, you will do this-- since Len often posts races upon request, ask him to post the sheets for the last 2 dirt races on 7/27 at Saratoga, the Jockey Club Gold Cup, and the last 4 dirt races on Belmont day, including the figures those horses have run since all those races. Then we can have a real discussion of the issues involved, in practice.

Here's the thing, guys. There are 3 serious figure makers around today, and all of us-- TimeForm, TG, and Beyer-- figured out long ago that what Len does, just doesn't work. In brief, he uses large-body study methods (like averages) to measure individual performances, making the assumptions and rationalizations(some of which Tom actually mentioned, like doing whatever you can to increase sample size) used in those methods.

One more point-- I have mentioned before that the Raggie cult followers are very much fundamentalists. You won't find a better example that Tom quoting Len's book like it was the Koran. I and several prominent scientists who studied racetracks have already shot ten foot holes through the theories in that book-- as Tom knows, and would say if he was, well, honest.





Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2006 06:31PM by TGJB.