Eric-- Old pal, you\'re having a very hard time understanding the nature of the study. All the objections you raise, and comments such as the one about doing well at 4-1 or more, or whether one would bet those races, or Friedman\'s alleged long-term success, pertain to a HANDICAPPING contest, not a figure study. In determining the accuracy of the figures, the public\'s opinion of how good the horse is is completely irrelevant.
On the question of closely matched figures, a) you are assuming it would be that way for both sets of figures, b) but even if it is, and the result is random (meaning 50/50), it will wash out give or take over the course of a few hundred races. Here,a winner doesn\'t pay off 10-1, or whatever-- it\'s just worth one point. So if it\'s random it won\'t make a significant difference-- get it?
But I am delighted you now seem to have an interest in a handicapping contest, since as you know I have challenged Len a dozen or so times. And I still think it would be informative, and am still interested in having it-- after we establish the relative accuracy of both sets of figures.
Michael-- if Janis does not go into the question of sample size, I\'ll explain here.