Jerry,

I agree with what you said.

unlike the chart that apears in the sheets this data does not project what a specific figure or pattern is doing it is projecting how horses ran in the derby with two vs three preps and did they improve of fall back from their previous top as defined by the program. So we know the historical range of projected improvement or failure.

And as Bob astutely points out the population of the sample size is much smaller for two vs three therefore the range of deviation should also be greater for two vs three. Data with a larger sample size tends to have more meanigful data and has ironed out the anomolies better than a smaller sample does. Stated another way smaller samples can have data (anomolies or outliers) that can skew a data poplulation (ie Gray vs Bay).

I'll bet the Gray by the way.

You can use the data to say what you want or interpert it the way Bob or So Cal want. Maybe two preps is better in the so called Modern (Drug) era. The undisputed fact is they have yet to win a derby using this tactic since 1993...and the previous decades before that.

You may get value this way. You may not. There is no guarantee.

Bottom line is how you project the individual runner to run the next race off of their past pattern and or top and the realtion to the past top of their most recent races. Soundness is also very important to me for a race such as the Derby.

NC Tony











Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2006 06:33PM by NoCarolinaTony.