TGAB

As I said to Chris, let me also thank you for reponding to my inquiry. I really appreciate your taking the time. In response to your comments about the various trainers, the examples I used were just to make a point of generalities. If you took the runs based stats of Labocetta Levine and Lake and displayed them next to the stats of M.Sedlacek,Aquilino and Hertler and removed the trainer's names it would be pretty apparent which set of trainers is the more successful. The reverse is true if you line up the new figure based stats. My point is, isn't it reasonable to think that if you have created a trainer based product that that product will project the top trainers transparently, otherwise there is the risk of confusion.
Yes, of course there's more to the case than saying that a Hertler horse, off a layoff, is likely to run within a point or better than, his effective top 44% of the time and Lake is only likely to do so 18% of the time. But is it necessary to produce statistics as a handicapping aid that require you to make the many distinctions that you have to in using them when you already have the runs based figures that give, I think, a much clearer definition of the trainer's prowess. I don't mean to suggest that the new figures are without merit. I'm not smart enough to make that evaluation. I just think of the work you must be doing to produce them and what there value is relative to that effort.
At the risk of also redboarding, the New York Rudy race was actually a good example of what I'm saying. It was a 6 horse race, Hill Top Man and Chute the Breeze looked too slow. Anties Boy figured to bounce. Cape Hogue had a decent pattern but with the Correa/Espinoza combination was more likely to bounce to a 10 or 11 then match or go forward off the 9. That left Lord Langfuhr at even money who could certainly have run back to his 7 but could also bounce a little [especially since JJ is not having his best meet] or New York Rudy at 5 to 1 who has certainly been on the improve since McGaughey got him back. I was certain he was going forward again today and he did run a 5 early on as a 3yo when McG. last had the horse. So he could certainly run the best number in the race today, especially at 5 to 1 when his only competitor was even money. I did have this race cold yesterday for the reasons just expressed and am glad that you used it as an example. I don't believe McG. new tops prowess added to my conviction nor did his weak statistics when using Castillo deter me. I was already there without the added statistics. I guess for now that is really my point. But I will continue looking at them and try to get a better grasp on them and hope you don't judge me too harshly while in that process. Thanks again for taking the time to address my questions.