David,

I'll go out on a limb. I don't have much interest in this. What are the possible outcomes and why would any of them influence a potential customer? If you proved out the "smooth line" effect, it would not demonstrate that either product was more or less valuable. I don't see how any possible result on standard deviation as I understand it will sway people one way or another.

I haven't posted in awhile, and I did notice something related to an earlier debate on jockey/ROI. I think we were in agreement on this (that it was not a terribly useful stat). Since it inspired such a passionate debate, I feel obliged to post this follow up.

I looked in the OTB program last week, and I noticed that John Velazquez is winning at about a 20% clip, same as he was at Saratoga. However, his ROI has plummeted to about $1.00 from about $2.00 in the summer. The jockeys that are leading in this category are named Castillo and Chavez (and that's Luis, not Jorge).

I think this shows that jockey/ROI is a reflection of factors that have nothing to do with the ability of the rider (which in Velazquez' case remains constant - 20%). It IS a reflection of field size (Velazquez' 2-1 Saratoga winners are now 3/5), competition (Velazquez doesn't stick out as much at Saratoga), the changing faces of the jockey colony (bye bye Bailey, Day and the various California heavies that make the summer scene) and the cyclical nature of the New York racing year (a combination of all of the above). This cycle is fairly predictable and Velazquez' ROI will rise in the summer as surely as Luis Chavez' will plummet. I won't call this stat entirely useless but it has to be ONE of the most useless stats in a sport that generates volumes of dubious data.

Hopefully this tangent wasn't too annoying. Pick some winners David. Have a Happy New Year. HP