1. There is no dispute that TG/Rags believe that certain horses can be played off their tops, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the Rags' basics is that it usually takes 8 weeks to recover from a top. The Qs on the table are whether that is also part of the TG philosophy and whether it made sense to apply the rule to KAN. Suggesting that I take the matter up with Friedman is a non-sequitur. Waiting to see what JB's runs show is a more sensible approach.
2. I have no idea & for purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter.
3. I could not disagree more, & reiterate my suggestion that everyone read the Quirin studies & decide for themselves. Quirin indeed found that weight could not be isolated, which I'm assume most readers understood me to mean when I specifically pted out that weight is a "dependent variable." In my opinion, Quirin's data is supported by Beyer's study of 6k horses which carried 6lbs more or less in than in their previous starts in Beyer On Speed(pgs106-08), which led to these conclusions: (a)"...weight is a relatively tiny component among all the factors that affect horses' performance; and (b)"...American horses are seldom asked to carry huge imposts, so bettors can usually afford to ignore the factor." There can be no dispute over the fact that no one has yet isolated the precise impact of weight alone(although I continue to believe that it could be done by the right physicist), which is one of the reasons I questioned using weight as a criteria to separate closely matched horses. The thing that I think is telling is that you have not cited any statistical data but are instead relying on anecdotal evidence & criticism of the only data, however imperfect, that is available.
4. I agree that Quirin's research tends to indicate that to the extent weight is important at all, it is more important at longer than shorter distances, which is a Q I raised quite some time ago. As is readily apparent from the 1st post in this series, however, the issue under discussion now is "the continued use of what may very well turn out to be insignificant weight differences to split hairs among evenly matched horses." On that Q, the Quirin & Beyer studies, while concededly not definitive, tend to support the position I'm arguing.
5. No doubt the vast majority of trainers believe that weight is important but again, the Q is whether or not that belief is justified by the facts. The fact that I think it makes sense to consider the opinions of prominent trainers & vets does not mean that I buy into everything & anything they say or believe, anymore than I suscribe to everything & anything any handicapper says or believes. For reasons I have already explained, the personal attacks are not appropriate & if anything, detract from your argument.
6. The personal attacks & sophmoric sarcasm are beginning to grate as well, & do not reflect well on you or your position. In my view, there is a very big difference betwwen saving the time involved in doing one's own figures & carte blanche acceptance of anyone's handicapping theories. I'm not sure if it's directly relevant to the debate, but you can rest assured that my belief that independent thinking is critical to a positive ROI is anything but BS.
7. I'm well aware of the nos. methodology used by TG/Rags, and am also prepared to concede that your argument is a serious one which highlights what is perhaps the most dramatic difference in our thinking: If the hard scientific evidence is there, & there's no dispute that it isn't yet, then my opinion is that you have to follow it no matter where it leads, & if that means there was a fundamental flaw in the last 40 yrs of nos., then so be it. At this pt, all of the admittedly non-definitive & imperfect evidence seems to pt in one direction, which convinces me that it makes sense to consider the issue.
8. The fact that we both know TG/Rags players who have a long term positive ROI is anecdotal evidence which proves nothing. Dahlman has used both successfully & he apparently does not believe in any patterns. My anecdotal experience is that players who end up using TG/Rags were already very good handicappers to begin with, and do not abandon everything they know after they change. In fact, every successful TG/Rags player I know also uses an additional handicapping tool.
9. I'll go one step further for a different reason. I think that the weight & race-to-race changes in the weight of a horse might very well be valuable hadicapping info, & is in fact made available & considered as such in Japan. I trust that you are exaggerating when you guess that it would take "dozens of years" to resolve this issue & note that I have already made the pt that time & cost are factors to consider when deciding whether to continue assuming that something done in the past is true instead of finding out whether it is in fact true.
10. I've already identified the 2 groups I had in mind when I did the post, & your fixation on this matter has me wondering if you have for some reason concluded that my comments were directed at you personally. They weren't, & it's time to move on to the merits of the debate. Those who read both posts can judge for themselves whether your reaction to the McCarthy reference was or was not out of proportion, & I suggest that they do just that.
11. I don't know HP either, but based on his posts am prepared to accept everything you have to say about him. I am also interested in his views on the substantive issues under discussion, which I feel confident will not include the kind of personal attacks & sarcasm you are relying on.
12-13. The posts are there for all to see & I don't see any pt in doing what you request. Besides, I don't know how to "put that part on the top" & both of these paragraphs are nothing more & nothing less than the kinds of things which have no place in a serious discussion.
14. I heard that it's unlucky to be superstitous, & I've never heard of the song, so I'll end with a short passage from an 1812 treatise by the great Pierre Simon, Marquis De Laplace which I think has some relevance to the discussion: "It is remarkable that a science which began with the consideration of games of chance should have become the most important object of human knowledge....The most important questions of life are, for the most part, really only problems of probability."
