I think the math and stat guys are getting off point.There is only one question to be addressed. What data is consistently more accurate,TG or RAGS.

TG and Rags are now very far apart too often.The former scale of comparison between both products,3-4 points, has almost VANISHED. Someone is getting it wrong too often,and not even close on occcasion.I have seen differences of up to 10 lengths in a game which often comes down to a difference of a nose on the wire.


You do not have to be a figure maker to take exception to a figure which is obviously controversial, defies common sense, and stands alone from all other credible sources.There are MANY people with strong and credible racing opinions around.On more than one occasion Andy Beyer has admitted to the scientific inexactness of making figs.


As much as anyone, I have sought answers which are surely not apparent from some handicapping contest with a few stabbers using both products.Very tough issue, this one.

To me there are compelling questions for both camps,for example RAGS stated:

Who said that horses "must" pair so often and what science is behind that?

JB,I have seen many trainers, including hall of famers,often flabbergasted by the inconsistency of a large population of their stable. Just the opposite of what is on display daily when viewing TG.How can that be?


From me, a TG user to RAGS:

It is difficult that you have not identified that tracks can substantially change speeds during the course of the card. How can you produce accurate figs without factoring these obvious changes in? Do you feel that averaging obviates that issue? Why?


Mike