Here\'s where we stand as of 11:30 p.m.--
It\'s not clear whether we will have everything done in time to start the study tomorrow. If the ratings and rankings for both services are posted on this site by first post of each track tomorrow, we\'re on. If not, we start with Thursday.
The idea of using last place finishers does not work, as a horse running terrible is often a function not of ability but of soundness. What we could do to expand the sample size is use the first TWO finishers in each race, a version of a proposal put forth here by P. Eckhart a while back. Two points for the winner, one for the second finisher.
I want to make one point again-- the key here is transparency. Ratings and rankings will be posted in advance, and users of each product will be able to check them themselves. In addition, those who do not use our data will be able to check us by looking at the Red Board Room daily.
By the way, my prediction if it is just the winners of the races is a 55/45 split, which would be a lot. Not sure how scoring it the other way would affect things.
Jerry wrote: \"The idea of using last place finishers does not work, as a horse running terrible is often a function not of ability but of soundness. \"
Yes and at SAR and DMr a horse running well is very often a function of something other than ability (e.g. Pletcher/White Mercedes winning at a 50-60% rate the first several weeks of the meet).
i like the idea of the point system for 1st & 2nd , it will help with the depth of the study .
in the event of a tie for 1st or 2nd in a given race , do both horse\'s then still get the full credit of point assignments or are they divied up ?
i\'m guessing the split will be more like 60 / 40 ...