B.C. Review

[TGJB]

I haven\'t got time for any of this, but go back and read what I wrote again. I specifically said it was more likely than another horse.

[TGJB]

All that restating my positions in the last few paragraphs is exactly what I was talking about. I don\'t need you to state (let alone recast) my positions-- I do a pretty good job expressing myself. Is Pleveresque a word?

[Marc At]

Given that Pleveresque is less than a compliment, I\'d like to not be thought of that way.

Your words, so I won\'t be accused of misstating them:

\"In regard to your overall position: the 2 year old fillies who can run that fast are probably 1 in 10,000. Here\'s what we\'ll do-- next time a horse runs really fast, I\'ll take that one to run back to the number, and you take another horse who hasn\'t run that fast to do so, and we\'ll bet. As much as you want.\"

Respectfully, I will pass that wager because the term \"you take another horse who hasn\'t run that fast to do so,\" tells me too little to make an educated bet, as does \"horse runs really fast.\"

Also, when you have more time, I\'d like to hear your opinion on how much more common 7-1-4-1 is from a fall 2-yr-old filly than 6-12-7-5, with the second number in both lines coming over an off-track.

[Alydar in California]

JB wrote: \"I haven\'t got time for any of this, but go back and read what I wrote again. I specifically said it was more likely than another horse.\"

   I have a lot of patience with you because I like you, but you are extremely rude to people (plural intentional) who don\'t deserve it, and who are a hell of a lot nicer than you are. Marc gets first crack at the numbers argument. If he doesn\'t have anything to add, you and I can finish it--if you can find the time.

[TGJB]

You did it again.

[TGJB]

My remark to him was not about the numbers arguement, it was about him misstating my position-- which he has continued to do. Most of the positions he has assigned to me in his last several posts are straw men. I\'ll say it again-- it is more likely that a horse that has already proved it can run a super fast figure will do so again than one who has not proved it can do so will do it at all. I said nothing about whether the horse is more likely to do it again than not, nothing about Composure, nothing about which scenario is more likely once a horse has run a super fast number, or any of the other stuff Marc has tried to stick me with--none of which is relevent to the discussion at hand.

[Alydar in California]

JB wrote: \"I said before the race that I didn\'t know what result would confirm our figures or Ragozin\'s for the 9/15 race-- I meant that she could be played to x on either (I didn\'t have her on a ticket). But she ran back to the 1 1/2, so it should be clear who was right, and that Ragozin not only got it wrong, but got it wrong by a whole bunch.\"

Please tell me you see the problem with this in light of what you later wrote to Marc.

[Marc At]

Guys--

I think Alydar seems to understand where I\'m coming from and it\'s all his to try to explain it TGJB.

As for the comment that it is more likely that a horse who has run a super fast number is more likely to do so again than one who never has run a super fast number to do so at all, I guess I agree with that. But that general statement--without taking into account the specifics as they are discussed above-- strikes me as almost wholly irrelevant.

I\'ll refrain from further dialogue on this subject out of fear that I\'ll misinterpret anything further. Looking forward to reading and learning more here.

[TGJB]

Assuming I understand what you mean, I\'ll say it yet again-- I\'m NOT saying that she was better than 50/50 to run back to the figure that day, which is why I bet her to X. I\'m saying that it was far more likely for her to run that figure because she had previously done so than if she had not. Is it more likely to see that 1 off 7-1-4, or 7-9-4? Because if I had done the day the way Ragozin did, that\'s how it would be (and I know the pattern is different on Ragozin, BUT THAT\'S A SEPARATE QUESTION FROM THE ONE UNDER DISCUSSION, WHICH IS THE ONE I STATED ABOVE}. If you are asking me in % terms, I would have made her maybe 30-40% to run back to the big number, as opposed to maybe 5% if her top was 3 points worse.

But all of this has taken us far afield (and I believe intentionally) from the point-- the BC number is just another piece of evidence, along with all the other things I mentioned (some of them before I saw what Ragozin had given her) that our figure is correct and theirs is not.

If you think this is loud, wait until tomorrow, but I have to check some stuff first.

[Alydar in California]

JB wrote: \"But all of this has taken us far afield (and I believe intentionally\"

Intentionally by whom?

[TGJB]

And since you guys insist-- I let Marc\'s comment that Ragozin players read SFF\'s sheet as ready to break through go by because I didn\'t want the discussion to get further sidetracked. This is a filly who, on Ragozin, has been unable to get back to a first out number in two susequent starts, who bounced 6 points  off a 6 and now is coming off a 7, and is making her third start in 6 weeks, and you\'re going to expect her to run one of the best races a 2 year old filly has ever run? I don\'t think so, which is why I said BEFORE the race that she could be played against on either. My guess is that most sophisticated Ragozin players (!) did NOT expect her to break through.

[TGJB]

Marc. I thought I made that clear. It goes the same way-- Plever, Patent (for a while), now Marc-- Ragozin guys come on here, sometimes starting without bad intentions (Patent, maybe Marc), and when the arguement starts heading South, start throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. Another example is the abuse I took this time last year when I brought up the dead rails-- go back and look at all the crap that was thrown at me, and when it turned out I was 100% right there was not a peep from any of those assholes.

I want to add that unlike Plever, Patent\'s been intellectually honest since the Spring, although his recent comment makes me nervous. I realize that this sounds harsh, and I\'m glad Marc recused himself, and maybe it will turn out that I am wrong-- but I\'m forced to deal with this stuff by the nature of the situation, and I\'m tired of it. There is also a lot of crap thrown at me on the other board, which of course I don\'t get to answer (Jim is back). Watch what happens tomorrow.

[Alydar in California]

JB: Who is responsible for Plever no longer being here? Who is responsible for David Patent backing off?

JB wrote: \"Marc. I thought I made that clear...go back and look at all the crap that was thrown at me, and when it turned out I was 100% right there was not a peep from any of those assholes.\"

    Watch your mouth. You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing Marc to Plever. This is by far the most despicable thing I\'ve seen you do on this board.

   The figures part of this will come tonight. I want to tie it to a larger question.

[TGJB]

1- Not Marc.

2- That\'s some ellipsis. Nice of you to ignore my parenthetical, and the next paragraph.

[Alydar in California]

JB wrote: \"- Not Marc.\"

Not an answer. Answer the question.

 \"That\'s some ellipse. Nice of you to ignore the next paragraph.\"

1: Save this BS for when you\'re talking to an idiot. Your entire post is RIGHT ON TOP of what I quoted. I will also deal with your last paragraph tonight--unless you decide that you want to end the discussion.

2: It\'s not an ellipse. It\'s an ellipsis. Don\'t you know anyone who can help you with this sort of thing?