Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Craven
Like I said, Doc has his own style! Thanks Dick for the citation. I never understood the difference between a lateral tier and a vertical tier, nor what clarity the adjectives 'lateral' or 'vertical' add to the notion of tier, which seems pretty clear to me.
I agree that what Bill has written above is pretty much what Howard wrote in your excerpt, so I defer to that. Only - if each Tier equals each Rank, then what else is the distinction between tier and rank?
Ted
|
I have to agree about being totally bewildered by the difference between a lateral and vertical tier. I think it is largely a matter of choosing terminology that you thought was clever and then being forced to defend your choice.
To me though, the difference in tier and rank is that tier assumes little or no difference in value, while rank has a very strong valuation placed upon it. Think of a three tier wedding cake. Which one is better, the bottom, top or middle tier?
In another Follow Up of the same period, Doc suggests that if you insist on remaining linear in your thinking, and attaching a value to the tiers, take the 'will pay' figure for each horse and subtract the tier level (or ranking, if you insist). If the tier 1 horse pays $4.80, subtract 1 and you have a value of $3.80. Tier 2 pays $8.00, so its 'value' is $6.00. Tier 3 pays $12.00 and has a value of $9.00. With such a procedure, it becomes easy to see which tier presents the most 'value'.
Dick