Howard was ahead of his time

[Tim Y]

Article reviewing the change of format from the traditional selling race to more akin to the artificial class structure of today.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...649D946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...679C946696D6CF

[Ted Craven]

Tim,

Are you saying there is no co-relation between winning and man-made class level changes that is not also explained as well (or better?) by the velocity/energy -related measurements of a horse?

Are you saying that FTL's class-related stats are an unstable illusion, better explained by a more fundamental reality?

Forget about stock-picking or barn doors. Can you offer anything other than anecdotal refutation to the stats which FTL offers? Believe me, at this point, I'd love to trot out velocity/energy related stats based on Sartin numbers over 12 years and say something to the effect that all his observations are perfectly co-related to other measurements which do not rely on man-made class categories at all. Check with me in a few years

Until then, I'm sure that confirmation bias or fitting reality to meet your own preconceptions absolutely exists. But what proof do you offer - specifically - that class drop (or class maintenance) changes do not aid in identifying winners next out? Maybe there are mutliple ways of looking at the same, empirical phenomenon (predicatability of winners) - and I do tend to ignore class maneuvers in my own analysis, similar to you, I'd guess.

But your breezy pooh-poohing of an observation said to be supported by stats (i.e. FTL's) sure sounds like it wouldn't peer-review very well.

Ted

[Tim Y]

I am saying what the Follow Up said for years. The MATCH UP is where it's at: forget the horsey baloney. Horses come together in differing phases of their form cylce showing you the extent of what they have done. WHAT THEY HAVE DONE versus the various pace pressures forced upon them. THAT IS IT.

The HORSE runs the race. The race is composed of the varying abilities of the animals in it THAT day and has nothing to do with their theoretical worth independent of the match up.

Yes an illusion tempered out of the theoretical "sharpshooters fallacy" and the complete misunderstanding of what the class structure of today WAS initially based on.

Statistics in the 60% range are hardly above the "chance" level of 50% for a coin toss.
It his the hanging onto of the old time horsey sayings which Howard kept saying was the reason that most could NEVER let go and let the program do the work.

Some listened to him.

[Ted Craven]

Now here's an example of naively back-fitting reality to meet a pre-conceived notion (in philosophical terms, a misguided Argument from Analogy):

"A ninety year old man went to the doctor and said, "Doctor, my 18 year old wife is expecting a baby."

The doctor said, "Let me tell you a story. A man went hunting, but instead of a gun, he picked up an umbrella by mistake. When a bear suddenly charged at the man, he picked up the umbrella, shot the bear, and killed it."

The man said, "Impossible. Someone else must have shot that bear."

The doctor said, "My point exactly!"



Ted

[Tim Y]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Now here's an example of naively back-fitting reality to meet a pre-conceived notion (in philosophical terms, a misguided Argument from Analogy):

"A ninety year old man went to the doctor and said, "Doctor, my 18 year old wife is expecting a baby."

The doctor said, "Let me tell you a story. A man went hunting, but instead of a gun, he picked up an umbrella by mistake. When a bear suddenly charged at the man, he picked up the umbrella, shot the bear, and killed it."

The man said, "Impossible. Someone else must have shot that bear."

The doctor said, "My point exactly!"

Interesting but irrelevant.

[Tim Y]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

I recently saw a very interesting chart showing the fallacy of the database using historical data to predict current data.

The example was a graph showing the spectrum of investment return, from highest to lowest, of stock analysts for a five year period.

The 2nd example was a graph of the SAME analysts, placed in the same order as the first graph, showing THIS TIME their five year placing (up for positive and down for negative) in that next five years. The graph was all over the spectrum with no correlation to the first rankings.

If these analysts were so good at their job, is should have been a mirror of the first graph. It was pure noise with NOT correlation. RANDOMNESS

If the ability of the stock advisers was at the heart of this comparison (and not just dumb luck) the two would coordinate. But they do not

[Tim Y]

Great site on statistical misconceptions has an emboldened line that is great.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

Statistics in the 60% range are hardly above the "chance" level of 50% for a coin toss.

I have an idea. The stat was 65%. That's just about 2-1. How about we just "flip a coin"? When I win you pay me "2", when you win I pay you "1". We can do this until one of us is broke. You have a good chance. I mean, what was it you said? "Statistics in the 60% range are hardly above the "chance" level of 50% for a coin toss". Sounds good to me!

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

If the ability of the stock advisers was at the heart of this comparison (and not just dumb luck) the two would coordinate. But they do not

Earth to Tim, earth to Tim, come in Tim.

Who cares? Talk about apples and oranges! This isn't the stock market!

So in your opinion, reaching the same percentage every year 12 years in a row was nothing more than "dumb luck". Right.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

The HORSE runs the race. The race is composed of the varying abilities of the animals in it THAT day

Yes, and it proves out that those horses with a "class" edge win at a rate of almost 2-1 over the lesser animals in that "match up".