More Importantly

[P-Dub]

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??

[RICH]

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\".

[RICH]

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.

[RICH]

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.

[marcus]

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  .

[P-Dub]

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.

[SoCalMan2]

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.

[bobphilo]

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

[basket777]

Yes going back 5 would be easier. Lose the ego go back the 5.