Friedman finally posted the last race from Preakness Day, along with some comments. I responded, and its almost certain to be deleted. This is taking up an awful lot of time, so unless there is some new angle on this, I\'m going to leave it alone until they post their Belmont Day numbers.
1- By your own admission, you split sprints and routes on the day, which right away invalidates the logic behind the Wood Memorial and Belmont Stake figures you have defended before—that it is correct to give out unusually fast/slow figures for the only 2 turn race of the card based on the 1 turn races. That is why I forced the issue, and spent $1000 to do it.
2- In the middle of the Preakness card, you have the sprint/route relationship 3 points different from the end of the card. That’s HOW you were able to get this last race close—which was my point (one of them). This also goes to 1, above. And yes, you would be better off taking off more.
3- On the contrary, my guess is virtually NO trackwork was done between the Preakness and the last, what with trophy presentations, interviews, etc. Far more likely that extensive work was done in the hour between the Schaefer and the Preakness, readying it (speeding it up) for the big race—you, of course, tied those 2 races together, forcing you to give out ultra-slow Schaefer numbers.
4- Ask Marshall which sheets are ahead head-to-head. He’s a good guy, I’ll be glad to give him the money. I’m guessing he hasn’t told you about all the times we ended up looking better—you don’t handle dissent very well.
5- By the way, I just noticed that you actually have the grass course getting substantially SLOWER (4 points?) through the card, while drying out, no less. Care to explain, especially in light of the horrendously slow figures for races 5 and 7?
6- You will be posting the Belmont card, won’t you?
Oops, again, Jerry.
They did not split the variant. From Friedman:
\"I can see that in my post above that I refer to two previous 6f races when discussing the level toward the end of the day and it might be mistakenly inferred that we treated the routes and sprints differently on Preakness day. In fact, we treated them the same, but we did have a drying out slide--mostly in the first half of the card.\"
Oops, yourself. As I said in my post, they slid the sprints and routes differently--there is about a 3 point difference between the sprint/route relationship in the middle of the card vs. the end. Friedman deleted my post, then set up a straw man, so he could knock it down--sort of like you do. Are you ever going to answer directly any of the questions I have asked you? If you want, I\'ll make a list and post it tomorrow. Incidentally, since you claim to have made figures, how about addressing the comments from Alydar and myself showing that you can\'t artificially create a tight data base?
The variant was not changeed, they have a \"drying out slide.\" LOL!!
That has to be the best statement yet in this debate.
Please refer to page 73 of \"the sheets\" to see our \"drying out slide\" and how it helps make accurate figures.
That is of course different then our \"getting wetter slide\", used to conveniently make a split variant as well.
Classic stuff.
Jerry,
The only question I have missed is this bet you keep talking about. For the life of me I can\'t find your suggestion anywhere in the morass of strings that we have created.
So, what\'s the bet?
I have already dealt with your and Alydar\'s point on how you get a tight range without changing variants within a race. All you need is to start with the hypothesis that you start with -- the \'tight range\' hypothesis. As long as you apply it to every race then your ranges will work out nicely.
Nobody (at least not me) is accusing you of dishonesty or fudging numbers. My complaint with your product has always been that it starts from a debatable premise (which is not in and of itself a sin) but then validates itself over and over again only by saying that \'it must be so because it must be so\'. And I just think that you have had ample time over the years to quantify some of your track variant hypotheses but have either 1) failed to ever do the work, 2) did the work and saw that you were wrong but were committed to your hypothesis, or 3) have done the work, seen that it works but refuse to disclose that to anyone in public. I know that #3 can\'t be right b/c if it was you\'d be all over Ragozin with your proof. So it\'s either 1 or 2.
David:
This is getting ridiculous. How can you follow up \'Nobody (at least not me) is accusing you of dishonesty or fudging numbers\' with, in the same paragraph, an accusation that \'2)[you] did the work and saw that you were wrong but were committed to your hypothesis?\' That, surely, would be dishonest and would mean the numbers were fudged, wouldn\'t it?
Mandown,
I happen to believe that the answer to the three choices is number 1. If it was number 2 then I would stand corrected -- he would be fudging.
David,
If you believed the answer was number 1 why did you say it was 1 or 2? Surely it\'s dishonest to imply that Jerry is guilty of something when you don\'t really believe he is? Once a lawyer, always a lawyer?
And if the answer is 1 - that Jerry has never bothered to test his hypotheses, i.e his figures are based on false assumptions - then would that be so very different from fudging?
Incidentally, the only \'proof\' as to whether Jerry is right or wrong is how the figures work as a tool for predicting upcoming races. Jerry believes horses run smooth patterns, Friedman doesn\'t. An analysis of TG\'s database is only going to confirm that Jerry\'s figures fit Jerry\'s hypotheses. An analysis of the Sheets\' database will do the same for their hypotheses. There is no proof, only opinion.
And Jerry obviously doesn\'t believe his figures are better because if he did he\'d \'be all over Ragozin.\' Right?
mandown and superfreakicus: Who are you?
superfreakicus: Sorry about misspelling your name in the title.
hehehe...
I\'m some guy.
my real name is Dave, but that was already taken.
I hate boards that make you register.
ps
you\'ll probably be rid of me shortly after the belmont, but sometimes my prognostication doesn\'t work out.