There was a) track going fast/good/muddy, b) a sprint/route split. There were two other two turn races, I took off about a point more than one and another point more than the other. But this was a no brainer, the whole range of possibilities was what I did or one point slower, and this was clearly better.
As I said earlier in the string, forget what I did, what they did is clearly wrong if you use THEIR data to make figures. It\'s clear they should be taking off 2 to 3-- I can\'t tell which without seeing the ones that are not in the Derby probables. I would love to hear them publicly explain the basis for what they did, but they won\'t. It has to be built on some really silly assumptions that in the end come down to the misuse of averages.