First, Len\'s comments:
\"I\'ve been shown your comments on the \"study\". Without discussing the accuracy of your statements, let me just reiterate that I think the whole thing is rather silly as you set it up for the reasons that I expressed earlier. I do not see why you would think that I would have any interest in it continuing\".
The reason I would think you might want to participate is the same one that caused you to participate in the SportStat study 15 years ago, and in another a few years later that ultimately was not consummated.
More importantly, \"as you set it up\". I gave you SEVERAL chances to chime in with suggestions-- you did not so that you could have it both ways, depending on how things worked out.
\"I would not under any circumstances I can forsee provide you with free SHEETS...\"
Yeah, I\'m looking for free sheets. Evidence of that being the study itself, where I\'m trying to show our superiority. More likely you are concerned about me finding more of the many errors I have pointed out the two times a year (Triple Crown and BC) I actually do look at your sheets.
\"...and I certainly will not spend any time on your enterprise myself nor would I ask any of our staff to do so\".
And yet you have. Both you and Eric privately had a dialogue with the one who was supposed to do the scoring and set the rules for the study, a study that you continue to distance yourself from publicly. Pretty obvious why-- you wanted to be able to crow if you won, and dismiss it if you lost.
\"I\'m sure that there are mechanical studies that could be done that weren\'t set up in as ridiculous a manner as this one...\"
And again, I\'ve asked you several times to make suggestions as to how. I\'m still open to them.
\"...(with the scoring sytem according to your post apparently to be decided after the study is over)...\"
Please. I made clear how we are scoring it. The other studies are to determine whether the study method itself has any merit, as I also made clear. Read it again.
\"...but even so I don\'t think they would be particularly useful. The test of a product is in it\'s use-- you know that as well as I do\"...\"
Ahem. Yes, the test of a product is in its use (like, in handicapping contests such as the NTRA Nationals, which our customers have won three of the last four years. Only one of your customers has ever won it, and that one has now switched to our data). The test is NOT sales, although we are catching you rapidly in that department, if we have not caught you already. Lots of things affect sales-- like your willingness to give horsemen data for virtually nothing to be able to claim them as clients.
All-- the delay in posting scores was due to issues of who was responsible for what, and because of an effort to present things in the most understandable and CHECKABLE way for you. Results should have been posted daily so that they could be followed, that didn\'t happen.
Because Len won\'t get involved (publicly, that is), we\'re stopping after the races of today. I\'m not going to give him a free shot, and also pay for the privilege.
The results for the two weeks at two tracks will be posted tomorrow in a clear, checkable format, once we have had someone here double check the work someone outside the office has done. The results will be listed race-by-race, so anyone who came up with something different can check their own work, and question what we post.
The results through yesterday were very close (I think we were 2 down total), and no matter who ends up ahead the result will not be statistically significant. We\'ll also run some tests to see if the studies themselves are at all relevant, as I said in an earlier post-- we\'ll see what correlation there was between highly rated horses and high finish positions. That may or may not be up by tomorrow.
ok ok so here we are from what i read you both kissing your sister. ok ok ok how about using the forum to teach? from what i see the better i get the more i go to the track. i use only thorograhs. i\'m sure others say the same thing. so why not just let them cry. keep up witht he great product. we know its the best. now all your doing is proving your both right. big deal
TGJB:
Thank god this foolishness has ceased.
If anything, it siphoned attention from the fact that you scored an impressive victory in a highly visible handicapping contest. It siphons attention from the continued success of your purchases for Ro Parra and the Graph Racing Stable.
Some of the great and educational debates which were carried on in this forum (medication issues, track surfaces, are racehorses getting faster?, your contemplation of whether too many negative numbers were being assigned by TG, the phenomena of move up trainers, the future of racing in NY) have all but dissappeared, overshadowed by this slimy sideshow.
Under the parameters of the survey, TG and Rags came up with the same animal on top, time and time again. (Check this past Monday at Saratoga). And what of Agent J-66, who kvetched and kvetched to have this survey done and then apparently entered the witless protection program at crunch time (sorry I couldn\'t resist).
Sail on, Capn J-Hab. I look forward to seeing great things from TG in the future. Quit obsessing over Moby Len.
TGJB –
Since my practice is to sit on my hands for several races during any given race card, I confess to having followed along with the study to pass the time. In retrospect, I think your decision to focus on the winners of races (and in some cases 2d-place horses) and the ranking system was a mistake.
As I indicated shortly after he posted it, I think P. Eckhart\'s suggestion of treating every race as a series of match races, matching each runner against each of the others, was a good one. In most matched pairs, TG and Ragozin would agree on which horse is fastest, and that match race would be disregarded. Only match races in which the services disagree on who is the fastest would be scored.
I think one of your reasons for objecting to this approach and focusing on winners was that you wanted to avoid the effect of horses who don\'t run their race. If you think this issue would alter the outcome of the study, a more direct way to deal with this would be to require that both horses in the match race run reasonably well (perhaps defined as finishing in the top half of the field).
The approach you settled upon does not really address the problem and introduces some anomalous results. It\'s simplest to talk about this in terms of concrete examples. Let\'s name the 8 horses in a race A through H. Say TG ranks them ABCDEFGH. Ragozin, however, ranks them ABCDFEGH, identical to TG\'s ranking except that E and F are inverted. In terms of the study, this produces essentially the match race discussed above, between E and F. But the match race is scored only if E or F runs 1st or 2d. First, this approach eliminates potentially useful data. Second, I would argue that if E or F runs 1st or 2d, it is probably because E or F ran a new top, and not because its past efforts were faster than the other\'s. Third, your approach does not ameliorate the effects of E or F throwing in a clunker.
Take another more dramatic example. TG ranks the horses ABCDEFGH, but Ragozin dramatically underrates C, ranking him 7th (ABDEFGCH). This produces a windfall for Ragozin. In terms of the study, Ragozin gets a point for the race if any of four runners (D, E, F, or G) wins, while TG gets a point only if C wins.
I\'m passing along these thoughts just for what they\'re worth. Caveats are that I don\'t read the Ragozin board, so that I have no idea how this relates to what may have been discussed there, and that I\'m not in a position to evaluate the rating system itself (although the idea of completely ignoring a horse\'s most recent race if it happens to be the worst of the last 3 troubles me). Any mechanical rating system is going to have issues. To quote H. L. Mencken: \"For every complex problem there is a simple solution. And it is always wrong.\"
In closing, I want to compliment scavsiu8 on his fine work and congratulate you on your win at Del Mar.
Bit-- there are two different issues:
1-- The rating and ranking system.
2-- The scoring system.
We can test whether the first had merit, but I\'m perfectly willing to believe the second did not. Hopefully someday someone will take the start we made here and do a good independent study.
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In closing, I want to compliment scavsiu8 on his
> fine work and congratulate you on your win at Del
> Mar.
>
Thank you Bit, appreciate it greatly.