Prof. Liebman’s advertorial didn’t quite explain the product

3 thoughts on “Prof. Liebman’s advertorial didn’t quite explain the product”

  1. As someone who has both a professional and private interest in statistics and the scientific methodology, I’m frequently stunned by how many people in stats-obsessed fields such as racing actually don’t understand the basics of the data they work with every day (it’s even worse in handicapping).

    Incredible that someone with all the available resources and fact-checking possibilities of an industry-owned publication would miss such fundamental errors, and that such an article would be published without anyone noticing. Then again (as you have implied earlier), he probably wasn’t too enthusiastic about writing this badly-concealed advertisement.

    No compassion from my side, since Mr Liebman never bothered to post one of the two comments I wrote for his pieces.

  2. Malcer, I too was surprised that the magazine editors and fact checkers missed this…..also very surprised that several people (2) who wrote long-winded defenses of Stacy and BH in my “Is Stacy behind the missing comments …” never once brought this up, either…makes you wonder what their motives were….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s