Quote:
Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane
You just proved my point. My point is(and was) that after the results are analyzed a threshold is determined. In this case 16 was the lowest number and has occurred 5 times, so to make the "system" valid 16 is included to prove the system works. Choose the next highest # any winner has had above 16 and at some point in time that number was a threshold in which no contender could have been considered until a horse with a 16 won the derby.
Since you have all the facts about DP, when you get time inform me how these numbers perform top to bottom (first place to last) over the years rather than just the winner; in fields that are more than likely top loaded with "system fitting" horses.
|
I use the DP number in regards to winner only (which is all I ever said), I have no idea, indeed no interest in how it effects overall performance. I doubt anyone has ranked every horse in every Derby using same...for what purpose? If one claims it is an indicator of overall performance, that would be a different story, but since I (and others) use it strictly as an indicator of a horse's chance of winning....the only data of interest to me is it's performance regarding winners. After yesterday, only 3 horses since 1940 have won with less than 16 points, only one since 1950. One last time, this is one of a large number of factors I use in attempting to pick a winner, this year it didn't work, neither did a race within 6 weeks, 5 or more lifetime starts (which did apply to post time favorite as well) and having at least on race on dirt...probably why the winner paid $48+. It's horse racing and no person, and no set of facts is an absolute. Next year, if I'm still alive and in control of my facilities, I'll use DP again as one factor, and you clearly won't. I am not under any obligation to defend the dosage system, feel free to ask Dr Roman if my answer falls short of expectations.