Last Words?

[dpatent]

Gee, don\'t you guys ever go out and enjoy the sun?

I\'m back from enjoying the Memorial Day weekend.  No, I have not expired, but do have a day job.

A couple reply comments to Jerry on his latest reply to my last messages.

First, an overall comment:  To a large extent these debates are stupid because Jerry, you have made it clear that your methodology makes certain unverified assumptions about equine behavior.  Those users of yours who want to take your assumptions on faith are welcome to do so.  But to me and many others, you have it backwards.  

I stand by the creation/evolution comparison.  The TG view reminds me of the creationists who argued that God had put the fossils there to test our faith and make it appear to non-believers that the earth was more than 6,000 years old.  How do you argue against that?  Maybe I\'m stupid but when I see fossils and see the carbon and radium dating results, I tend to believe my eyes.

Lastly, your constant harping on the 13th race at Pimlico is now just funny.  An 8 point change in the variant between races?  Okee dokey.  BTW, in your book is there a consistent effect on track variant when it dries?  When it gets wet?  Does it sometimes get faster and slower as it dries on the same day?  Ever wondered whether it might make sense to figure out whether you should test those assumptions?

On to a couple of specifics:

1)  I do believe that Quixote clearly enjoys sprinting because I believe the Ragozin numbers.  And I have seen open length wins when a horse \'x\'s.  I remember Bayakoa winning in the slop at Santa Anita with a 19 once -- in a \'Graded\' Stakes race.  Of course that was with Ragozin numbers so they probably had it wrong.

2) The turf course.  Jerry -- your math here is just wrong.  Unless you believe it is possible for a horse to run a time of 0:00, the difference is not 2%.  If a turf course has a variability of plus or minus 10 seconds for a mile, then the 4 point (it looked more like 5 or 6) adjustment you made works out to an 8-10% improvement in the speed of the course in 2-3 hours.  Given that they have a pretty good way of measuring the firmness of a course (that meter that they use in Europe a lot), you\'d think that you could do better than just the assertion that you made and use some real data.

3) The Schafer field -- I gave you a horse-by-horse breakdown of the race and you gave basically nothing in response except to repeat your previous post that \'graded\' horses run better than other horses.  I will take your non-response as a concession.

While I grant that in general, \'graded\' horses run better, you need to look at the specific horses to determine what they are likely to do.  

What is most entertaining is that you have changed your characterization of the race three times.  Your initial post of May 23 asserted that it was not possible that \"an entire field of older graded stake horses bounced 6 points\". [direct quote]

Then, on May 24 you changed your argument to say that every horse \"RAN AT LEAST 6 POINTS OFF THEIR TOP\". [direct quote]

Then, your latest post on May 25 goes back to the assertion that they can\'t all \"bounce AT LEAST 6 POINTS\". [direct quote]

Please, make up your mind!  My point was that, taking each horse one by one, almost every horse in the field figured to run at least 6 points if not more off of their top.  That is not the same as claiming that each horse was going to bounce 6 points.  And, incidentally, not every horse bounced 6 points on the Ragozin sheets.

4) Of course your figures will \'fit\' better because of your underlying assumptions about how horses run.  No one is claiming that your numbers look perfect for every horse in every race.  But once you have decided that horses can\'t do this or that, then you will by definition have a tighter range of numbers and a resulting \'prettier\' looking sheet for most horses.  Which is exactly why I find your product less than helpful.

5) I admire your marketing aggressiveness.  It\'s what you have to do to try to sell more product.  Why do you think Pepsi is always dissing Coke but Coke never talks about Pepsi?

In many ways, Ragozin discourages having too many customers.  Why?  For one, they are not graduates of the \'The Customer Comes First\' school of business.  Second, if too many people use their product, its value is diluted.

Coda: This kind of dialogue is fun for people like me but in the end it is pretty pointless.  I have tried both products and found one to be the one I prefer based on the results I got.  It is also based on a methodology that I agree with and is put out by the guys who were doing this stuff first.

[tread]

My god, I can\'t believe my eyes, but here is this topic again.  Patent says \"your methodology makes certain unverified assumptions about equine behavior\".  OK, maybe I am really dense here, but somebody PLEASE explain to me what makes Ragozins assumptions any more verifiable or sceientific in nature?  What \"carbon dating test\" of the Ragozin methodology are you referring to that proves his assumptions are any more valid?  The whole first 2 paragraphs of your argument are completely ludicrous, and it makes it difficult to even concentrate on the rest of your response.

Here\'s a question for you, on a 80 degree day if the track is watered after every 3rd race, will the amount of moisture become less, then more, then less, then more, etc?  Hmmmmm.....

[JimP]

Or it could be just less and then less and then less. Or it could be more and then more and then more. Depends on how much water is being added each time and how rapid the evaporation is taking place. And even more importantly what does less or more moisture mean to how fast the horses can run. I bet no one has ever measured any of these conditions.

[dpatent]

Treadhead:

You would think that the addition or subtraction of moisture would have a consistent effect on the speed of the track, no?  I\'ll bet that our friend Jerry often has moisture affecting the track differently depending on what he thinks the horses should have run -- i.e. a drying track sometimes gets faster, sometimes gets slower, with no consistent rules being applied.  That\'s because he doesn\'t care about the track surface.  He cares about making the numbers come out the way he wants them too.  That is my point.  Notice that Brown has been silent on this one.

The reason that Brown has the burden is that he often will assign a different variant when 1) there is no obvious outside influence on the track (e.g., he will change the variant even in the absence of watering or change in the weather) or 2) there is no basis for making the degree of adjustment that he makes.  See the turf example from races 7 and 10 on Preakness day.

[tread]

Well that\'s a great thought David, so how do you measure this constant effect of moisture?  What is the scientific formula that Ragozin uses?  Not to beat a dead horse, but is someone taking soil samples?  As JimP mentioned, is there a formula that should be incorporated to adjust variants based on the amount of moisture.  Intuitively, I agree that there probably is, but what proof is there that anyone has it right, or has even attempted to compute this?

Why do you need a significant event to change the track type (and thus variant)?  What is evaporation?  A track is constantly changing, wet or dry out, water trucks or not, harrowing between races or not.  This to me is the most logical argument.  Expecting that a track stays the same during an 80 degree, dry day, does not make sense to me.  That would mean that soil samples are being taken and that water trucks are replacing the exact amount of lost moisture between races.  That makes no sense at all.

The biggest question is which method do you want to go with.  The one that assumes things are for the most part the same without a SIGNIFICANT change, or the one that attempts to make a determination of ANY possible track change.  To be honest, I have no idea if Jerry does a good job of this or not.  Perhaps he puts his figures and pattern making before variant making, I can\'t answer that.  But I think at this point he is arguing his side of the variant story much better.

[Mall]

Can\'t you see or understand that your arguments don\'t make any sense from a bottom line standpoint because you\'ve only used TG a limited number of times & if my recollection is correct, only use Rags occasionally because of your day job or some other reason? Apparently, and surprisingly, I\'ve been able to compare both products on the same day before the races were actually run as much or more than anyone willing to post on the subject, and while I have a good idea of which one works better in the real world, I have to concede that the jury will remain out unless & until there is a test along the lines I have already suggested. The most basic tenet of science is that the way one determines the validity of any theory is by testing to determine if the theory can be refuted. An individual\'s limited experience with & knowledge of a theory can never be a substitute for such testing, any more than mind numbing repetition of the same arguments. It\'s time to give it a break.

[tegger]

I have always used Thorograph and haven\'t had much experience with Rags other than an occassional look at someone else\'s sheets and the major races that they post.  Some of the numbers that they have given for the Derby and Preakness appear to be ridiculous especially for some of the midpack finishers.

I prefer the Thorograph product because of its price and easier to read format.  Plus the new info on sires and trainer statistics has led me to a few winners that I would not have had otherwise.  I find the Ragozin sheets to be almost illegible in their current format.

I am somewhat disturbed by some of Jerry Brown\'s recent posts.  I can understand a minor track variant change from race to race or morning to afternoon but 8 points from one race to another seems to stretch the bounds of credibility.  I know that there is a fair amount of educated subjectivity that goes into making figures but this seems beyond what would be considered logical.  I have only a rudimentary understanding of figure making so maybe you can help a long time fan of your product understand how you knew that the last race at Pimlico on Preakness day wasn\'t just slower especially considering that the horses were lightly raced and had not established somewhat predictable patterns.  How did you know that it was an 8 point variant instead of a 2,4 or 6 point variant?

[MO]

I wonder if any of the above posters have considered the effect of wind and its variations on a race. For example, I was at Belmont Thurs, Fri, Sat and Sun. On one day, during one race (which day and race I am not sure, but think it was Sunday, mid card), I noticed an interesting phenominon: there are 3 sets of flags. The set in the middle of the infield showed a mild wind blowing from right to left, while the outside two had no wind at all.

Any thoughts on that one?

MO

[Alydar in California]

Let me take a shot at this while everyone else is asleep.

David Patent: \"I\'m back from enjoying the Memorial Day weekend. \"No, I have not expired, but do have a day job.\"

Translation: You\'re implying that you didn\'t have time to reply until now. How did you find the time to discuss the O2X pattern Sunday and Monday on the Sheets board?

Patent: \"...Jerry, you have made it clear that your methodology makes certain unverified assumptions about equine behavior.\"

Equine behavior? Good God, David. Anyway, you\'re wrong. JB assesses the speed of the track based on the performances of the horses who run over it. And these assessments are verified by the pairs, trios, and tight cycles that you detest. Love them or loathe them, tight cycles are not sustainable unless the numbers are accurate. Barring fudging within a race, which JB doesn\'t do, bad numbers will perpetuate themselves and eventually result in loose cycles, jagged edges, and grotesque-looking patterns. You\'ll have lots of different patterns to read, but the patterns will have no basis in reality.

Let me ask you a question, David. You believe that watering and other maintenance can affect the speed of the track from race to race. You have made that clear. What do you think of this quote from Ragozin\'s book?

\"I set tougher standards: the horses\' lines must look as reasonable as possible--BUT ALL THE FIGURES MUST USE THE SAME VARIANT UNLESS RAIN OR A FREEZE OR A THAW CHANGES THINGS.\"

Doesn\'t this sentence \"invalidate\" Ragozin\'s figures in your eyes? What do you think of Ragozin\'s boast that his figures are \"accurate to a few inches\" at some tracks. Is this a lie? Leaving everything else aside, isn\'t the rounding to .25 by itself sufficient to make this one of the biggest whoppers ever told? Is your faith in Ragozin blind? Remember Springsteen\'s \"War\" on the live album: \"Blind faith will get you killed.\"

Patent: \"I stand by the creation/evolution comparison.\"

Stand by it as long as you wish, but at some point, please get around to presenting some evidence for it.

Patent: \"I do believe that Quixote clearly enjoys sprinting because I believe the Ragozin numbers.\"

David, David, David: Besides classically begging the question, this seems teleological: \"Quixote prefers sprinting because if Quixote doesn\'t prefer sprinting, Ragozin\'s numbers look even worse.\"

Patent: \"The turf course. Jerry--your math here is just wrong. Unless you believe it is possible for a horse to run a time of 0:00, the difference is not 2 percent.\"

On page 64 of his book, Ragozin uses the same math that JB did. JB wrote that he was discussing \"final time,\" not variant ranges. David, this is where your habit of starting new strings to reply to old statements is beginning to grate.

Patent: \"The Schafer field--I gave you a horse-by-horse breakdown of the race and you gave basically nothing in response except to repeat your previous post that \'graded\' horses run better than other horses. I will take your non-response as a concession.\"

This is total nonsense, David. JB replied to this, but you ducked it and started a new string. JB didn\'t say graded horses run better than other horses. He said they are treated better and their races are exceedingly unlikely to collapse as if on cue. In truth, Ragozin \"collapsed\" this race by tying it to the Preakness.

Patent: \"Of course your figures will \'fit\' better because of your underlying assumptions about how horses run.\"

See above. Whether they \"fit\" or not, inaccurate numbers boomerang on their maker because horses run back against different competition. Inaccurate numbers lead to ugly, contorted patterns in the future, not to the pretty numbers you find so off-putting. Have you ever made figures, David?

Patent: \"In many ways, Ragozin discourages having too many customers. Why? For one, they are not graduates of the \'The Customer Comes First\' school of business. Second, if too many people use their product, its value is diluted.\"

To write that paragraph is to prove oneself capable of writing anything. Let\'s pretend for a second that it\'s not completely ludicrous. If this is Ragozin\'s philosophy, how should he proceed? Should he raise his prices, which would reduce his sales and hassles but increase his profit-per-sale? Or should he allow his employees to get caught on tape telling flat-out lies about TG in order to gain more customers and hurt his own odds?

Patent: \"That\'s because he [JB] doesn\'t care about the track surface. He cares about making the numbers come out the way he wants them too.\"

Now you\'re into motive, David, and with all due respect, your reasoning is idiotic. Of course he cares about track surface. The whole premise of the projection method is that looking at previous performances is the best way to assess today\'s track surface. Think about what you are saying. You\'re saying that JB intentionally makes inaccurate figures because he wants pretty numbers. And you\'re saying that he knowingly sells inaccurate numbers and knowingly uses inaccurate numbers for buying and placing horses. To be honest, I\'ve always respected you. That\'s one reason I never replied to you--on either board--until the other day. But this is a descent into madness.

Patent on the Sheets board, possibly deleted by Wednesday morning: \"I have heard that you guys blew 2 of the 7 variants at Havre de Grace April 12 1948--the day Citation lost before winning 16 in a row. Please post all numbers for that day. I\'ll give you 1000 dollars.\"

Felicitous comparison. I can see you\'re itching to see the numbers for the 13th race. Personally, I\'ll be happy to wait until Patrick Morgan begs for all the numbers.

[nunzio]

I think anyone who is of the mindset that
the track speed remains constant from race 1
til the end of the card even on days when there is no wind, no humidity, and no drastic
change in temperature is only fooling themselves.  Making the assumption that
conditions are identical throughout a card
is naive.  Next time you head out to the races pay speciall attention to the racing surface throughout the day, it is an eye-opening experience.

Nunzio

[HP]

Patent: \"In many ways, Ragozin discourages having too many customers.\"

David, if he wanted to, Ragozin could fix it so he didn\'t have ANY customers and stop selling his figures altogether. If the figures are SO valuable, and selling them is dilutive to their real value, why does he sell them? I\'ve heard this kind of thing before and it\'s a lot of self-serving nonsense. Keep the figures to yourself and clean out the pools. Go ahead. I guess all they need now is an ad that says, \"these figures are so valuable, we tried to keep them under wraps, but we can\'t stop ourselves from selling them!\"

Maybe that moisture evaporating from the track (at varying speeds) is affecting your brain. Ragozin sells figures because there\'s money in it. In fact, it\'s steady money and judging by their massive sales, it\'s a nice business, especially if you like the ponies. Simple. If they\'re worried about diluting the value of their figures, they\'re a little late! Maybe Ragozin likes the money he makes selling sheets better than the money he could make wiping out the track every day. Bigger minds than mine will have to figure this out.

Now you\'re trying to justify Ragozin\'s policies and business practices by saying \"they\'re in business, but not really. They sell their figures, but they\'re trying to discourage too many people from buying them.\" You\'re making a fool of yourself.

You\'re on firmer ground (maybe) debating figure making methodology. Let the people who run the Sheets business speak (or not) for themselves. HP

[TGJB]

Same way you always do--by looking at the horses. The Preakness Day sheets are still in ROTW--look at the last race, and see what different corrrections do to the race.

[TGJB]

That\'s the effect of wind coming around/bouncing off the Grandstand, and another reason why relying on raw data is silly. The effect is unquantifiable.

[TGJB]

I\'m glad you brought this up. The following is one of my posts following last year\'s B.C.
TGJB

Changing Track Speeds

Posted by TGJB on November 17, 2001 at 20:52:56:

One of the few reasonable questions posted amid all the recent noise was, in effect, what would cause a track to change speeds during the day?

Track speed is to a large degree a function of moisture. The variables include: composition of track relative to holding water, amount of water added, when the water is added (before the races, between the races, between some of the races), proximity to large bodies of water (Bay Meadows and Monmouth are examples of tracks where tracks change speed regulary, presumably because of the tides), temperature (in terms of freeze, thaws, and general drying out on hot days), and wind (evaporation).

Even if water is added each race, in equal amounts, the track can change speed. If x is added, it may be cancelled out by evaporation, At 3x, it gets a lot wetter throughout the day. At 1/2x, it gets dryer. At track A, it may get faster as it gets wetter, while at track B it may get slower. At track C, it may get faster until it reaches a certain degree of wetness, and then gets slower.

If a lot of water is added before the races, but not between them, you get a gradual drying, perhaps with the track speed getting faster or slower, but then leveling off at some point when the water has evaporated. Unless the temperature is below freezing, in which case you get a gradual freeze, and the track gets faster; except, for example, at Turfway, where the chemicals in the track keep it from freezing, so it just gets thick and slow.

Keep in mind how small a change in speed we\'re talking about. One fifth of a second equals one point. Lets say a race goes in 1:10, or 350 fifths of a second. A 1% change change in track speed means a difference of 3.5 fifths, or 3.5 points and that was, in fact, about the amount the track changed on Breeders Cup day.

Again, I refer anyone who wants to know more to my post of 5/2/00.

TGJB

[dpatent]

First of all -- GET OUT YOUR CHECKBOOK, JERRY.

Hey Alydar -- See below.  My comments are in brackets.

Let me take a shot at this while everyone else is asleep.

David Patent: \"I\'m back from enjoying the Memorial Day weekend. \"No, I have not expired, but do have a day job.\"

Translation: You\'re implying that you didn\'t have time to reply until now. How did you find the time to discuss the O2X pattern Sunday and Monday on the Sheets board?

[No, I am implying that I chose not to venture over to this board because I had better and more fun things to do.  Problem?]

Patent: \"...Jerry, you have made it clear that your methodology makes certain unverified assumptions about equine behavior.\"

Equine behavior? Good God, David. Anyway, you\'re wrong. JB assesses the speed of the track based on the performances of the horses who run over it. And these assessments are verified by the pairs, trios, and tight cycles that you detest. Love them or loathe them, tight cycles are not sustainable unless the numbers are accurate. Barring fudging within a race, which JB doesn\'t do, bad numbers will perpetuate themselves and eventually result in loose cycles, jagged edges, and grotesque-looking patterns. You\'ll have lots of different patterns to read, but the patterns will have no basis in reality.

[Alydar -- Just ask Jerry.  Jerry\'s figs are based upon his views that horses run more predictable patterns (tight cycles) than Ragzin believes.  As a result he changes his variants to reflect his views about what number the horses should have run.  That\'s how he \'verifies\' them.  He has his variants going up and down like yo-yos on any given day.  If he was using the actual track condition as a basis for the numbers you would have seen some kind of consistent results based on the maintenance or weather conditions.  I\'m sorry but just as a coin will eventually come down every time I flip it (physics at work), a track has certain characteristics that are consistent depending on the amount of moisture, depth, granularity, etc.  If the same conditions prevail, the track should be the same speed.  Changing the conditions in the same direction will result in the same change in track speed.  It does not go both ways.  But Jerry\'s variants go all over the place. A drying track gets faster, slower, and faster depending on what needs to happen to it for Jerry\'s numbers to work.  There is no consistency to his adjustments.  Ask to see a sample of 50 racing cards or so at the same track.  And you know what, a \'grotesque\' pattern is just what a lot of these horses run.  Just because it\'s ugly doesn\'t make it wrong, unless you a priori believe that ugly patterns are wrong -- here we go with that whole creationism problem again.]

Let me ask you a question, David. You believe that watering and other maintenance can affect the speed of the track from race to race. You have made that clear. What do you think of this quote from Ragozin\'s book?

[Alydar -- I do not believe that routine maintenance like watering has any measurable effect on the track speed.  That\'s what my last post said.  Certain conditions can change the conditions of the track but the water truck passing over the track does not make the next race significantly faster than the previous one.  Though it would be interesting to know whether the amount of water that a water truck dumps is equal to or more than the amount of water that evaporated from the Pimlico track between the Preakness and 13th race.  If so, don\'t you think that the watering affect could slow the track down or speed it up (Jerry doesn\'t have it straight either) 8 points every time?  Hmmm?]

\"I set tougher standards: the horses\' lines must look as reasonable as possible--BUT ALL THE FIGURES MUST USE THE SAME VARIANT UNLESS RAIN OR A FREEZE OR A THAW CHANGES THINGS.\"

Doesn\'t this sentence \"invalidate\" Ragozin\'s figures in your eyes? What do you think of Ragozin\'s boast that his figures are \"accurate to a few inches\" at some tracks. Is this a lie? Leaving everything else aside, isn\'t the rounding to .25 by itself sufficient to make this one of the biggest whoppers ever told? Is your faith in Ragozin blind? Remember Springsteen\'s \"War\" on the live album: \"Blind faith will get you killed.\"

[No blind faith here.  I\'m sure that Ragozin blows a fig from time to time.  But I\'m talking about an overall methodology here.  Like I said, I will take science over faith anytime].

Patent: \"I stand by the creation/evolution comparison.\"

Stand by it as long as you wish, but at some point, please get around to presenting some evidence for it.

[See my previous posts.  See physics.  See chemistry.  See meteorology.  To be a bit less glib, at the risk of repeating myself -- the kinds of things we are talking about -- firmness of a turf course, resiliency of a dirt surface, are all eminently understandable physical things.  They will react consistently under the same sets of conditions.  Brown has been able to watch tens of thousands of races; thousands at each track.  If he was serious about getting the track condition right he should be able to back up his variants with some kind of experience like -- \"on 5 different occasions I have seen horses run 8 points faster on the Pimlico track when the track has dried out for an additional hour when the track had been drying out \'x\' amount of hours . . . . I mean, wouldn\'t you think he\'d have some kind of matrix by now?  I wouldn\'t expect him to share the whole thing but I\'d ask if he could share some part of it with us to see if it makes any sense.  Jerry\'s been rattling the pipes about THE 13TH RACE!! for so long now.  How about letting us see where he pulls some of his variants out of?  He can\'t because he pulls them out of his mind, Alydar and he admits it. Again, if I saw some kind of consistency to Brown\'s adjustment I might have more respect but it\'s just goofy what he does sometimes.

Bottom line, Alyday -- Wouldn\'t you want some kind of empirical physical support from the guy who you pay all of this money to?  I don\'t expect to \'prove\' you wrong, but at least admit that you are making a leap of faith -- one that is very different than the one I am making.  I am simply agreeing that I believe what I see.  If you read the whole book \'The Odds Must Be Crazy\' you will get a much better idea about how Ragozin makes variants than Brown represents on this board.]

Patent: \"I do believe that Quixote clearly enjoys sprinting because I believe the Ragozin numbers.\"

David, David, David: Besides classically begging the question, this seems teleological: \"Quixote prefers sprinting because if Quixote doesn\'t prefer sprinting, Ragozin\'s numbers look even worse.\"

[Alydar -- I think you mean tautological.  Teleology is just the study of knowledge.  Tautology is a circular argument or truism.  BTW, of course it\'s a tautology.  So is Jerry\'s point on this.  That\'s why so much of this stuff is just running around in circles].

Patent: \"The turf course. Jerry--your math here is just wrong. Unless you believe it is possible for a horse to run a time of 0:00, the difference is not 2 percent.\"

On page 64 of his book, Ragozin uses the same math that JB did. JB wrote that he was discussing \"final time,\" not variant ranges. David, this is where your habit of starting new strings to reply to old statements is beginning to grate.

[Alydar.  Sorry, wrong again.  While a 4 point change might represent 2% of the final time (I\'m not disagreeing with that math, nor would Ragozin), that is not the same as saying that the turf course only dried out by 2%, which is what Brown suggested.  The question is whether a course can really get 1.4 seconds faster in 2-3 hours under the conditions that prevailed that day.  My sense is no way -- not even close.  And Brown\'s \'answer\' -- which is part of his interesting habit of changing his argument or trying to rephrase the question (see his triple change of point on the Schafer) -- was nonexistent.  Again, don\'t you think that with all of the races he\'s watched he\'d have some empirical support for his adjustment??]

Patent: \"The Schafer field--I gave you a horse-by-horse breakdown of the race and you gave basically nothing in response except to repeat your previous post that \'graded\' horses run better than other horses. I will take your non-response as a concession.\"

This is total nonsense, David. JB replied to this, but you ducked it and started a new string. JB didn\'t say graded horses run better than other horses. He said they are treated better and their races are exceedingly unlikely to collapse as if on cue. In truth, Ragozin \"collapsed\" this race by tying it to the Preakness.

[Alydar.  No, he did not respond to my horse-by-horse analysis.  He did, of course, flip flop on his point for the third time.  He didn\'t respond specifically because he can\'t refute that those individual horses in that individual race were almost all a bunch of ouchy pigs recently coming off of big races or layoffs. If he did, please cut and paste it into a message on a string.  If he did not, please stop throwing around big words like \'nonsense\' when what I wrote was exactly the opposite of nonsense.]

Patent: \"Of course your figures will \'fit\' better because of your underlying assumptions about how horses run.\"

See above. Whether they \"fit\" or not, inaccurate numbers boomerang on their maker because horses run back against different competition. Inaccurate numbers lead to ugly, contorted patterns in the future, not to the pretty numbers you find so off-putting. Have you ever made figures, David?

[Alydar.  Again, I have no problem with a pretty pattern, as long as it\'s based on what the horse ran not on what JB thinks horses run.  And yes, I have made figures in the past.  Way back when I went to the races a lot more, but found the Sheets to be a lot more accurate and that they saved me a bunch of time].

Patent: \"In many ways, Ragozin discourages having too many customers. Why? For one, they are not graduates of the \'The Customer Comes First\' school of business. Second, if too many people use their product, its value is diluted.\"

To write that paragraph is to prove oneself capable of writing anything. Let\'s pretend for a second that it\'s not completely ludicrous. If this is Ragozin\'s philosophy, how should he proceed? Should he raise his prices, which would reduce his sales and hassles but increase his profit-per-sale? Or should he allow his employees to get caught on tape telling flat-out lies about TG in order to gain more customers and hurt his own odds?

[Again with the unsupported adjectives.  You\'re trying to analyze Ragozin as if it is a publicly traded profit maximizing firm, which it isn\'t.  It\'s a bunch of communist/socialists who use their profits for God knows what.  But you cannot dispute that 1) Their customer service is lousy -- that was my first point.  Not ludicrous. Or 2) that if too many people use the product that its value is diluted.  Are you really arguing with that?]

Patent: \"That\'s because he [JB] doesn\'t care about the track surface. He cares about making the numbers come out the way he wants them too.\"

Now you\'re into motive, David, and with all due respect, your reasoning is idiotic. Of course he cares about track surface. The whole premise of the projection method is that looking at previous performances is the best way to assess today\'s track surface. Think about what you are saying. You\'re saying that JB intentionally makes inaccurate figures because he wants pretty numbers. And you\'re saying that he knowingly sells inaccurate numbers and knowingly uses inaccurate numbers for buying and placing horses. To be honest, I\'ve always respected you. That\'s one reason I never replied to you--on either board--until the other day. But this is a descent into madness.

[Alydar.  It\'s not about motive, it\'s about philosophy.  Brown changes the variant because he doesn\'t think that horses do this or that.  As a result, in my belief, he ends up with inaccurate numbers.  I don\'t think its intentional.  But he will do some pretty interesting gymnastics (e.g., an 8 point variant change) to make his numbers come out the way he thinks they should.  This doesn\'t happen every race, of course, but when the pre-ordained \'ranges\' are in jeopardy of being exceeded, you will see some pretty eye-opening variant changes.]

Patent on the Sheets board, possibly deleted by Wednesday morning: \"I have heard that you guys blew 2 of the 7 variants at Havre de Grace April 12 1948--the day Citation lost before winning 16 in a row. Please post all numbers for that day. I\'ll give you 1000 dollars.\"

Felicitous comparison. I can see you\'re itching to see the numbers for the 13th race. Personally, I\'ll be happy to wait until Patrick Morgan begs for all the numbers.

[Just saw the numbers.  And guess what -- they look about right.  Is that a surprise?  Let me guess.  Jerry\'s going to post some hyperbole-laden diatribe about how bad Ragozin blew the number.  And on we go. . . .]