Those of you who read the other board may have seen a rant from Jerry\'s one-time biggest fan. It concluded with a perceptive and honest observation - \"This is, all of it, pathetic\" - so I can only assume that it was written in good faith.
JJ\'s previous comment, however, was so ludicrous it needs to be refuted. As the person who knows more about the TG database than anyone else I can say that the idea that Jerry \'adjusts\' the figures for horses so that they are round numbers is a complete and utter nonsense.
We store the numbers on a 0-1000 scale and then divide them by 10 for publication. The output routines round the stored numbers to the fractions.
When we make the figures a program calculates a raw figure for the race. The figures for the horses in each race are then calculated according to the weight carried and the lengths beaten.
Jerry (or whoever else is doing the day if it is one of the minor tracks) then looks at a print-out of the day to make the variant corrections. He determines the variants on a race-by-race basis and writes that on the print-out.
Someone else then enters that race variant into the system and the system applies it to all the horses in the race and adjusts their figures.
The only way Janis\'s assertion could be true would be if (i) when Jerry made the variant he did so with a view to making as many of the figures for each horse \'whole;\' (ii) Jerry made changes to the individual horse figures calculated by the system; (iii) the person entering the variant into the system makes adjustments to individual figures.
Anyone who has worked in the TG office will tell you that (ii) and (iii) simply do not happen - other than to allocate \'999\' to horses that do not finish and to ensure that a variant does not make a horse figure exactly 0 (we use 0 to indicate no figure and store a \'real\' 0 on the system as 1).
With regard to the first option anyone who has ever made figures will know what a chore it can become. Believe me, Jerry does some pretty weird things but not even he would make a demanding job even more exacting for some perceived cosmetic reason.
There is, however, a mathematical reason why Janis\'s analysis of \'thousands of numbers at 10 tracks\' - amazing how much time people can waste when they\'re obsessed, isn\'t it? - may have led her to his whacky conclusion.
As we round the 0-1000 numbers then, for obvious reasons, there cannot be an even distribution across the four fractions. Figures ending in 9, 0 or 1 become a whole number, those ending in 2 or 3 are 1/4, those ending in 4, 5 or 6 are 1/2 and those ending in 7 or 8 are 3/4. There will, therefore, be more whole numbers and halves than quarters and three-quarters.
So there you are, I\'ve given Janis some more ammunition: Thorograph admit figures are rounded! You were right, Janis. Pathetic is indeed the word.
PS: I\'d have thought the orginal point (from Patrick Supposition) was as much an argument for \'cutting a race loose\' as for sliding the variant. Patrick apparently thinks it\'s wrong to assume that you can make a variant based on the previous performances of the horses in a race because horses aren\'t consistent but it\'s right to assume that the relationships between the races on a day (whether routes or sprints) are consistent because the races are run by horses which, in this instance, are consistent. As Janis said, great point. Just stay clear of the Kool-Ade, lads.
Listen-- not to pile on, but we are talking about a guy who claims to have looked at \"thousands\" of our numbers \"at ten tracks\", checking to see whether they were rounded off a quarter point. One possibility is that he is lying. The other is worse.
Very interesting.
I listen more than comment upon figure methodology. If a genuine discussion regarding such is going on at the Rag site, I\'ll have to try and sneak by their security. lol
CtC
CTC, you\'re not missing anything.
Janis/Alydar/Halle/Ayn: Not that I\'m going to get caught up in this, but it\'s pretty funny-- I wonder sometimes whether people actually read the posts they put up, especially when it\'s a link to something someone else wrote. But don\'t worry about it-- you have solved the Kennedy assassination. And I appreciate your going over all those fractional figures for all those horses at all those tracks.
Before I close this out, one more thing-- I mistakenly said in an in-passing comment a few days ago that Hollywood runs one turn miles. They do have a very long chute, but they don\'t run mile dirt races, either 1 or 2 turn. Over the years I\'ve done figures at about 15 different circuits, maybe 30 (?) tracks overall. My memory failed me, fortunately on something totally insignificant-- except to the guy who used it to solve the Lindbergh kidnapping. With that out of the way, maybe he\'ll turn his attention to where Ragozin got those 3 extra lengths between third and fourth in the Derby.
And that\'s it. No more discussion about hell-hath-no-fury here, even from those attacking him or what he says-- I\'ll take it down. Remember when your mother used to say, \"ignore him, or you\'ll just encourage him\"-- this was exactly what she meant.
They used to run one turn miles at Hol, even ran a BC Juvenile around one bend. They just don\'t anymore.
lol
I think I got the gist of it. I think the man just likes to argue...lol
They didn\'t talk specifics there before, so if they are still axing and obfuscating theres no need to try and sneak in.
Sadly I think his latest post makes it very unlikely that he was lying.
I must confess, however, that I cannot work Brant out. I can only assume that he is a very bitter and jealous man. Usually that\'s a result of low self-esteem so I guess we have to sympathize with him.