a few questions came to my mind regarding the presentation; on a few slides the frequency of watering was mentioned (i'm referring specifically to Gulfstream, Hollywood and Santa Anita), but no data regarding the weather on those days was mentioned; i'd have been interested to know the weather on those specific days, temp., precipitation, wind, humidity, etc; was jerry brown implying that there are arbitrary changes of the watering schedule or were those differences in frequency due to changes in the weather (as the ny track super's words would imply)? without knowing the weather on those days that information is meaningless.

my next question is regarding the differences in sprint/route variants -- when they compute a speed figure, do they take account the fact that there are many more races run at 6 furlongs, for example, than any other distance in america, and does that frequency mean that numbers for 6 furlong races are automatically more accurate than say route races? how do they adjust for this variable? i know from making my own numbers that the amount of races run at a particular distance has a great effect on the overall accuracy of the speed figure when comparing different distances -- this question is a bit more involved than just the idea of sprint/route variants and maybe not appropriate for this topic, but i know this is a huge problem -- if i'm doing mile and a half turf faces or less than five furlong dirt races, i automatically put a lot less meaning on the figure, as opposed to a six furlong race --

one thing that i had a problem with is the idea put forth that future numbers are based on past numbers -- so there's this estimation going from what we have in the past carrying over to the latest numbers; i find that to be the main "flaw" or problem with t-gs and rags (but much more so with t'gs); and any professional gambler will tell you this is more of a problem with t-gs; I mean you'll look at lines and see 4,4,4,4,4,4 and anyone on earth knows the horse isn't running 4's six races in a row (maybe i'm exaggerating a bit but not much) and i conclude that they are either lazy or as i heard basing current numbers on past numbers? this is really a huge error from my pov -- as i've said i make my own numbers and usually compare with t-g's (i'm more looking for patterns) and i see much wider variations from race to race, with my figs, i'll see a horse run the same number twice or sometimes three times, but the patterns are vastly different -- so i never understood that principle. what's the point of just standardizing the numbers so they make sense?


as far as the overall presentation it is hard for me to imagine people say the variant would stay the same for a given day; anyone who plays del mar seriously (for example) is well aware of changes throughout the day -- and that's a track where it almost never rains and the weather is fairly consistent; well, perhaps more consistent than any other track in america, yet the track changes drastically (often throughout the day) at that meet -- how much more changes will there be in places where the weather chnages much more drastically? the observation seems quite obvious, the real question is how much does it matter?