smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sek,
> I'm gonna renege one time about being finished
> with responding.
> 2014-13-12-11-10-09-08=07=06=05 That is the 10
> year period I used, I could not have been more
> clear. You insist on including Smarty who ran in
> 2004. My initial sheet SPECIFICALLY says the last
> 10 Derby's. I didn't include Seattle Slew either.
>
1. You're again missing the point. Smarty wouldn't have fit under your criteria anyway so it's meaningless that you didn't use that year. The point is, he narrowly missed by 3 days. So if there's some logic hidden under the criteria, this blows it up.
2. You keep pointing out that you only used 10 years. What's so special about the past 10 years that separates it from the previous 10 years?
> I already explain Brother Derek more than once. I
> don't care if he paired his negative, has NOTHING
> to do with this sample. NOTHING. He's in the #4
> spot where he belongs in this sample.
You don't care because it keeps your data perfect if you ignore it. That's why you dismiss it. But you cannot take a horse that paired his negative and use his 4th place finish as evidence that your discovery is solid. That is absurdity.
Again, any logic behind your criteria is destroyed by Brother Derek, because he paired his negative.
> I wasn't apologizing to you. I was apologizing to
> TGJB and everybody else in the room.
> You are bringing up points with no merit sek.
> Please do a 10 year sample study on something and
> we will see if this old forensic accountant can
> offer suggestions.
>
> sek. I don't engage in "systems." I am a
> methodologist. I never referred to it as a
> "system" I never inferred it would work, because
> it is still incomplete. If it "falls apart in
> future years" it will have been a fun project to
> do. You think this is the first time I started
> with a random sample and found nothing useful? I
> do stuff like this because its fun.
>
> That's all sek. Put something that consists of 10
> years of data together, cause I'd love to discuss
> its merits with you.
10-years of data? You have an 11 horse sample! And that sample is weak on its face. I see nothing of value in pointing out the failure of these 11 horses to not win the Kentucky Derby. 1 paired his negative, a bunch of others had terrible patterns coming in, and a bunch of others were sprinters who didn't belong in the race.
If you come up with an 11-horse sample of something and tout it as evidence of something greater on a handicapping discussion forum about TG figures, then you should be prepared to defend it from criticism without becoming hysterical. Are you really shocked that someone would dare question an 11-horse sample that is rife with flaws? The now extinct Dosage Index had more data points supporting itself than this does.
