Re: Number of Derby Preps (594 Views)
Posted by:
bobphilo (IP Logged)
Date: March 15, 2006 08:23PM
NoCarolinaTony Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> 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. >
> NC Tony
Tony, thanks for the reference to my astuteness, but I can tell you something even more astute (or more astuter, as we say in the Bronx). LOL. If the sample size of 2 prep horses is too small for meaningful conclusions about the fitness of these horses, it is also too small to draw conclusions about them not being fit. Since this is the only evidence that "2 preps bad" theorists have it makes their conclusion all the more shakey. Fortunately we do have studies like Dr. Quirin's using samples of thousands that show that the 3rd race post lay-off is the best. Whether you want to consider 2 preps ideal, at the very least, there is just no statitical justification that horses going into the Derby with less than 3 preps are less fit.
By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I hope your ultimate Derby pick has 3 or more preps. It won't help his chances but you'll probably sleep better if you think it does. LOL.
Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/15/06 06:33PM by
> NoCarolinaTony.