Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Charlie
Hindsight.
|
Hindsight? Well, yes. How else do you resolve arguments than by looking at results? How do you learn anything other than by seeing what happens to your predictions? (and yes, I made my own prediction at the time of DrugS's earlier posts.)
The argument was about how much impact under-the-radar horses (those in DrugS's "Rest" group) would have on the Derby. I used 10 years of 'hindsight', aka data, to argue that those off-the-list horses would turn out to have a much greater chance of winning the Derby than the 5% chance that DrugS estimated. I suggested 10-15% as a more realistic figure, based on studying 10 years of KD Future Wager data. Now, less than a month later, DrugS's own figures put it at about 19%.
Please take a look at our posts in that thread:
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41384
I respect DrugS's capping, or I wouldn't have bothered making such detailed posts in that thread. It takes some work to put together a coherent line like he's been doing. I'm sure his overall ability to rate the relative chances of the top 25-30 contenders is far better than anything I could come up with. My only issue with the first list was his significantly underestimating the chances of new contenders emerging from the pack. Now his revised line seems to confirm my position.
--Dunbar