More Importantly

[TGJB]

I\'ve talked for a couple of years now about adding 5 points to the entire database, so that we all don\'t have the confusion of dealing with all the negative numbers that have appeared as horses have gotten faster (and I don\'t want to have that argument again). If we do it, it will be in December. Anyone THAT USES OUR DATA REGULARLY is encouraged to weigh in with an opinion as to whether we should go ahead and finally do it.

[HP]

I don\'t think there is any \"confusion.\"  I just think people have a hard time ACCEPTING the big negative numbers.  At least that\'s what I read here most of the time.  

My two cents -- when it comes to \"service\" and whatnot, the customer comes first.  When it comes to making your product, I want you to make it the way YOU think it should be, based on your ongoing observations.  It\'s YOUR craftmanship that counts.  If you think adding the points makes sense, then do it.  You\'ve made a lot of good point viz-a-viz the increasing speed of these beasts and maybe you should just stick to your guns.  

There have been quite a few horses that I think have vindicated the huge numbers you gave them (Ghostzapper, St. Liam and Smarty Jones for starters -- frankly I\'m sick of betting against them).  They won the big races AFTER you gave them the a big negabomb number...  Not that winning per se means anything, still...

As long as the scale is consistent, the negative numbers don\'t confuse this customer.  Do your thing, Jerry Brown.  Don\'t be swayed.  I don\'t drink LITE beer, you know what I mean?  If you dish out the minus five, I CAN TAKE IT!  

HP

[basket777]

Tommorrow I will go to the track spend $120.00 to buy  all the sheets for all the races run. I will get there early study for 2 hours or so write down the numbers i give horses. based up the numbers i will bet between 5 and 10 races all day. long term these have been very very profitable. however the many races inbetween are just to tempting to pass. So to answer the queston  It doesn\'t matter what the numbers are -5 0r 0   the knack is predicting winners or sometime horse that have a shot.  would it be easier going back 5 yes. does it matter no.

[Upper Nile]

I\'d rather you did not add 5 points.  If its not broken why fix it?  I like the negative numbers.  I guess I\'m just used to them.  It\'s possible changing the scale just may cause more confusion.
All the best. Phil

[NoCarolinaTony]

Quite Honestly the scale is meaningless provided the figures are conistently done nationally. (IE circuit to circuit) Normalization of the data doesn\'t change the relationship (You will also have to redo your archive figs as well!!)

If you don\'t have to change why change? Stay Bold.

Guess you might have a few less conflicted Raggies that way.

NC Tony

[davidrex]

Yes by all means change it! Its\' just not nec. to envision in ones\' mind that a neg.3 is 6 points better than a 3. Gamblers have enough to deal with less is better in understanding the flow of a line.After all why would you call it a graph/

[NoCarolinaTony]

Hey David

shhh Don\'t tell anyone that a -3 is 6 points better than a +3. You\'re taking away some of our built in advantage. Also graphs start wherever the x and Y axis meet you set the Starting point.

Nc Tony

[asfufh]

TGJB, What ever you do, I request that you change the turf race designation to something other than a minus sign (maybe one of those squiggily sideways wavy thingies..i think they mean approximately) and then use the minus sign only for negative figs. The way it is now confuses me (easy to do as I rush to make a decision as post time is approaching..especially after a few beers) and is an awkward workaround. Asfufh  

[dodie]

I whole heartedly agree with asfufh.  Bottom line, I\'d rather have you write \"turf\" out than \"negative number.\"  The minus sign is what confuses me.  (Although, I must admit, I enjoyed watching the steam come from Dr. Lazaar\'s ears when I repeatedly asked him \"but how can you have someTHING less than noTHING?\" in high school calculus class.

[kev]

I say move the scale.

[msola1]

Move the scale--I can\'t imagine it will be a problem to anyone on this board. It will simplify the appearance of the numbers.

Mike

[bobphilo]

Jerry,

Add the points. Years ago when I made my own figures I used a scale similar to yours where 1/5 second at 6 furlongs was equal to 1 point. I wanted a system where an outstanding performance that was only seen once or twice a year, would earn a figure of 100. I did a par study and found the average Grade 1 stakes winner earned a 99 on my scale, which gave just the base I needed so that 1 point above that would yield the 100 that fit the description of a rarely seen superior performance. It appears that you did doing something similar what your figures, with your 0 equivalent to my 100. If too many horses match or exceed that level or figure, it loses some of it's meaning. If horses are indeed getting faster, shouldn't the scale and its base reflect this? Of course, most races are not Grade 1 level stakes but it's still a point of reference. It can also cause some confusion if figures of the same magnitude and absolute value represent widely different levels of performance, i.e., 2 and –2, 3 and –3 etc.
From a business point of view, I also think adding points is a wise choice. Too many negative numbers, especially if awarded to other than the highest-class horses invite charges of "grade inflation", or it's figure making equivalent.

Bob

[marcus]

Jerry ,  I couldn\'t agree more w/ HP, BASKET and ( to a degree ) NCT - Go with what you want to see when looking at a sheet and everyones interest\'s will be well looked after .  

[scavsiu8]

I thought I would chime in as a newcomer to TG. The first thing that confused the heck out of me was the turf/negative number thing that people are talking about. I have now caught on but I was always taught that a minus in front equals negative. I think it would be easier to see turf written out instead of neg number.

All this being said, coming from this newcomer and math geek, adding the points doesn\'t really matter because the whole database will be effected, It actually makes perfect sense unless you want to have a horse run a negative 12 within the next 10 years.  The only potential issue will be the people that try and correlate Rag\'s to TG.

Thank you
Tom

[Ron G.]

The negative figs remind me of the scene from This is Spinal Tap -- Nigel: \"You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. You're on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder.\" DiBergi: \"Why don't you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?\" Nigel (after taking a moment to let this sink in): \"These go to 11.\"

\"o\" should be the \"top.\"