Quote:
|
Originally Posted by King Glorious
I remember when they gave Smarty Jones a Preakness number that a lot of people thought was too low. But it "fit" with his previous numbers. Perhaps his previous numbers had been too low and it through everything out of wack. If u start wrong, u are going to end wrong. Right?
This whole revision based on next outs is extremely ridiculous. I've always been told that it's impossible to compare races from different days and run on different tracks and under different conditions and that's where speed figures come into play. But then when they look at a totally different race with tons of different variables involved to tell me how fast a PREVIOUS race was, that's too much for me. A system should be able to be used by anyone if they know the system and they should all be able to come up with the same number. I mean, all of us, if we add 2+2, should come up with 4. Now that's a system. This other stuff is not a system. I don't know what it is. The thing I've always tried to do is not look for a horse with high numbers because I don't know how they come about the numbers. What I look for is a consistency in the numbers, with the hope that whatever quacky way they come up with them, that they are consistent in their approach.
|
I'm just curious as to how that makes any sense...
If you're questioning how they came up with the figures, how can you be concerned with the former but trust that they're consistent?
There are going to be errors and I'd rather they correct their errors then let them stay incorrect. Maybe that's just me...