More Importantly

[miff]

Jerry,


Why? What confusion? You have argued and defended your position about this many times, to me especially. I believe SOME of your negative figs are questionable and I have to evaluate the questionable ones myself,as does anyone else who questions them.

At this point how could you possibly make this change and not have your overall credibility attacked.You have written expos on this,horses are getting faster. After 20 years of data base,you\'re uncomfortable? Unless you have a business reason, I believe you should stick to your guns but be prepared to be challenged on controversial figs.

For me Jerry, I must continue to have your explanation when I ask(infrequently)about a fig.I\'m betting too much money to use data which is not as close to accurate as possible.

I can see the problem some have with the symbol for turf and negative and would change the turf symbol.

Mike

[bobphilo]

Jerry,

I have seen people posting that to add points to your figures is an abandonment of your position that horses are getting faster.
Just the opposite is true. It is an acknowledgment that there has been a change and the figures need correction to bring them back in line. The guy who puts on weight and refuses to buy a larger pants size is the one in denial. Stick to your guns, and adopt the scale that reflects your belief in the reality that horses are getting faster.
Make zero the super figure it once was.

Bob

[Michael D.]

Jerry,
How often do you plan on making this type of change? If the next five points of TG improvement come as quickly as the last five, it won\'t be long before you have to address the issue again.

[TGJB]

Miff-- I wasn\'t referring to any question about the numbers being accurate. We\'ve been over that a hundred times. I\'m referring to the question of whether the large number of negative numbers makes it more difficult to use the product.

You can start your scale anywhere-- Ragozin is running a couple of points slower,with Beyer higher is better, TimeForm works in pounds. If I do this, we\'ll be adding 5 points to ALL the figures in the database, meaning the ones from horses that ran as far back as 1992. It has nothing to do with saying horses ran slower-- a zero from 1997 will become a 5, as the scale changes. It\'s a question of convenience, nothing more.

Michael-- what we\'re trying to do is keep the figures in familiar territory. As I said to someone else, I don\'t want Ghostzapper running 10s, and allowance horses running 20s. If performances continue to improve (note I didn\'t say the breed was improving) in a few years I\'ll just do it again.

[davidrex]

As representitive of the entire BLUE STATE nation;
Just change the damn thing ...this isn\'t Babe Ruth baseball.
The gamblers of the world aren\'t seeking out truth in numbers,but rather truer #\'s.
Didn\'t know there were so many t.g. biographers around!!(its a joke you guys)


P.S. what happened to class? Did he jump up and bite you in the ass again?!

[Easy Goer]

Hey, maybe we can combat global warming by subtracting 5 degrees off the Fahrenheit scale.

You got problems with negative numbers? Stop by your local preschool for a number line to help you out.

[purplemike]

please hurry and get rid of the negative #\'s

[miff]

Jerry said

\"Miff-- I wasn\'t referring to any question about the numbers being accurate. We\'ve been over that a hundred times. I\'m referring to the question of whether the large number of negative numbers makes it more difficult to use the product\"

Jerry,

I completely understand what you meant, you are not the only one with some intelligence on this board.There is no problem with using the figs with all the negatives, why would there be?.This is about the credibility of the proliferation of your neg figs,how do you not get it?.It will be much more confusing, to long time TG users, to see a horse  run off by himself and get zero instead of negative 5, imv.

The problem, again, is that your figs are getting faster than ANY other credible fig maker, scale to scale.Given the way you use the projection method and the \"reference\"to prior figs, you will surely soon show figs of negative 8, 9 10.Given all that you have written( archive stuff) on the pertinent details, it is inevitable.I understand that you strongly believe in your methodology and conclusions, others do not.

Unless there is more here than you wish to say, for business reasons, leave it alone and the free market will sort things out, like always.

Mike

[TGJB]

Easy-- that global warming analogy is really good. Yeah, it\'s exactly the same thing.

[P-Dub]

TGJB,

I don\'t know why this is an issue with some people. I wouldn\'t change a thing. If someone is intelligent enough to use your figures, they should be intelligent enough to figure out that -2 is 5 points better than 3. You could add 10 points to the scale or subtract 5 points from the scale. All that matters is the correlation between numbers. If people have problems with this concept,  maybe you can add something to your Introduction page.  Perhaps a link to \"Math for Dummies\" would be helpful.  

P-Dub

[bobphilo]

Nobody is talking about doing anything to change the relationship between the figures. Adding a few points to the scale won\'t mess up anything.
Jerry is just asking whether a slight tweak would make the figures a bit more user-friendly. It\'s called market research. Every little bit helps. Do it, Jerry.

Bob

[davidrex]

Its not about math its about how some people were taught about reading #s.
Theres no minus #s in pre- school and theres no writing in after the # that it happens to be negative.
Jerry took this business and brought it into the 20th century,now after hearing about turf misreadings it feels to me Jerry(not you math. handicap folks) that the right thing to do NOW is to fix two inappropriate symbols at the same time.
A besides to t.g.    when was last time the N was used...remember how succesful it was in beginning?  Do you even use it anymore?

[davidrex]

   some bozo just e-mailed me requesting that Jerry take the #s ...not back to zero...but back to zed....liked his shiny red nose!




p.s. how bout you uncle buck?...would love to hear your opinion

[Silver Charm]

If you really believe that horses have gotten faster as you have stated on several occasions then you will leave the scale as is.

If you don\'t believe your own words then you will move it.

As a handicapper the adjustment process may take around a year or so. So why make me or anyone else do it. There still is a relevance of breakthrough numbers that are more than or horse can handle. Borrego\'s Gold Cup figure was a perfect example, making him an easy toss. Moving the scale back will make that decision making process a little cloudier. Where will the threshold be then, a two, a five, an eight??

[davidrex]

Vegas just posted odds on this debate.

Jery +5 to change the #s