REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

I don't agree with your Guineas/Derby example.

First of all, we should ask the question: should Derby winners and Guineas winners be, on average, rated the same?

For the sake of this, let's accept they should.

In that case, a correct WFA adjustment should be required in order for the average of the Derby winners to come up to the same average of the Guineas winners.

In other words, you wouldn't rate the average Derby winner higher than the average Guineas winner by using WFA; you would rate the average Derby winner lower than the average Guineas winner by not using WFA.

[QUOTE="Harbinger, post: 2261109, member: 65089"] I don't agree with your Guineas/Derby example. First of all, we should ask the question: should Derby winners and Guineas winners be, on average, rated the same? For the sake of this, let's accept they should. In that case, a correct WFA adjustment should be [i]required[/i] in order for the average of the Derby winners to come up to the same average of the Guineas winners. In other words, you wouldn't rate the average Derby winner higher than the average Guineas winner by using WFA; you would rate the average Derby winner lower than the average Guineas winner by [i]not[/i] using WFA. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?