TRUENICKS.....
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn, Diane
-
Rokeby Forever
- Darley line
- Posts: 6684
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:52 pm
- Location: Reno, NV
America's loss is Australia's gain. Best of luck in Australia, Brogers!
What synthetics are to California racing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gb0mxcpPOU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gb0mxcpPOU
-
tinners way
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:48 pm
Congratulations and good luck!! Hopefully the "internets" work in Australia just fine so you and Roke don't suffer withdrawals of one another's repertoire!! 
From what I read Aussie racing is quite something to be reckoned with and appears on tap to be very cleanly run. And a happy wife always makes for a happy husband!!!
trying to come up with something brillant..... this may take a while. 
Mr. Rogers, some food for thought... one interesting thing I would love to be able to research is the benefit of inbreeding to full or half siblings. For example, I have done a little leg work on the cross of full brothers Vice Regent and Viceregal just for fun using the information available to me (mainly Tesio Power) so while I know I am not accounting for ALL thoroughbreds bred in this manner, this should be catching many of them. My "pool" consists of 57 thoroughbreds inbreed in this manner, of those 43 were winners, 19 scored more than $100,000 on the track and 17 were blacktype. Included are Acting Deputy, Beau Classic, Best of the Duck, Except for Wanda, Gentleman Beau, Iskandar Elakbar, Lucy Ellen, Pretty 'n Smart, Round Pond, Royal Value, Scotzanna, Streak of Royalty, and Undue Influence. I also see that mares produced from this cross have gone on to foal such runners as Gimme the Willys, Texcess, Beau Dare, Lady Vye, Southern Outlaw, Wild Chick, and Ashley's Kitty to name a few. So even though this is not a sire line over sire line nick, to me it seems like it works (though I confess to not knowing how the percentages stack up with the breed as a whole). This type of information to me would be quite valuable to breeders.
Something else that would be very interesting would be able to key on a certain name in a pedigree, say Wild Again for example, and then get a breakdown of what names appear most frequently in the opposite side of the pedigrees of "superior" runners.... Might be a good way to find specific blood affinities that may not necessarily be strictly sire over sire type matches. (Like the Con Game example I gave earlier in this thread).
Anyway, not sure if these ramblings make much sense... just some thoughts.
Something else that would be very interesting would be able to key on a certain name in a pedigree, say Wild Again for example, and then get a breakdown of what names appear most frequently in the opposite side of the pedigrees of "superior" runners.... Might be a good way to find specific blood affinities that may not necessarily be strictly sire over sire type matches. (Like the Con Game example I gave earlier in this thread).
Anyway, not sure if these ramblings make much sense... just some thoughts.
-
geowarrior
- Leading Sire
- Posts: 3593
- Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:45 pm
- Location: Spokane, WA
Good luck Brogers, I hope you have a happy and successful future career.
As far as 'tools' are concerned. There seem to be as many pedigree tools or angles as there are handicapping angles. I don't think any single one should ever be relied upon.
I like Goldmine for a number of reasons. Firstly for a fixed fee I can play with crosses as much as I like. Since I do this for interest and entertainment rather than because I have horse to breed, the prices of any of the 'nick' services like Werk are prohibitive.
Also Goldmine allows one to look at male crosses, female crosses, male/female crosses or any crosses in your hypomatings that you care to consider.
I also like the fact that whoever owns Goldmine is constantly looking for additions and ways to improve the program. When I contacted Goldmine about something fairly recently, the topic of Bill from WA's conduit mare profiles came up - and I'm not sure what the current status is but it looked as though Goldmine was thinking of adding that information.
If the database doesn't contain a horse/pedigree that you are interested in, you can contact Goldmine and have that added to the central database.
Drawbacks to Goldmine, firstly the program is focused on racing success, not on potential sire or broodmare success (which doesn't bother me) but the sample is restricted to Graded Stakes Winners. Thus the vgs scores for some crosses are based on some quite small samples - a criticism which can be applied to a number of 'nick' programs. However, in the vgs calculation process you can see the number yourself and decide if you can live with the size of the sample.
You can bring up stats on the identified winners from a search and get info about surface and distance (very important to me).
What I find is that I use Goldmine to identify possibilities that I might not otherwise have thought of, generally by eye, and then if I'm looking at regional sires or mares, I use the pedigree query database (which is admittedly quite incomplete) to see if the same patterns can be identified for lower level racers.
So I don't use Goldmine as an auto generator, but as a pointer for more detailed investigations. The human judgement component about how to use what the software reveals is a crucial aspect. Requesting a report for a single hypomating from a company doesn't allow for this kind of iterative investigation.
I wish our pedigree query database was more complete in the area of race records, but I still find it useful.
I wish there was a public site that evaluated or described the conformation of stallions at stud. The thoroughbredreview.com site will sell you conformation reports but again for general research the costs could build up.
GSV is a helpful statistic but George William Smith is constantly updating it, so I can't keep up, and it is most useful at horses aimed at the 'Classic' level.
Dosage is almost completely useless in my opinion, because the way the breed has changed has practically eliminated the stout and professional categories from modern racing and so all that the dosage profile really tells me is whether or not a horse has few or many chefs de race in its pedigree.
I pay attention to Reines de Course, but I don't understand what criteria are used to identify them. Sometimes I look at a Reine and I have no idea why she was designated as such (and yes I have looked at Ellen Parker's website). Sometimes it's clear, and then the information is helpful.
A tool that I find very useful is Bill Lathrop's conduit mare profiles. I missed purchasing his book when it first came out so I am looking forward to the second edition which I understand is due shortly. I do understand some of the basics, and I find it very helpful in assessing pedigrees. It, of course, focuses on the female component of a pedigree. I often find it fun to 'backtrack'. I look at horses on the pedigree query board whose careers are long over, and we know what they did, and I see how well the conduit profile matches with the racing career. A couple of examples - have a look at Red Rum's pedigree. If you didn't know anything about the horses in his pedigree (and I don't) the conduit profiles alone would suggest the extreme stamina that Red Rum did in fact have. Another example is the turf sprinter Nicole's Dream who retired last year. Again the conduit profiles are entirely consistent with the horse's racing career.
To expand on this, another way that this information could be used is to try alternative distances (or even surfaces since Bill's method does provide some possible interpretations for surface) for a horse that is not successful at its current conditions. I also use it to look at sires who have been less than successful at the track to see if perhaps a cookie cutter approach was taken to their racing careers and their conduit profiles suggest that they might have been more successful at different distances. Because of the tendency of trainers to focus on sprints, looking at these profiles often suggests to me that a stamina horse has had a mismanaged racing career and shouldn't be absolutely discounted as a sire.
Bill also published a book on using the conduit mare profiles for handicapping, but it is out of print and apparently a second edition is not planned. I have tried to use it somewhat for handicapping maiden special weight races in particular.
The site on female families is important I find, but I wish it was more up to date in terms of showing what significant horses have been produced by the various families. Often I have to supplement by searching in a very disorganised way through the pedigreequery database to find other important horses produced by the female family of interest.
For a racehorse, I want to see two things in a pedigree, especially in the sire, the broodmare sire and the tail-female family. I want lots of races because I want durability, and I want wins, or with older sires, broodmare sires, and mares I want to see producers of winners. For an unproven sire I don't just want to see blacktype in the female family, I want to see evidence that the female family has produced sires.
In all published information I want to see distance information because in my pretend matings I'm looking for hypothetical winners of the longer races - hurray for the marathons.
In summary, to fill my pedigree research toolbox, I'm looking for things that are free or low cost for multiple usages, since this is recreation/entertainment for me, and not an investment that I am going to use to make breeding decisions. I like tools that involve some element judgement on my part, rather than auto-produced results that I'm supposed to take at face value, and I like to combine tools. One tool that I don't have that many on this board do, is a long term association with pedigree research and North American racing, and a good memory. I keep forgetting the names of horses, and I could never spout out that this mare born in 1967 was a half to that one which produced such and such a particular racehorse. Kimberley Mine and Maven in particular always amaze me with their abilities to elucidate relationships that I would never be able to remember if my life depended on it. Maybe that will come as I keep working on it, but it hasn't been my experience that memory is getting better with age.
To my toolbox I'd like to add a collection of books (I have none) and right now I'm starting to collect the pedigree articles that are regular features of BloodhorseNow.com. I'd also like to see lots and lots of horses in the company of someone that is an expert about conformation but I don't see that happening.
So on the issue of the two 'nick' programs that are being compared on this thread. I would use neither of them because of their single-use design and the cost for that single use. Nevertheless, like any other tool, I'm quite sure they have their place in the decision making process, but like any other tool no single one should dominate the decision making process either.
As far as 'tools' are concerned. There seem to be as many pedigree tools or angles as there are handicapping angles. I don't think any single one should ever be relied upon.
I like Goldmine for a number of reasons. Firstly for a fixed fee I can play with crosses as much as I like. Since I do this for interest and entertainment rather than because I have horse to breed, the prices of any of the 'nick' services like Werk are prohibitive.
Also Goldmine allows one to look at male crosses, female crosses, male/female crosses or any crosses in your hypomatings that you care to consider.
I also like the fact that whoever owns Goldmine is constantly looking for additions and ways to improve the program. When I contacted Goldmine about something fairly recently, the topic of Bill from WA's conduit mare profiles came up - and I'm not sure what the current status is but it looked as though Goldmine was thinking of adding that information.
If the database doesn't contain a horse/pedigree that you are interested in, you can contact Goldmine and have that added to the central database.
Drawbacks to Goldmine, firstly the program is focused on racing success, not on potential sire or broodmare success (which doesn't bother me) but the sample is restricted to Graded Stakes Winners. Thus the vgs scores for some crosses are based on some quite small samples - a criticism which can be applied to a number of 'nick' programs. However, in the vgs calculation process you can see the number yourself and decide if you can live with the size of the sample.
You can bring up stats on the identified winners from a search and get info about surface and distance (very important to me).
What I find is that I use Goldmine to identify possibilities that I might not otherwise have thought of, generally by eye, and then if I'm looking at regional sires or mares, I use the pedigree query database (which is admittedly quite incomplete) to see if the same patterns can be identified for lower level racers.
So I don't use Goldmine as an auto generator, but as a pointer for more detailed investigations. The human judgement component about how to use what the software reveals is a crucial aspect. Requesting a report for a single hypomating from a company doesn't allow for this kind of iterative investigation.
I wish our pedigree query database was more complete in the area of race records, but I still find it useful.
I wish there was a public site that evaluated or described the conformation of stallions at stud. The thoroughbredreview.com site will sell you conformation reports but again for general research the costs could build up.
GSV is a helpful statistic but George William Smith is constantly updating it, so I can't keep up, and it is most useful at horses aimed at the 'Classic' level.
Dosage is almost completely useless in my opinion, because the way the breed has changed has practically eliminated the stout and professional categories from modern racing and so all that the dosage profile really tells me is whether or not a horse has few or many chefs de race in its pedigree.
I pay attention to Reines de Course, but I don't understand what criteria are used to identify them. Sometimes I look at a Reine and I have no idea why she was designated as such (and yes I have looked at Ellen Parker's website). Sometimes it's clear, and then the information is helpful.
A tool that I find very useful is Bill Lathrop's conduit mare profiles. I missed purchasing his book when it first came out so I am looking forward to the second edition which I understand is due shortly. I do understand some of the basics, and I find it very helpful in assessing pedigrees. It, of course, focuses on the female component of a pedigree. I often find it fun to 'backtrack'. I look at horses on the pedigree query board whose careers are long over, and we know what they did, and I see how well the conduit profile matches with the racing career. A couple of examples - have a look at Red Rum's pedigree. If you didn't know anything about the horses in his pedigree (and I don't) the conduit profiles alone would suggest the extreme stamina that Red Rum did in fact have. Another example is the turf sprinter Nicole's Dream who retired last year. Again the conduit profiles are entirely consistent with the horse's racing career.
To expand on this, another way that this information could be used is to try alternative distances (or even surfaces since Bill's method does provide some possible interpretations for surface) for a horse that is not successful at its current conditions. I also use it to look at sires who have been less than successful at the track to see if perhaps a cookie cutter approach was taken to their racing careers and their conduit profiles suggest that they might have been more successful at different distances. Because of the tendency of trainers to focus on sprints, looking at these profiles often suggests to me that a stamina horse has had a mismanaged racing career and shouldn't be absolutely discounted as a sire.
Bill also published a book on using the conduit mare profiles for handicapping, but it is out of print and apparently a second edition is not planned. I have tried to use it somewhat for handicapping maiden special weight races in particular.
The site on female families is important I find, but I wish it was more up to date in terms of showing what significant horses have been produced by the various families. Often I have to supplement by searching in a very disorganised way through the pedigreequery database to find other important horses produced by the female family of interest.
For a racehorse, I want to see two things in a pedigree, especially in the sire, the broodmare sire and the tail-female family. I want lots of races because I want durability, and I want wins, or with older sires, broodmare sires, and mares I want to see producers of winners. For an unproven sire I don't just want to see blacktype in the female family, I want to see evidence that the female family has produced sires.
In all published information I want to see distance information because in my pretend matings I'm looking for hypothetical winners of the longer races - hurray for the marathons.
In summary, to fill my pedigree research toolbox, I'm looking for things that are free or low cost for multiple usages, since this is recreation/entertainment for me, and not an investment that I am going to use to make breeding decisions. I like tools that involve some element judgement on my part, rather than auto-produced results that I'm supposed to take at face value, and I like to combine tools. One tool that I don't have that many on this board do, is a long term association with pedigree research and North American racing, and a good memory. I keep forgetting the names of horses, and I could never spout out that this mare born in 1967 was a half to that one which produced such and such a particular racehorse. Kimberley Mine and Maven in particular always amaze me with their abilities to elucidate relationships that I would never be able to remember if my life depended on it. Maybe that will come as I keep working on it, but it hasn't been my experience that memory is getting better with age.
To my toolbox I'd like to add a collection of books (I have none) and right now I'm starting to collect the pedigree articles that are regular features of BloodhorseNow.com. I'd also like to see lots and lots of horses in the company of someone that is an expert about conformation but I don't see that happening.
So on the issue of the two 'nick' programs that are being compared on this thread. I would use neither of them because of their single-use design and the cost for that single use. Nevertheless, like any other tool, I'm quite sure they have their place in the decision making process, but like any other tool no single one should dominate the decision making process either.
Good luck Brian - hope things go well down under!
I was thrilled that my Allou/Toccet '07 filly was rated an A+ and was given the "pink" sticker on her day of the sale (too bad the consignor lost the freaking thing on the way to the ring (rain, sheet - who knows what happened to it) - but again - it was a nice perk for the filly.
Wasn't a good sale and I RNA'd her.
I've also used a few of the TrueNicks and compared them with Werk Nicks - they rated the matings higher - perhaps because of more up to date info.
It's always nice when someone puts work and effort into something breeders can choose to use (or not) when making decisions on breedings. No one should make a final decision on any kind of nick system - you still need to look at the stallion and your mare, figure out the pros and cons of each and how they could compliment each other, etc... then if you want to use a nicking system to help you make a decision fine.
Again, good luck Brian - I'm sure Taylor Made will miss you - I was just there on Wednesday - got a look at Unbridled's Song (lovely, lovely), Half Ours, Master Command and Northern Afleet.
Take care,
Cheryl
I was thrilled that my Allou/Toccet '07 filly was rated an A+ and was given the "pink" sticker on her day of the sale (too bad the consignor lost the freaking thing on the way to the ring (rain, sheet - who knows what happened to it) - but again - it was a nice perk for the filly.
Wasn't a good sale and I RNA'd her.
I've also used a few of the TrueNicks and compared them with Werk Nicks - they rated the matings higher - perhaps because of more up to date info.
It's always nice when someone puts work and effort into something breeders can choose to use (or not) when making decisions on breedings. No one should make a final decision on any kind of nick system - you still need to look at the stallion and your mare, figure out the pros and cons of each and how they could compliment each other, etc... then if you want to use a nicking system to help you make a decision fine.
Again, good luck Brian - I'm sure Taylor Made will miss you - I was just there on Wednesday - got a look at Unbridled's Song (lovely, lovely), Half Ours, Master Command and Northern Afleet.
Take care,
Cheryl
"We are the people our parents warned us about" - Jimmy Buffett
"My occupational hazard is that my occupation is just not around" - Jimmy Buffett
"My occupational hazard is that my occupation is just not around" - Jimmy Buffett
After reading all of the postings on Trunicks my curiousity got the best of me. I ran a Werk nick on my hypofoal and I ran a Trunick on the hypofoal. The Werk was A+ with a Cozzene - Fappiano cross and on Trunick I had a B nick with a Running Stag - Mr P. cross. I am wondering why there is such a big difference?
-
Worksoplad
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:09 pm
- Location: Manhattan Beach, California
Jazette wrote:After reading all of the postings on Trunicks my curiousity got the best of me. I ran a Werk nick on my hypofoal and I ran a Trunick on the hypofoal. The Werk was A+ with a Cozzene - Fappiano cross and on Trunick I had a B nick with a Running Stag - Mr P. cross. I am wondering why there is such a big difference?
Wouldn't you have to give the name of the hypofoal or mare and prospective sire for someone to be able to do that?
"Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, but he who destroys a good book kills reason itself." John Milton.
-
Worksoplad
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:09 pm
- Location: Manhattan Beach, California
madelyn wrote:I've never met Mr. Rogers, probably a good thing. I thought his name was Byron so I probably would have flubbed and called him that.
Perhaps, Mr. Rogers, you could explain what Truenicks does that is Different from Werk nicks.
Madelyn, he already did. I suggest you go back and read the first two pages of this thread or simply go to the Truenicks website and see the explanation there.
"Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, but he who destroys a good book kills reason itself." John Milton.
The hypofoal was w/Sexiano (Rubiano - Sexy Fresa/Slews Royalty). We bred to Running Stag last year; ended up with twins; ended up with nothing 
That's the game. Sexi will have a well mare check and maybe then to Sand Ridge. The numbers and the ratings are good to look at, actually high numbers and a A rating is an added bonus after you have done your research and seen your stallion. Werk and Truenicks using different crosses is what surprisd me.
jazette
That's the game. Sexi will have a well mare check and maybe then to Sand Ridge. The numbers and the ratings are good to look at, actually high numbers and a A rating is an added bonus after you have done your research and seen your stallion. Werk and Truenicks using different crosses is what surprisd me.
jazette
-
brogers
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:50 pm
- Location: Lexington, Kentucky
- Contact:
geowarrior wrote: Good luck Brogers, I hope you have a happy and successful future career.
Thanks......I have a wicked case of jetlag right now but I guess it can only get better!!! I went from 10 degree weather to 80 degree weather so I guess i should be happy already right?
geowarrior wrote: As far as 'tools' are concerned. There seem to be as many pedigree tools or angles as there are handicapping angles. I don't think any single one should ever be relied upon.
I agree, and I have said from the start that this system and any system requires some intelligent analysis. You will see quite a few horses rate an A++ on the TrueNicks system but when you look at the stakes winners you will see that they are all restricted stakes winners and you will see some horse rate a B+ but all five of the best runners be G1 winners. I’d take the latter lower rating in this case as the quality of the stakes winners points to a better overall class of horses being produced on a solid nick (anything rated a B+ or better gets my interest). I said before that I am just glad that people are looking at some type of rating or system over nothing at all.
geowarrior wrote: I like Goldmine for a number of reasons. Firstly for a fixed fee I can play with crosses as much as I like. Since I do this for interest and entertainment rather than because I have horse to breed, the prices of any of the 'nick' services like Werk are prohibitive.
Also Goldmine allows one to look at male crosses, female crosses, male/female crosses or any crosses in your hypomatings that you care to consider.
Goldmine is a great product that allows you to do a number of things but as I have said previously it does not take into account the true opportunity. Inbreeding to superior females might make you feel warm and fuzzy inside but the reality is that all the statistical studies i have seen point to its wholesale impact being negligible and in fact it is a very specific subset of mares that have a positive influence on the outcome. TrueNicks was tried and tested over 100,000 horses using the data from the Jockey Club and resulted in a positive correlation in stakes production. As far as i am aware
1) No other type of inbreeding or mating pattern has been developed subject to and withstood such scrutiny
2) No other program or system that i know of has been tested for validity across the sample size of horses that TrueNicks was tested and validated across.
geowarrior wrote: I also like the fact that whoever owns Goldmine is constantly looking for additions and ways to improve the program. When I contacted Goldmine about something fairly recently, the topic of Bill from WA's conduit mare profiles came up - and I'm not sure what the current status is but it looked as though Goldmine was thinking of adding that information. If the database doesn't contain a horse/pedigree that you are interested in, you can contact Goldmine and have that added to the central database.
Leo, a fellow Australian, does a great job with Goldmine. He serves his customers very well and has a good product that he improves all the time.
geowarrior wrote: Drawbacks to Goldmine, firstly the program is focused on racing success, not on potential sire or broodmare success (which doesn't bother me) but the sample is restricted to Graded Stakes Winners. Thus the vgs scores for some crosses are based on some quite small samples - a criticism which can be applied to a number of 'nick' programs. However, in the vgs calculation process you can see the number yourself and decide if you can live with the size of the sample.
So does this still mean you are happy for a rating based hypothetical assumption based on a small sample size over one that is a true reflection of the position based upon a complete data set?
geowarrior wrote: So I don't use Goldmine as an auto generator, but as a pointer for more detailed investigations. The human judgement component about how to use what the software reveals is a crucial aspect. Requesting a report for a single hypomating from a company doesn't allow for this kind of iterative investigation.
I am not sure that I agree on this one. We give a pretty detailed output (and one that we are looking to improve significantly) and there is certainly enough information provided for you to make some intelligent assumption and complete further investigation.
geowarrior wrote: I wish our pedigree query database was more complete in the area of race records, but I still find it useful.
Pedigree query is a great resource but it is very inaccurate (sacrilegious to say i know!). I ran the complete crop of Mr Prospector the other day with the Jockey Club data and there is about 20 horses that are in the Pedigreequery database as being by that stallion that are not.
geowarrior wrote: I wish there was a public site that evaluated or described the conformation of stallions at stud. The thoroughbredreview.com site will sell you conformation reports but again for general research the costs could build up.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have had three people look at the same horse and make different comments about them. This is a hard one.....
geowarrior wrote: For a racehorse, I want to see two things in a pedigree, especially in the sire, the broodmare sire and the tail-female family. I want lots of races because I want durability, and I want wins, or with older sires, broodmare sires, and mares I want to see producers of winners. For an unproven sire I don't just want to see blacktype in the female family, I want to see evidence that the female family has produced sires.
I think a lot of breeders like to see what you have written here. Funny, it seems that North American breeders are more concerned about durability than Australian/New Zealand breeders. Maybe they need to be?
geowarrior wrote: So on the issue of the two 'nick' programs that are being compared on this thread. I would use neither of them because of their single-use design and the cost for that single use. Nevertheless, like any other tool, I'm quite sure they have their place in the decision making process, but like any other tool no single one should dominate the decision making process either.
Fair enough. Philosoplical and economic reasons preclude us from making a lot of decisions.
As i said earlier, TrueNicks is a tool, a very good one in my opinion, but one that needs some level of intelligent interpretation rather than blind following. I don’t think anyone would say much differently to this.
Byron
-
brogers
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:50 pm
- Location: Lexington, Kentucky
- Contact:
Jazette wrote:The hypofoal was w/Sexiano (Rubiano - Sexy Fresa/Slews Royalty). We bred to Running Stag last year; ended up with twins; ended up with nothing
jazette
Jazette
It comes down to the way you want to handle the generational logic. In your case the TrueNicks program found enough runners bred on the cross of Running Stag and Mr Prospector line mares to make a calculation. Our program seems to keep the primacy of the sire a logic step longer than Werk ratings which go back to the sire of the sire and the sire of the broodmare sire one step earlier before we do. We did this because we feel that it is a little more important to see how the sire is reacting to the broodmare sire than going back and looking at the grandsire and all his sons when mated to mares from the broodmare sire line. It gives us a better chance to assess the sire and how he is reacting properly.
For what it is worth the Sand Ridge/Sexiano mating is a B also but has the G1 winner Oath bred on similar lines so it is not without consideration.
Byron
Why such a discrepancy?