I\'ve talked for a couple of years now about adding 5 points to the entire database, so that we all don\'t have the confusion of dealing with all the negative numbers that have appeared as horses have gotten faster (and I don\'t want to have that argument again). If we do it, it will be in December. Anyone THAT USES OUR DATA REGULARLY is encouraged to weigh in with an opinion as to whether we should go ahead and finally do it.
I don\'t think there is any \"confusion.\" I just think people have a hard time ACCEPTING the big negative numbers. At least that\'s what I read here most of the time.
My two cents -- when it comes to \"service\" and whatnot, the customer comes first. When it comes to making your product, I want you to make it the way YOU think it should be, based on your ongoing observations. It\'s YOUR craftmanship that counts. If you think adding the points makes sense, then do it. You\'ve made a lot of good point viz-a-viz the increasing speed of these beasts and maybe you should just stick to your guns.
There have been quite a few horses that I think have vindicated the huge numbers you gave them (Ghostzapper, St. Liam and Smarty Jones for starters -- frankly I\'m sick of betting against them). They won the big races AFTER you gave them the a big negabomb number... Not that winning per se means anything, still...
As long as the scale is consistent, the negative numbers don\'t confuse this customer. Do your thing, Jerry Brown. Don\'t be swayed. I don\'t drink LITE beer, you know what I mean? If you dish out the minus five, I CAN TAKE IT!
HP
Tommorrow I will go to the track spend $120.00 to buy all the sheets for all the races run. I will get there early study for 2 hours or so write down the numbers i give horses. based up the numbers i will bet between 5 and 10 races all day. long term these have been very very profitable. however the many races inbetween are just to tempting to pass. So to answer the queston It doesn\'t matter what the numbers are -5 0r 0 the knack is predicting winners or sometime horse that have a shot. would it be easier going back 5 yes. does it matter no.
I\'d rather you did not add 5 points. If its not broken why fix it? I like the negative numbers. I guess I\'m just used to them. It\'s possible changing the scale just may cause more confusion.
All the best. Phil
Quite Honestly the scale is meaningless provided the figures are conistently done nationally. (IE circuit to circuit) Normalization of the data doesn\'t change the relationship (You will also have to redo your archive figs as well!!)
If you don\'t have to change why change? Stay Bold.
Guess you might have a few less conflicted Raggies that way.
NC Tony
Yes by all means change it! Its\' just not nec. to envision in ones\' mind that a neg.3 is 6 points better than a 3. Gamblers have enough to deal with less is better in understanding the flow of a line.After all why would you call it a graph/
Hey David
shhh Don\'t tell anyone that a -3 is 6 points better than a +3. You\'re taking away some of our built in advantage. Also graphs start wherever the x and Y axis meet you set the Starting point.
Nc Tony
TGJB, What ever you do, I request that you change the turf race designation to something other than a minus sign (maybe one of those squiggily sideways wavy thingies..i think they mean approximately) and then use the minus sign only for negative figs. The way it is now confuses me (easy to do as I rush to make a decision as post time is approaching..especially after a few beers) and is an awkward workaround. Asfufh
I whole heartedly agree with asfufh. Bottom line, I\'d rather have you write \"turf\" out than \"negative number.\" The minus sign is what confuses me. (Although, I must admit, I enjoyed watching the steam come from Dr. Lazaar\'s ears when I repeatedly asked him \"but how can you have someTHING less than noTHING?\" in high school calculus class.
I say move the scale.
Move the scale--I can\'t imagine it will be a problem to anyone on this board. It will simplify the appearance of the numbers.
Mike
Jerry,
Add the points. Years ago when I made my own figures I used a scale similar to yours where 1/5 second at 6 furlongs was equal to 1 point. I wanted a system where an outstanding performance that was only seen once or twice a year, would earn a figure of 100. I did a par study and found the average Grade 1 stakes winner earned a 99 on my scale, which gave just the base I needed so that 1 point above that would yield the 100 that fit the description of a rarely seen superior performance. It appears that you did doing something similar what your figures, with your 0 equivalent to my 100. If too many horses match or exceed that level or figure, it loses some of it's meaning. If horses are indeed getting faster, shouldn't the scale and its base reflect this? Of course, most races are not Grade 1 level stakes but it's still a point of reference. It can also cause some confusion if figures of the same magnitude and absolute value represent widely different levels of performance, i.e., 2 and –2, 3 and –3 etc.
From a business point of view, I also think adding points is a wise choice. Too many negative numbers, especially if awarded to other than the highest-class horses invite charges of "grade inflation", or it's figure making equivalent.
Bob
Jerry , I couldn\'t agree more w/ HP, BASKET and ( to a degree ) NCT - Go with what you want to see when looking at a sheet and everyones interest\'s will be well looked after .
I thought I would chime in as a newcomer to TG. The first thing that confused the heck out of me was the turf/negative number thing that people are talking about. I have now caught on but I was always taught that a minus in front equals negative. I think it would be easier to see turf written out instead of neg number.
All this being said, coming from this newcomer and math geek, adding the points doesn\'t really matter because the whole database will be effected, It actually makes perfect sense unless you want to have a horse run a negative 12 within the next 10 years. The only potential issue will be the people that try and correlate Rag\'s to TG.
Thank you
Tom
The negative figs remind me of the scene from This is Spinal Tap -- Nigel: \"You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. You're on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder.\" DiBergi: \"Why don't you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?\" Nigel (after taking a moment to let this sink in): \"These go to 11.\"
\"o\" should be the \"top.\"
Jerry,
Why? What confusion? You have argued and defended your position about this many times, to me especially. I believe SOME of your negative figs are questionable and I have to evaluate the questionable ones myself,as does anyone else who questions them.
At this point how could you possibly make this change and not have your overall credibility attacked.You have written expos on this,horses are getting faster. After 20 years of data base,you\'re uncomfortable? Unless you have a business reason, I believe you should stick to your guns but be prepared to be challenged on controversial figs.
For me Jerry, I must continue to have your explanation when I ask(infrequently)about a fig.I\'m betting too much money to use data which is not as close to accurate as possible.
I can see the problem some have with the symbol for turf and negative and would change the turf symbol.
Mike
Jerry,
I have seen people posting that to add points to your figures is an abandonment of your position that horses are getting faster.
Just the opposite is true. It is an acknowledgment that there has been a change and the figures need correction to bring them back in line. The guy who puts on weight and refuses to buy a larger pants size is the one in denial. Stick to your guns, and adopt the scale that reflects your belief in the reality that horses are getting faster.
Make zero the super figure it once was.
Bob
Jerry,
How often do you plan on making this type of change? If the next five points of TG improvement come as quickly as the last five, it won\'t be long before you have to address the issue again.
Miff-- I wasn\'t referring to any question about the numbers being accurate. We\'ve been over that a hundred times. I\'m referring to the question of whether the large number of negative numbers makes it more difficult to use the product.
You can start your scale anywhere-- Ragozin is running a couple of points slower,with Beyer higher is better, TimeForm works in pounds. If I do this, we\'ll be adding 5 points to ALL the figures in the database, meaning the ones from horses that ran as far back as 1992. It has nothing to do with saying horses ran slower-- a zero from 1997 will become a 5, as the scale changes. It\'s a question of convenience, nothing more.
Michael-- what we\'re trying to do is keep the figures in familiar territory. As I said to someone else, I don\'t want Ghostzapper running 10s, and allowance horses running 20s. If performances continue to improve (note I didn\'t say the breed was improving) in a few years I\'ll just do it again.
As representitive of the entire BLUE STATE nation;
Just change the damn thing ...this isn\'t Babe Ruth baseball.
The gamblers of the world aren\'t seeking out truth in numbers,but rather truer #\'s.
Didn\'t know there were so many t.g. biographers around!!(its a joke you guys)
P.S. what happened to class? Did he jump up and bite you in the ass again?!
Hey, maybe we can combat global warming by subtracting 5 degrees off the Fahrenheit scale.
You got problems with negative numbers? Stop by your local preschool for a number line to help you out.
please hurry and get rid of the negative #\'s
Jerry said
\"Miff-- I wasn\'t referring to any question about the numbers being accurate. We\'ve been over that a hundred times. I\'m referring to the question of whether the large number of negative numbers makes it more difficult to use the product\"
Jerry,
I completely understand what you meant, you are not the only one with some intelligence on this board.There is no problem with using the figs with all the negatives, why would there be?.This is about the credibility of the proliferation of your neg figs,how do you not get it?.It will be much more confusing, to long time TG users, to see a horse run off by himself and get zero instead of negative 5, imv.
The problem, again, is that your figs are getting faster than ANY other credible fig maker, scale to scale.Given the way you use the projection method and the \"reference\"to prior figs, you will surely soon show figs of negative 8, 9 10.Given all that you have written( archive stuff) on the pertinent details, it is inevitable.I understand that you strongly believe in your methodology and conclusions, others do not.
Unless there is more here than you wish to say, for business reasons, leave it alone and the free market will sort things out, like always.
Mike
Easy-- that global warming analogy is really good. Yeah, it\'s exactly the same thing.
TGJB,
I don\'t know why this is an issue with some people. I wouldn\'t change a thing. If someone is intelligent enough to use your figures, they should be intelligent enough to figure out that -2 is 5 points better than 3. You could add 10 points to the scale or subtract 5 points from the scale. All that matters is the correlation between numbers. If people have problems with this concept, maybe you can add something to your Introduction page. Perhaps a link to \"Math for Dummies\" would be helpful.
P-Dub
Nobody is talking about doing anything to change the relationship between the figures. Adding a few points to the scale won\'t mess up anything.
Jerry is just asking whether a slight tweak would make the figures a bit more user-friendly. It\'s called market research. Every little bit helps. Do it, Jerry.
Bob
Its not about math its about how some people were taught about reading #s.
Theres no minus #s in pre- school and theres no writing in after the # that it happens to be negative.
Jerry took this business and brought it into the 20th century,now after hearing about turf misreadings it feels to me Jerry(not you math. handicap folks) that the right thing to do NOW is to fix two inappropriate symbols at the same time.
A besides to t.g. when was last time the N was used...remember how succesful it was in beginning? Do you even use it anymore?
some bozo just e-mailed me requesting that Jerry take the #s ...not back to zero...but back to zed....liked his shiny red nose!
p.s. how bout you uncle buck?...would love to hear your opinion
If you really believe that horses have gotten faster as you have stated on several occasions then you will leave the scale as is.
If you don\'t believe your own words then you will move it.
As a handicapper the adjustment process may take around a year or so. So why make me or anyone else do it. There still is a relevance of breakthrough numbers that are more than or horse can handle. Borrego\'s Gold Cup figure was a perfect example, making him an easy toss. Moving the scale back will make that decision making process a little cloudier. Where will the threshold be then, a two, a five, an eight??
Vegas just posted odds on this debate.
Jery +5 to change the #s
davidrex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its not about math its about how some people were
> taught about reading #s.
Just how were some of these people taught to read numbers? Seems to me that there is only 1 correct way to add and subtract numbers.
> Theres no minus #s in pre- school and theres no
> writing in after the # that it happens to be
> negative.
I would imagine that not many pre-schoolers are using TG, and that at some point before you graduated from high school that negative numbers were discussed.
> Jerry took this business and brought it into the
> 20th century,now after hearing about turf
> misreadings it feels to me Jerry(not you math.
> handicap folks) that the right thing to do NOW is
> to fix two inappropriate symbols at the same
> time.
> A besides to t.g. when was last time the N was
> used...remember how succesful it was in beginning?
> Do you even use it anymore?
I can see where the symbols may be confusing. Changing the symbols would be fine, but to add numbers to the scale because people have trouble figuring out the difference between a positive and a negative number.....?? Besides, doesn\'t the word \"negative\" appear besides a negative figure?? Sorry, but its hard to believe that this is such an issue. What exactly do so many of you find so difficult about negative numbers, besides the symbols??
By stating that people need \"math for dummies\" is a ridiculous statement, you missed the point. Why would you insinuate that everyone who wants a an easier sheet to read is a \"math dummy\".
Lets see, 5-10 years from now we will see the -10, first timers will be running -1 or -2, damn they are running 2\'s now. Zero was the ultimate performance fig from 1996-1999. To me why mess with all the negs, let zero once again be the mountain top, it\'s as simple as that, and this probably wont\'s be the last time this is done. I mean, who wants to see -6\'s everywhere.
The best number has been around -6, if we add five, we get -1, I see 0 as the threshold just as it once was.
When this thing invariably and finally happens , it\'s going to have a Positive impact ... Adding points to the data base is an affermation that horse\'s \"got\" faster and is not an attempt to move off that position as some on this board have incorrectly proposed . The period adjustment for handicappers using the new scale will be minimal ( probably less than 5 min ) + patterns will be easier to read and understand .
Rich,
Because you say yourself that people want an \"easier\" sheet to read. Which means get rid of the negative numbers. Right now you can tell what numbers really knock a horse out. Borrego\'s Gold Cup figure is one example and there are countless others. If you add points to the scale it will take some time for those used to the present scale to figure out what types of numbers are \"bad\" for a horse.
What is so much easier about reading numbers with no negative values?? If the majority wants them then fine, but I don\'t know why this is such an issue. Help me out here.
At the end of the day, this is all form over substance. However, I for one am very much in favor of the change Jerry has described.
First, knock out races happen to horses at all levels. A horse who has an established level of 15 who jumps up and runs a 7 is a very heavy bounce candidate. You do not need to see such a horse go from +4 to -4 to be able to see it.
Second, there should be no special credence given because some magical fixed number barrier has been broken. In other words, the difference between a -0.5 and +0.5 should be no different than the difference between -2 and -1 or +1 and +2 but people tend to give a special oomph for breaking the magical barrier. The same is true in the Beyer system. Why should the difference between a 101 and a 99 be more significant than the difference between a 97 and a 99 or a 101 and a 103? (I do recognize that as you get faster, one point takes on more and more significance -- in other words, I look at the difference between horses capable of a 1 versus those capable of a 4 as being a far more significant difference than the difference between horses running 31s and 34s).
Third, it is really just a matter of convenience. When you are comparing things, it is just easier to try to filter out all differences and distractions. Can I deal with negative numbers, yes. Would it make things a little easier to have almost all numbers be one or the other, yes. The only problem with switching that I see is that people very experienced in using the numbers have in their heads certain conceptions about what type of numbers are necessary to win a particular type of race and use that conception to determine whether a particular field is weak or strong for its level. This conception can be important, for example, when you are considering how to handle a european import or a first time starter (or if you have a horse that is very hard to get a read on for other reasons). If you know the field is weak, you give the outsider more consideratoin. IF you know the field is strong, you recognize that the outsider needs more to be there. If a 5 point scale adjustment is made, these conceptions will need to go through a readjustment so that people are not thrown off. However, I think it is easier to deal with the momentary adjustment of these conceptions while going through transition than it is to have to forever deal with negatives and positives together all the time.
All this being said, at the end of the day, this is form over substance and nothing more than a matter of convenience. But, if I had to choose a writing system, I would rather go with an alphabet than use characters or kanji, so all things being equal, opt for convenience. I think there is a famous philosophical principle about this -- Occum\'s Razor it might be called if I am remembering correctly.
SoCalMan,
Occam's Razor does have some application here. It basically states that in trying to explain an event, there could be an infinite number of explanations, but one should always chose the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions. In other words "keep it simple, stupid" this is not just for the sake of convenience. The simpler the explanation, the less likely that there will be an error. It is an underlying principle of all modern science. There is a parallel to figures in that there could be an infinite number of scales used that retain the same relationship between numbers. Using low numbers that rarely go past zero is just the simplest.
In addition, what kind of pleasure you get out of the using the figures and racing may play a factor in how you feel about adjusting the scale. From a pure calculation point of view, you could do just as well if the base was 4,358 ¾ instead of zero. You could see that a 4,355 ¾ represents a 3-point jump, just as would a 3 to 0 on the simpler scale. One need not be a dummy to prefer the latter. The former scale may work just as well but is inelegant. I like a zero to mean something other a place on a number scale. I use an extreme example to show that there is more to a scale than just relations of numbers.
When I see a horse winning impressively in a major stakes, I can't wait to see if he achieved the elusive 0 and I've witnessed a superior athletic performance. I just happen to enjoy the aesthetics of racing as a sport in addition to the fun of handicapping and betting. If I only looked at as a source of income and could care less about the aesthetics, it would just be like adding the drudgery of another job and I wouldn't give a damn about changing the scale.
Therefore, I don't just want my numbers to be simpler only for the sake of convenience, I want them to give me a better insight into a sport I enjoy. Add the points and make the scale more meaningful again.
Bob
Yes going back 5 would be easier. Lose the ego go back the 5.