Look: even Beyer is a raw times guy now

[RXB]

The race was run in a terribly slow 1:57.54 for 1 3/16 miles, one of the weakest runnings of the race ever.

http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer-77-lukas-back-preakness-winners-circle

Hmmm... purely from an adjusted final time standpoint it shouldn't be too far from the Preakness par of 109. Should be around 105.

[cj]

The race was run in a terribly slow 1:57.54 for 1 3/16 miles, one of the weakest runnings of the race ever.

http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer-77-lukas-back-preakness-winners-circle

Hmmm... purely from an adjusted final time standpoint it shouldn't be too far from the Preakness par of 109. Should be around 105.

I suspect that some work was done on the track to speed it up prior to the Preakness. The track was definitely on the slow side all day long.

[RXB]

I suspect that some work was done on the track to speed it up prior to the Preakness.

I don't think so. The time for the final race (8.5f dirt) wasn't fast, and if I use 105 for Oxbow I get these numbers for the others:

2nd -Itsmyluckyday 102 (right between of his two best GP numbers)
3rd - Mylute 102 (minor increase over his Ky Derby figure)
4th - Orb 91 (thirteen points below his Ky Derby, six below his best fast track Beyers)
5th - Goldencents 91 (well below his best Beyers)
6th - Departing 90 (a few points below his Illinois Derby)

I think that Beyer overreacted to the raw time and hadn't accounted yet for how slow the track was.

[cj]

I don't think so. The time for the final race (8.5f dirt) wasn't fast, and if I use 105 for Oxbow I get these numbers for the others:

2nd -Itsmyluckyday 102 (right between of his two best GP numbers)
3rd - Mylute 102 (minor increase over his Ky Derby figure)
4th - Orb 91 (thirteen points below his Ky Derby, six below his best fast track Beyers)
5th - Goldencents 91 (well below his best Beyers)
6th - Departing 90 (a few points below his Illinois Derby)

I think that Beyer overreacted to the raw time and hadn't accounted yet for how slow the track was.

I don't want to go too deep into this, but I don't believe Beyer ever really had a good "chart" for the 9.5f distance. I imagine some of this is because it isn't a distance run very often, and when it is, usually only good horses run it.

I made brand new speed charts within the last two years. I based them on very good horses, not claimers. and the 9.5 furlong chart has held up very well, including for the Pimlico Special yesterday. But for today, if I used the same variant as the other routes, the top four horses (yes, even Orb) would have run significant new tops.

Maybe I shouldn't draw conclusions on my numbers and compare them to what Beyer does. Our methodologies are way too far apart these days.

[JPinMaryland]

The track look deep and tiring to me, but I only watched the Preakness. Rosie said the inside was very slow when they interviewed her right after. I am surprised CJ thinks it was sped up; maybe it was that much worse earlier? Are these horses really that bad? SUrely the track must account for a lot of this.

[cj]

The track look deep and tiring to me, but I only watched the Preakness. Rosie said the inside was very slow when they interviewed her right after. I am surprised CJ thinks it was sped up; maybe it was that much worse earlier? Are these horses really that bad? SUrely the track must account for a lot of this.

Only for the Preakness. And I'm in no way saying it was fast, just faster than the other routes on the card.

[JPinMaryland]

Right, I figured as much CJ. Can you explain to me how they rate that track as "fast," which I see on the chart. Was the track actually rolled before the race? Do they do some other sort of smoothing, but less than rolling it? I have a hard time seeing these jocks with mud all over their face, and obvious problems in the inner path and the track is rated; "Fast."

Can you shed any light on this? :confused:

[RXB]

I don't want to go too deep into this, but I don't believe Beyer ever really had a good "chart" for the 9.5f distance. I imagine some of this is because it isn't a distance run very often, and when it is, usually only good horses run it.


I've never used the Beyer chart at 9.5f because I found that it overrated the Preakness/Special performances. Always used a lesser adjustment that produces a lower BSF that a chart would. Still don't get a "terribly slow" number.

[rastajenk]

Still no white pope smoke from the Conclave? Or, to put it in another context, are State and the CIA still working on the edits to make the talking points fit the narrative? :p

[BlueChip@DRF]

The track look deep and tiring to me, but I only watched the Preakness. Rosie said the inside was very slow when they interviewed her right after. I am surprised CJ thinks it was sped up; maybe it was that much worse earlier? Are these horses really that bad? SUrely the track must account for a lot of this.

Is it me or did it look like everybody headed towards the middle of the track during the stretch run?

[rastajenk]

The first run up the stretch, too.

[pandy]

Definitely a dead rail yesterday, track favored outside closers and the jockeys were way off the rail all day. That helped Oxbow because the jockeys figured they could wait and rally wide and Stevens kept Oxbow off the rail and stole it.

[FantasticDan]

106 Beyer for Oxbow.

[pandy]

slow track.

[cj]

Still don't get a "terribly slow" number.

OH, me either. I have it about the same as the Derby. But, I didn't have the Derby being a big top for Orb either.

[keithw84]

106 Beyer for Oxbow.

Where is a good place to find Beyer's speed figures? I used to have a link in my favorites that listed speed figures for recent stakes races, but I switched computers and lost it!

[Tom]

http://www1.drf.com/stakeresults/drfStakeResults.jsp

[PaceAdvantage]

Still no white pope smoke from the Conclave? Or, to put it in another context, are State and the CIA still working on the edits to make the talking points fit the narrative? :pUmmmm...huh?

[classhandicapper]

Definitely a dead rail yesterday, track favored outside closers and the jockeys were way off the rail all day.

I think several paths inside were bad. IMO you wanted to be in the 3 path (maybe even the 4 path).

[RXB]

http://www.drf.com/news/dick-jerardi-preakness-tough-one-figure

[JPinMaryland]

That article by Jerardi is both a little silly at times and pretty interesting too.

The silly bit is this constant promotion of BSFs. I guess that is how they make their money. But it's basically a guess, and at the end Byer says "it was a pretty interesting exercise in figure making."

It's not an exercise if you don't get scored on it. No one will ever know if these figures are correct or a little off or a lot off. There's no way to ever prove that. So he says it's an exercise. Yeah it's like taking a test without a grade. It's a guess.

But the really interesting bit is that part about the headwind. Which might explain why the pace is slow and final time is so slow.It didn't seem like anyone was able to push the pace even though they weren't traveling that fast. So actually the article is really interesting once you look past the BSF advertisement.

[Capper Al]

The race was run in a terribly slow 1:57.54 for 1 3/16 miles, one of the weakest runnings of the race ever.

http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer-77-lukas-back-preakness-winners-circle

Hmmm... purely from an adjusted final time standpoint it shouldn't be too far from the Preakness par of 109. Should be around 105.

Good article. Thanks

[cj]

Right, I figured as much CJ. Can you explain to me how they rate that track as "fast," which I see on the chart. Was the track actually rolled before the race? Do they do some other sort of smoothing, but less than rolling it? I have a hard time seeing these jocks with mud all over their face, and obvious problems in the inner path and the track is rated; "Fast."

Can you shed any light on this? :confused:

Track ratings have to do with moisture almost every time, not the actual "speed" of the track.

[Valuist]

Definitely a dead rail yesterday, track favored outside closers and the jockeys were way off the rail all day. That helped Oxbow because the jockeys figured they could wait and rally wide and Stevens kept Oxbow off the rail and stole it.

Agree the inner paths were very deep but not necessarily that it was a speed killing track. The rider just had to have the sense like Stevens to stay well off the inside.

FWIW, I noticed Rosario had a few rides where his mount was probably too close to the inside on Friday and Saturday (dirt races). Have we found a possible chink in the armour?

[dilanesp]

That article by Jerardi is both a little silly at times and pretty interesting too.

The silly bit is this constant promotion of BSFs. I guess that is how they make their money. But it's basically a guess, and at the end Byer says "it was a pretty interesting exercise in figure making."

It's not an exercise if you don't get scored on it. No one will ever know if these figures are correct or a little off or a lot off. There's no way to ever prove that. So he says it's an exercise. Yeah it's like taking a test without a grade. It's a guess.

But the really interesting bit is that part about the headwind. Which might explain why the pace is slow and final time is so slow.It didn't seem like anyone was able to push the pace even though they weren't traveling that fast. So actually the article is really interesting once you look past the BSF advertisement.

I play a fair amount of poker. Speed figures, like reads in poker, are based on incomplete information. You don't know everything you would need to know to do a proper figure. There's always some guesswork, some projections, involved. Sometimes more information is produced when horses run back, and you can piece together the figure better.

That doesn't make speed figures useless, or wrong, or invalid, anymore than it makes calling down a guy who bluffs a lot wrong just because he isn't always bluffing.

Some figure-makers, by the way, incorporate wind speed into their calcuations. Beyer doesn't-- he wants as clean a figure as possible-- but he acknowledges its effects.

[thaskalos]

I play a fair amount of poker. Speed figures, like reads in poker, are based on incomplete information. You don't know everything you would need to know to do a proper figure. There's always some guesswork, some projections, involved. Sometimes more information is produced when horses run back, and you can piece together the figure better.

That doesn't make speed figures useless, or wrong, or invalid, anymore than it makes calling down a guy who bluffs a lot wrong just because he isn't always bluffing.

Some figure-makers, by the way, incorporate wind speed into their calcuations. Beyer doesn't-- he wants as clean a figure as possible-- but he acknowledges its effects.

Speed figures are not the only things in the game that are based on "incomplete information". EVERYTHING in the game is based on incomplete information.

The running lines in the past-performances are inaccurate, because they are created by men who view the races, as they unfold, with binoculars; the class designations are also man-made and imprecise, holding horses with varying degrees of ability within the same class level; and the very timing of these races has come under scrutiny, with alarming regularity.

And the horse itself, by its inability to speak, is perhaps the entity most seriously affected by this "incomplete information" factor that we speak of.

It is BECAUSE of this "incomplete information", which undermines everything in this game, that it becomes essential that we get a certain return whenever we decide to put our money at risk...to make up for the "unknown factor" that we so often encounter.

That's why we shy away from horses that go off at very short prices. The "margin of error" is not there...

[DeltaLover]

EVERYTHING in the game is based on incomplete information

:ThmbUp:

I would say that the game itself is based on it

[cj]

Some figure-makers, by the way, incorporate wind speed into their calcuations. Beyer doesn't-- he wants as clean a figure as possible-- but he acknowledges its effects.

Like anyone that makes figures, wind is incorporated even if not directly or intentional.

[dilanesp]

Speed figures are not the only things in the game that are based on "incomplete information". EVERYTHING in the game is based on incomplete information.

The running lines in the past-performances are inaccurate, because they are created by men who view the races, as they unfold, with binoculars; the class designations are also man-made and imprecise, holding horses with varying degrees of ability within the same class level; and the very timing of these races has come under scrutiny, with alarming regularity.

And the horse itself, by its inability to speak, is perhaps the entity most seriously affected by this "incomplete information" factor that we speak of.

It is BECAUSE of this "incomplete information", which undermines everything in this game, that it becomes essential that we get a certain return whenever we decide to put our money at risk...to make up for the "unknown factor" that we so often encounter.

That's why we shy away from horses that go off at very short prices. The "margin of error" is not there...

That analysis obscures more than it discloses. In some situations, you have enough information to predict that a horse is more likely to win than even short odds.

And people should also always be cautious of analysis that confirms preexisting biases. The desire to play price horses, especially in big races when there is a bragging / ego factor in addition to the gambling action factor involved in every race, is probably embedded in almost every horseplayer.

If you think a short priced favorite can never be a good bet, you are probably wrong. If you bet against every short priced favorite in every big race, you are certainly making some long term -EV plays.

[pondman]

Sometimes more information is produced when horses run back, and you can piece together the figure better.

By that time it's too late...

You need to collect evidence and decide whether a horse is going to run a good effort prior to a race. And you must hope other players don't see what you see.


That doesn't make speed figures useless, or wrong, or invalid, anymore than it makes calling down a guy who bluffs a lot wrong just because he isn't always bluffing..

Andrew Beyer knows the game and the limitations of his own numbers. You must also learn, know, and practice a method which avoids these limitations. And you need to know when a speed rating is suitable. If you don't there are other practices, which will take your money. Don't assume everyone, including whales, are fixating on speed ratings. In many races speed rating are a waste of time.

[pondman]

If you think a short priced favorite can never be a good bet, you are probably wrong. If you bet against every short priced favorite in every big race, you are certainly making some long term -EV plays.

Why does that algorithm sound so strange?

If...every...every,
then certainly...in the long run.

Who is going to do that? You aren't forced at gunpoint to play the Preakness(or every big race.) Sometimes you like them base on your experience and knowledge, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you just need to buy a cocktail and watch the hats or the tails.

[dilanesp]

Why does that algorithm sound so strange?

If...every...every,
then certainly...in the long run.

Who is going to do that? You aren't forced at gunpoint to play the Preakness(or every big race.) Sometimes you like them base on your experience and knowledge, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you just need to buy a cocktail and watch the hats or the tails.

My suspicion is very few horseplayers have the discipline to pass big races. If someone wants to prove me wrong, go ahead. But that's definitely been my experience over the years.

[dilanesp]

By that time it's too late...

You need to collect evidence and decide whether a horse is going to run a good effort prior to a race. And you must hope other players don't see what you see.



Andrew Beyer knows the game and the limitations of his own numbers. You must also learn, know, and practice a method which avoids these limitations. And you need to know when a speed rating is suitable. If you don't there are other practices, which will take your money. Don't assume everyone, including whales, are fixating on speed ratings. In many races speed rating are a waste of time.

I don't think a speed figure is ever "a waste of time". It's information, it adjusts the final time to the speed of the track, and adjusting a horse's final time to the speed of the track is useful.

On the other hand, I do not believe, as Beyer once wrote, that speed figures are the way, the truth, and the light.

The problem I have with many speed figure critics, however, is that they overstate the case against their utility. And specifically, the fact that figure makers sometimes have to make projections based on very limited data is not really a particularly cogent objection to them. That sort of projection is no different than many of the projections made in handicapping.

[JPinMaryland]

... And specifically, the fact that figure makers sometimes have to make projections based on very limited data is not really a particularly cogent objection to them. That sort of projection is no different than many of the projections made in handicapping.

So if everyone jumps in the lake, it's ok to jump in the lake too? The problem I have with this part of your argument is that simply because speed figures have the same limitations as other methods does not make that a good thing. What other possible conclusion are you suggesting? That because speed projections are based on limited data that's a good thing? Of course its an objection against them..

[iceknight]

As for these new theories and the DRF article touting "wind" and other phrases like "common sense"... I just have to bring one simple point up:
In a 2 turn race, wind helps and hinders the horses unless the direction of the wind changes 180 degrees within 45-60 seconds.. (about the time to run half way or so?)


Here is part of my comment from the DRF page:
if you are going to talk about the "significant wind", would it so hard as to get average wind figures from that date and add them to the discussion? (http://www.drf.com/news/dick-jerardi-preakness-tough-one-figure)
You also have to understand that wind also aids the horses when they are going around a 2 turn track.. unlike quarter horse racing, which is in one straight line...

[RXB]

As for these new theories and the DRF article touting "wind" and other phrases like "common sense"... I just have to bring one simple point up:
In a 2 turn race, wind helps and hinders the horses unless the direction of the wind changes 180 degrees within 45-60 seconds.. (about the time to run half way or so?)


Yes, but:

1. It was a homestretch headwind; in a 1 3/16 race on a mile track the horses run down almost the entire homestretch, then complete a full circuit of the track, so they are running into the headwind twice while only catching a tailwind once.

2. A headwind slows runners more than a tailwind speeds them up. And a crosswind also slows runners slightly.

[iceknight]

Yes, but:

1. It was a homestretch headwind; in a 1 3/16 race on a mile track the horses run down almost the entire homestretch, then complete a full circuit of the track, so they are running into the headwind twice while only catching a tailwind once.

2. A headwind slows runners more than a tailwind speeds them up. And a crosswind also slows runners slightly. I could agree with the 2nd point too, as it is more dependent on how the jockey's chest area incurs opposing drag.. ...BUT, wind is too small a factor be considered here (for the 3 sec slowness). Notably because, the front running horse should have experiences the maximum wind resistance with zero drafting... but no other horse could catch him. of course, a lot other factors that were more dominant were in favor of Oxbow including race day fitness, grit etc..
My biggest gripe is not that they talk about wind, but more that if they do talk about, they could at least provide some data..

The other thing, if they accounted for wind and gave Oxbow 106, it is still too high.

[RXB]

The other thing, if they accounted for wind and gave Oxbow 106, it is still too high.

Why? I know how to make figures and I said it should be right around 105.