Are These Beyer Figures Correct?

[infrontby1]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/drf-live-production/pp_pdf/1ppBEL2599.pdf

If you look at the 4th race, examine the 1 horse, Elroi, and the 8 horse, Trainingforsucess. Not their last races that they ran, but check out theie next to last race; both of them ran within an hour apart at Aqueduct on April 19th.

Both horses won, Traininforsucess's final time was 11 ticks faster than Elroi's (that's 2 seconds and 1/5) yet his Beyer is ONLY 4 points higher? (80 vs. 76)

What kind of spread is this?

And keep in mind, on the Beyer scale, at that distance 1 length is approximately 1.7 points.

Doesn't take a math wizard to conclude something is amiss here.
And I looked at the replays of both races and the weather conditions were identical.

I even checked other sources (i.e. brisnet, predicteform) and they have a much larger spread for their final time figures, as expected.

This is not the first time I have seen this type of disparity among Beyer Figures.

I am not commenting on their accuracy, I'm making a statement on their reliability.

And before some of you intend on coming back with negative comments, saying "so-what", please do keep in mind that real money is wagered on thoroughbred races by a vast majority of handicappers that rely on these figures for the backbone of handicapping.


Would love to have CJ comment on this one.

[thaskalos]

Check to see if the slower race was at a higher class. I have seen this scenario myself more than a few times, and have said on this board that the Beyer Associates appear to be making some sort of class adjustment to their figures...but I doubt that anyone believes me.

[the little guy]

Check to see if the slower race was at a higher class. I have seen this scenario myself more than a few times, and have said on this board that the Beyer Associates appear to be making some sort of class adjustment to their figures...but I doubt that anyone believes me.

There's nothing to believe or not believe....your statement is factually incorrect.

[the little guy]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/drf-live-production/pp_pdf/1ppBEL2599.pdf

If you look at the 4th race, examine the 1 horse, Elroi, and the 8 horse, Trainingforsucess. Not their last races that they ran, but check out theie next to last race; both of them ran within an hour apart at Aqueduct on April 19th.

Both horses won, Traininforsucess's final time was 11 ticks faster than Elroi's (that's 2 seconds and 1/5) yet his Beyer is ONLY 4 points higher? (80 vs. 76)

What kind of spread is this?

And keep in mind, on the Beyer scale, at that distance 1 length is approximately 1.7 points.

Doesn't take a math wizard to conclude something is amiss here.
And I looked at the replays of both races and the weather conditions were identical.

I even checked other sources (i.e. brisnet, predicteform) and they have a much larger spread for their final time figures, as expected.

This is not the first time I have seen this type of disparity among Beyer Figures.

I am not commenting on their accuracy, I'm making a statement on their reliability.

And before some of you intend on coming back with negative comments, saying "so-what", please do keep in mind that real money is wagered on thoroughbred races by a vast majority of handicappers that rely on these figures for the backbone of handicapping.


Would love to have CJ comment on this one.


Like me, CJ wouldn't have to even check to know that obviously there was a huge disparity between the paces of the two races you are discussing.

Given that you don't even realize that Beyer Associates take pace into account in turf races ( certainly when one race goes three full seconds slower to the half ), I find it unbelievable that you would consider yourself even remotely qualified to comment on how they make their figures....even in internet fantasyland.

The silliness never ends.

[infrontby1]

Like me, CJ wouldn't have to even check to know that obviously there was a huge disparity between the paces of the two races you are discussing.

Given that you don't even realize that Beyer Associates take pace into account in turf races ( certainly when one race goes three full seconds slower to the half ), I find it unbelievable that you would consider yourself even remotely qualified to comment on how they make their figures....even in internet fantasyland.

The silliness never ends.
And since when does Beyer incorporate pace into their figures?

I know that CJ and others do, but not even Ragozin or Thorograph dare to adjust their final figures due to a very rapid or very slow pace. They just indicate it with a special notation next to the final figure

[thaskalos]

There's nothing to believe or not believe....your statement is factually incorrect.
I have seen sprint races where the winners were given identical Beyer figures even though their clockings were a second apart...and this on a dry track...and with the races separated by about an hour. And in every single case...the "classier" race is the one that has gotten the benefit of the doubt, Beyer-wise. Any idea why that is?

Or do you suppose I am making this whole thing up?

I've stated this here repeatedly in the past.

[the little guy]

I have seen sprint races where the winners were given identical Beyer figures even though their clockings were a second apart...and this on a dry track...and with the races separated by about an hour. And in every single case...the "classier" race is the one that has gotten the benefit of the doubt, Beyer-wise. Any idea why that is?

Or do you suppose I am making this whole thing up?

I've stated this here repeatedly in the past.

I think you make up most of what you post here.

[the little guy]

And since when does Beyer incorporate pace into their figures?

I know that CJ and others do, but not even Ragozin or Thorograph dare to adjust their final figures due to a very rapid or very slow pace. They just indicate it with a special notation next to the final figure


For years.

[infrontby1]

Like me, CJ wouldn't have to even check to know that obviously there was a huge disparity between the paces of the two races you are discussing.

Given that you don't even realize that Beyer Associates take pace into account in turf races ( certainly when one race goes three full seconds slower to the half ), I find it unbelievable that you would consider yourself even remotely qualified to comment on how they make their figures....even in internet fantasyland.

The silliness never ends.
And another thing, this race is actually one of the free races on the Timeformus site for tomorrow, and those two figures on a raw basis before any adjustments for pace, are identical.

So maybe a comment on this is warranted by CJ as well

[infrontby1]

For years.
Well this is the first time I have heard of this.

I wonder why this was never mentioned before by drf and/or Beyer himself

Is this so-called pace adjustment for just turf races or for all surfaces?

[the little guy]

The funniest thing about the races/horses you are questioning is that they actually met the next time each raced...with Elroi ( the slower horse..with the higher Beyer ) finishing ahead of Trainingforsuccess ( the faster horse with the lower Beyer ).

Also, the 3rd finisher to El Roi, by the way, came back with a blowout, and very fast, win earlier this week.

Ah the webs some people weave.

[thaskalos]

I think you make up most of what you post here.
You are absolutely right.

You are the only handicapper who seriously studies this game. How I wish I could be as good as you are, TLG. If only you could enlighen us by offering this board a little more than your usual sniper attacks.

[Some_One]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/drf-live-production/pp_pdf/1ppBEL2599.pdf

If you look at the 4th race, examine the 1 horse, Elroi, and the 8 horse, Trainingforsucess. Not their last races that they ran, but check out theie next to last race; both of them ran within an hour apart at Aqueduct on April 19th.

Both horses won, Traininforsucess's final time was 11 ticks faster than Elroi's (that's 2 seconds and 1/5) yet his Beyer is ONLY 4 points higher? (80 vs. 76)

What kind of spread is this?

And keep in mind, on the Beyer scale, at that distance 1 length is approximately 1.7 points.

Doesn't take a math wizard to conclude something is amiss here.
And I looked at the replays of both races and the weather conditions were identical.

I even checked other sources (i.e. brisnet, predicteform) and they have a much larger spread for their final time figures, as expected.

This is not the first time I have seen this type of disparity among Beyer Figures.

I am not commenting on their accuracy, I'm making a statement on their reliability.

And before some of you intend on coming back with negative comments, saying "so-what", please do keep in mind that real money is wagered on thoroughbred races by a vast majority of handicappers that rely on these figures for the backbone of handicapping.


Would love to have CJ comment on this one.

Not all figures are truespeed figures, if the pace is slow enough, the final time is discarded and the figure you'll see is more of a 'class' figure something more akin to a RP or TimeformUK figure.

[the little guy]

You are absolutely right.

You are the only handicapper who seriously studies this game. How I wish I could be as good as you are, TLG. If only you could enlighen us by offering this board a little more than your usual sniper attacks.

The sniper attacks on this board are by people who make things up to attack people like Beyer.

You seem like a really nice guy....who happens to also say some nutty things on this board. But, hey, there is a fine line between nutty and smart at the racetrack.

[thaskalos]

The sniper attacks on this board are by people who make things up to attack people like Beyer.

You seem like a really nice guy....who happens to also say some nutty things on this board. But, hey, there is a fine line between nutty and smart at the racetrack.

I like to think that I am a nice guy. It's a lot easier for me to be nice than to be perpetually argumentative. But I am also a serious student of this game...who doesn't mind voicing an opinion...no matter how unpopular it may be. My intention is to just share my gambling experiences...hoping that my advice might -- in some small way -- help other players have a less painful journey through this game than I've had.

I might also be the biggest fan of Andy Beyer that you are likely to find. And, in case you haven't noticed...I happen to be a big fan of yours as well. You are the only person for whom I'll raise the volume of my computer monitor...and I sincerely hope that you attain the level of success and fame that your knowledge and talent deserve.

But, hey...you might be right. Maybe I do say some nutty things on this board... :)

[Stillriledup]

Check to see if the slower race was at a higher class. I have seen this scenario myself more than a few times, and have said on this board that the Beyer Associates appear to be making some sort of class adjustment to their figures...but I doubt that anyone believes me.

I think you're indirectly right.

Most times, it might be a higher class that gets the benefit of the doubt in the figure, but its not necessarily because of the class level, its to make the other Beyer figures "fit" nicely into a pattern that seems believable.


The problem i have with the way Beyer does it is that when they change a raw time figure, there's really no way to know exactly why they changed it, so you're essentially "trusting" them that they made a correct decision in why they didnt just leave the figure alone.

I've also seen them change figures after the fact, after horses who got the figures ran, and that change has nothing to do with pace, it has to do with the horse and his subsequent performance.

If it was just about pace like some people think, they wouldnt ever go back and change figures because the pace is the pace, it doesnt change...but what does change is the performance of the runners going forward....which means to me, that differing figures on similar final times/distances is more due to "making it fit" than trying to give credit to the higher class of runner.

As far as pace being factored into the number, according to Beyer himself in this video, pace is NOT a factor at all, he does not incorporate pace into the number.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvLwY-jSYcw

[rastajenk]

Seems like some of the New Yawkers are a little touchy this spring.

[infrontby1]

I think you're indirectly right.

Most times, it might be a higher class that gets the benefit of the doubt in the figure, but its not necessarily because of the class level, its to make the other Beyer figures "fit" nicely into a pattern that seems believable.


The problem i have with the way Beyer does it is that when they change a raw time figure, there's really no way to know exactly why they changed it, so you're essentially "trusting" them that they made a correct decision in why they didnt just leave the figure alone.

I've also seen them change figures after the fact, after horses who got the figures ran, and that change has nothing to do with pace, it has to do with the horse and his subsequent performance.

If it was just about pace like some people think, they wouldnt ever go back and change figures because the pace is the pace, it doesnt change...but what does change is the performance of the runners going forward....which means to me, that differing figures on similar final times/distances is more due to "making it fit" than trying to give credit to the higher class of runner.

As far as pace being factored into the number, according to Beyer himself in this video, pace is NOT a factor at all, he does not incorporate pace into the number.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvLwY-jSYcw
Excellent video to reference this posting. And thanks for sharing.

A previous comment made by thelittleguy says otherwise though. But here we have it, straight from the horse's mouth: the man that invented these figures.

[Tom]

CD, Derby weekend. Friday-Saturday.
Top Beyer fig won 15 races. No other handicapping.
I guess Andy has a few more races left in him.

[lamboguy]

CD, Derby weekend. Friday-Saturday.
Top Beyer fig won 15 races. No other handicapping.
I guess Andy has a few more races left in him.without a doubt, speed is a weapon these days, you either get with the program and use these numbers or get cleaned out.

[EMD4ME]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/drf-live-production/pp_pdf/1ppBEL2599.pdf

If you look at the 4th race, examine the 1 horse, Elroi, and the 8 horse, Trainingforsucess. Not their last races that they ran, but check out theie next to last race; both of them ran within an hour apart at Aqueduct on April 19th.

Both horses won, Traininforsucess's final time was 11 ticks faster than Elroi's (that's 2 seconds and 1/5) yet his Beyer is ONLY 4 points higher? (80 vs. 76)

What kind of spread is this?

And keep in mind, on the Beyer scale, at that distance 1 length is approximately 1.7 points.

Doesn't take a math wizard to conclude something is amiss here.
And I looked at the replays of both races and the weather conditions were identical.

I even checked other sources (i.e. brisnet, predicteform) and they have a much larger spread for their final time figures, as expected.

This is not the first time I have seen this type of disparity among Beyer Figures.

I am not commenting on their accuracy, I'm making a statement on their reliability.

And before some of you intend on coming back with negative comments, saying "so-what", please do keep in mind that real money is wagered on thoroughbred races by a vast majority of handicappers that rely on these figures for the backbone of handicapping.


Would love to have CJ comment on this one.


I personally analyze all Beyer figures assigned at nyra tracks. Andy and his team arbitrarily assign numbers in many cases similar to this and here is a perfect example as to why: sometimes in grass races the better of the 2 races (higher quality horses in race 1 vs. Lower quality horses running race 2 or equal divisions of 2 separate races) the pace is soooooo slow in 1 race vs the other that it distorts the final time of 1 of the races. If the raw figure is given, it would be an inaccurate assessment of that field's performance.

Here's a visual hypothetical. Wise Dan runs in a 1M race on grass: 25 51 116 1382.

10,000 claimers run: 234 48 113 1382.

Do you really believe the 10,000 claimers deserve an equal fig?

Of course not. Of course wise dan's field was compromised (in terms of final time) by their ridiculously slow pace, so Andy's team arbitrarily assigns figs in those cases.

Keep in mind, Beyer figs are based on final time, HOWEVER, in some cases it would be extremely misleading to the general public if the raw figure is posted.

Hope this helps.

[classhandicapper]

I have seen sprint races where the winners were given identical Beyer figures even though their clockings were a second apart...and this on a dry track...and with the races separated by about an hour. And in every single case...the "classier" race is the one that has gotten the benefit of the doubt, Beyer-wise. Any idea why that is?

Or do you suppose I am making this whole thing up?

I've stated this here repeatedly in the past.

He's not including class. Without specifics, I can only speculate, but there is a logical answer.

We know that occasionally a race is broken out from the rest of a day on the assumption that the track changed speeds.

So if for some reason Beyer concludes that a particular classier race needs to be broken out because it looks too slow, it would tend to be adjusted faster. I'm sure if you dig hard enough you will find classy races that looked way too fast that were adjusted down.

[Tom]

Mark Hopkins wrote once that when he was confronted by a number that did not make sense, he would check the race timing, and he had found mistakes.

I miss reading his columns every week.

[EMD4ME]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/drf-live-production/pp_pdf/1ppBEL2599.pdf

If you look at the 4th race, examine the 1 horse, Elroi, and the 8 horse, Trainingforsucess. Not their last races that they ran, but check out theie next to last race; both of them ran within an hour apart at Aqueduct on April 19th.

Both horses won, Traininforsucess's final time was 11 ticks faster than Elroi's (that's 2 seconds and 1/5) yet his Beyer is ONLY 4 points higher? (80 vs. 76)

What kind of spread is this?

And keep in mind, on the Beyer scale, at that distance 1 length is approximately 1.7 points.

Doesn't take a math wizard to conclude something is amiss here.
And I looked at the replays of both races and the weather conditions were identical.

I even checked other sources (i.e. brisnet, predicteform) and they have a much larger spread for their final time figures, as expected.

This is not the first time I have seen this type of disparity among Beyer Figures.

I am not commenting on their accuracy, I'm making a statement on their reliability.

And before some of you intend on coming back with negative comments, saying "so-what", please do keep in mind that real money is wagered on thoroughbred races by a vast majority of handicappers that rely on these figures for the backbone of handicapping.


Would love to have CJ comment on this one.

Using your example:

Race 6:3UP S MDSPWT 242 512 1173 1414 1474 76B
Race 4:3UP N2L 25000 231 483 1143 1392 1453 80B

Race 6 was 6/5's slower to the 1/4, 14/5 slow to the 1/2, 15/5 slower to the 3/4 12/5 slower to the 1M and 11/5 slower to the 1 1/16

Race 6 came home in 30 and 1/5 vs a 31 come home in race 4.

We all know that come home times are paramount to how classy or how good a turf horse is. So, if the raw number was assigned in this case, it would have been an injustice to all players (I ACTUALLY PREFER IF THE RAW NUMBER WAS PROVIDED BECAUSE I WOULD MAKE A TRUCK LOAD OF MORE $$$$ FLEECING UNSUSPECTING PLAYERS).

In my eyes, Elroi was a lock next time. His performance in this race in question was that of a new horse who is ready for bigger and bettor.

In his next start, he was the only victim at the start. Ran last with zero flow in another super slow pace and finished like an airplane along with the runner up (who was awesome while leazcano destroyed him on May 4th).

This post was not truly about Elroi but just for the record, he is a massive play today for me.

Hope this helps....

[classhandicapper]

For years.


The problem with adjusting for pace is not that he does it (although that also has some issues I've discussed elsewhere that made me no friends). It's that as a handicapper you don't know WHEN he's done it and by how much. So if you upgrade a race because of pace on your own, you are at risk of double counting the impact. If you sit there checking every figure so you know what he did, you are halfway to making to your own figures. There are better uses of time given there's not much value in figures anymore even if they remain essential.

[Sapio]

He's not including class. Without specifics, I can only speculate, but there is a logical answer.

We know that occasionally a race is broken out from the rest of a day on the assumption that the track changed speeds.

So if for some reason Beyer concludes that a particular classier race needs to be broken out because it looks too slow, it would tend to be adjusted faster. I'm sure if you dig hard enough you will find classy races that looked way too fast that were adjusted down.

Hi Class

Is it safe to say that most, if not all, serious figure makers use a projection method? If it is so, do they make projections based on a single horse? Two horses? Three horses?, etc.

Is the projection made independent of the field? Is the strength (speed rating based) of the field taken it account? How do they separate race uncertainity from race variants?

And finally betting lots of money on a point estimate without knowing the distribution is absurd!

Thomas Sapio

[EMD4ME]

The problem with adjusting for pace is not that he does it (although that also has some issues I've discussed elsewhere that made me no friends). It's that as a handicapper you don't know WHEN he's done it and by how much. So if you upgrade a race because of pace on your own, you are at risk of double counting the impact. If you sit there checking every figure so you know what he did, you are halfway to making to your own figures. There are better uses of time given there's not much value in figures anymore even if they remain essential.

I hear you classhandicapper, however I will say this. I do check all of his figures (at NYRA and Emerald for the record) and I find the time spent very fruitful. I uncover many nuggets and dare to say it, a few mistakes that are not adjusted till after horses come back and win :) or lose as heavy chalks. I have no problem with what his team does. I wish they'd make more mistakes lol but they don't.

[infrontby1]

Using your example:

Race 6:3UP S MDSPWT 242 512 1173 1414 1474 76B
Race 4:3UP N2L 25000 231 483 1143 1392 1453 80B

Race 6 was 6/5's slower to the 1/4, 14/5 slow to the 1/2, 15/5 slower to the 3/4 12/5 slower to the 1M and 11/5 slower to the 1 1/16

Race 6 came home in 30 and 1/5 vs a 31 come home in race 4.

We all know that come home times are paramount to how classy or how good a turf horse is. So, if the raw number was assigned in this case, it would have been an injustice to all players (I ACTUALLY PREFER IF THE RAW NUMBER WAS PROVIDED BECAUSE I WOULD MAKE A TRUCK LOAD OF MORE $$$$ FLEECING UNSUSPECTING PLAYERS).

In my eyes, Elroi was a lock next time. His performance in this race in question was that of a new horse who is ready for bigger and bettor.

In his next start, he was the only victim at the start. Ran last with zero flow in another super slow pace and finished like an airplane along with the runner up (who was awesome while leazcano destroyed him on May 4th).

This post was not truly about Elroi but just for the record, he is a massive play today for me.

Hope this helps....
Nice breakdown of the segments, EMD4ME.

In fact, the 3rd place finisher of the Elroi maiden race, Point Roll, who was the big favorite in that race, came back earlier this week to dominate his competition in a similar field.

{Handicappers relying on the DRF PP's from the temporary site won't notice this because Point Roll's name is not italicized in the running line just yet}

So, then contrary to what most people are saying here, where the classier field would received an upgrade to their final adjusted figure, here you would suggest it was the horses than ran in the inferior race (i.e. the MSW race # 6 from 04/19) that received the upgrade?

[classhandicapper]

I hear you classhandicapper, however I will say this. I do check all of his figures (at NYRA and Emerald for the record) and I find the time spent very fruitful. I uncover many nuggets and dare to say it, a few mistakes that are not adjusted till after horses come back and win :) or lose as heavy chalks. I have no problem with what his team does. I wish they'd make more mistakes lol but they don't.


I hear you. I'm time constrained. I check them via the backdoor.

I look at the Formulator charts and set them to "Beyer figures". That quickly gives me the last 10 Beyer figures for each the horse at one time (including the figure for the race in question). If a figure doesn't seem to make sense, then I start clicking on the individual horses and looking at their PPs.

[classhandicapper]

Hi Class

Is it safe to say that most, if not all, serious figure makers use a projection method? If it is so, do they make projections based on a single horse? Two horses? Three horses?, etc.

Is the projection made independent of the field? Is the strength (speed rating based) of the field taken it account? How do they separate race uncertainity from race variants?

And finally betting lots of money on a point estimate without knowing the distribution is absurd!

Thomas Sapio

They all use the projection method, but the number of horses they use as input is probably a little different for each. That's one factor that contributes to the different results despite similar methods (there are other factors).

Generally the thinking will be weighted towards the top few finishers because those are the horses most likely to have run back to their good figures. They will look at the prior figures of those horses and the result of the race and try to construct a "most logical" figure for the race and then create the track variant for that race. Then they look at the variants for each race on the card and try to make sense of the day.

[cj]

Would love to have CJ comment on this one.

There isn't a whole lot to comment on really. If you rate turf races on final time only, the resulting figures will be of very little value. Turf figures are very tough to make for a variety of reasons. I think anyone that makes them is doing them as "performance" figures more than speed figures.

Some reasons they are tough:


Not many run on a card
Some tracks have multiple courses
Timing is not reliable
Pace can be absurdly slow
Turf rails move
Run up is not consistent
Often times many runners are on turf for the first time
I could go on, and maybe will later this week if I have some time.

[cj]

Excellent video to reference this posting. And thanks for sharing.

A previous comment made by thelittleguy says otherwise though. But here we have it, straight from the horse's mouth: the man that invented these figures.

I don't know when that video was made, but I've read articles from Beyer, Jerardi, and Hopkins where each has discussed races where pace was factored into the numbers.

[Stillriledup]

I think its possible that pace is indirectly factored into the final number. While Beyer himself says that his numbers are not performance numbers, they end u being performance numbers if you "Assume" things.

For example.

Lets say that Wise Dan wins with a Beyer of about 100 give or take, he's always winning and he usually runs a similar type race. So, Wise Dan is on the card and he does what Wise Dan does and wins in grinding, extremely game, driving fashion and wins by 1 length. Another race on the card is a 20k claimer that runs at the same distance and surface.

Lets say for some odd reason the "Wise Dan Race" has an extremely slow internal pace, 53's 118's etc and the other race has a much faster pace, the winning times are fairly close. Now obviously, Wise Dan is far "Faster" than the 20k claimer...and since Dan usually runs about 100, it almost forces a figure maker to come close to that number no matter what happens. You can't have Wise dan look like 100, 100, 100, 100, 80.

So, they have a decision to make. They can give Wise Dan a 100 and the 20k claimer a 93 OR they can just give Wise Dan his usual 100 and make the claimer have his "usual" 80.

Here's why i say they're not necessarily using pace in the numbers. Because if they had a pace "formula" and the formula showed that Wise Dan and this 20k claimer both had numbers in the mid 80s, they would throw all that out the window under the 'eyeball test' and give Dan his usual figure. Its sort of the "by definition" theory.

The "fit" has to make sense, so they "tweak" it to make sense.

[PhantomOnTour]

There isn't a whole lot to comment on really. If you rate turf races on final time only, the resulting figures will be of very little value. Turf figures are very tough to make for a variety of reasons. I think anyone that makes them is doing them as "performance" figures more than speed figures.

Some reasons they are tough:


Not many run on a card
Some tracks have multiple courses
Timing is not reliable
Pace can be absurdly slow
Turf rails move
Run up is not consistent
Often times many runners are on turf for the first time
I could go on, and maybe will later this week if I have some time.
That's what I would call my turf numbers.

[Relwob Owner]

I think you make up most of what you post here.

I often speculate who on here is making things up and who isn't. I feel about 99.9% certain that Thask is telling the truth about everything he posts and I enjoy reading what he has to say.

[classhandicapper]

Here's why i say they're not necessarily using pace in the numbers. Because if they had a pace "formula" and the formula showed that Wise Dan and this 20k claimer both had numbers in the mid 80s, they would throw all that out the window under the 'eyeball test' and give Dan his usual figure. Its sort of the "by definition" theory.

The "fit" has to make sense, so they "tweak" it to make sense.

This is correct.

Pace is NOT part of some elaborate formula. However, those guys can recognize extreme paces by looking at the fractions, watching the races and knowing the horses (or using Moss pace figures) just as well as anyone else.

So they can make adjustments to figures that were impacted by extreme paces so they make sense.

[Cratos]

This is correct.

Pace is NOT part of some elaborate formula. However, those guys can recognize extreme paces by looking at the fractions, watching the races and knowing the horses (or using Moss pace figures) just as well as anyone else.

So they can make adjustments to figures that were impacted by extreme paces so they make sense.

Let's keep this simple.

Whether you are measuring horseracing, car racing, or human racing pace is the independent
variable and final time is the dependent variable.

There continue to be that assumption there is something about horseracing in terms of movement that is mysterious and only a few can interpret a racehorse movement with some innocuous metric called a speed figure.

It is good that there are people who develop handicapping methods, but please stop the nonsense, Newton's laws will always and absolutely prevail when it comes to the motion of any object: man, machine, or beast.

[Tom]

Good thing Beyer, Ragozin, Brown, CJ don't know it's nonsense.
All of them have customers who think enough of their work to buy the numbers and then make money using them.
What fools we all are! :D

[raybo]

I think the problem here is that what we think figures are, may not be the case.

Before the variant is applied, you have a raw pace figure that simply measures the time of that portion of the race, in a different form, but still represents the same thing, raw time. Then you have a raw speed figure, which does the same thing that a raw pace figure does, except for the whole race. Then you have a performance figure that does not do the same thing as the pace or speed figure, it includes other factors besides the time measurement of the pace portion or the whole race.

Then you have the variant, which is used to adjust the pace and speed figure. The performance figure could already include the variant or that figure could be further adjusted by the variant later.

So, IMO, there are "real" pace figures, and real "speed" figures, and then there are those that aren't really real, they are combinations of other factors. A real pace or speed figure would only represent real time, not adjusted time.

Everyone's pace and speed figures are not the same animal, because they include factors, in different weightings, other than raw clocked timings.

So, who is right with their figures? Probably nobody is right all the time, and maybe not right ever, but close enough to be useful. But, if I were going to use pace or speed figures, I certainly would not use them at face value, I would want to know how they were assigned and that theory would have to agree with my own beliefs.

[classhandicapper]

Let's keep this simple.

Whether you are measuring horseracing, car racing, or human racing pace is the independent
variable and final time is the dependent variable.

There continue to be that assumption there is something about horseracing in terms of movement that is mysterious and only a few can interpret a racehorse movement with some innocuous metric called a speed figure.

It is good that there are people who develop handicapping methods, but please stop the nonsense, Newton's laws will always and absolutely prevail when it comes to the motion of any object: man, machine, or beast.

I'm not sure where this comment is coming from. The question was whether Beyer includes pace in his numbers.

To make it simple, assume 2 horses ran the following races and all else was equal.

A: 21 3/5 - 43 4/5 - 109
B: 22 ---- 44 3/5 - 109

They have the same final time, but clearly did not run the same race.

Beyer generally focuses on the 109 final time and gives both horses the same number.

There are some figure makers that will look at both the fractions and final time and give Horse A the better number because of the faster pace. When you do that, it becomes a performance figure instead of a final time figure.

Beyer generally chooses to leave pace analysis to the player other than in extreme cases. That's a very simple point.

[cj]

For those that doubted Beyer will adjust figures in extreme pace scenarios, this is from the DRF FAQ page on Moss figures:

Q: Beyer adjusted Summer Doldrums' figure down after one of his recent races. Do the Moss figures also adjust figures or do they keep the figure intact ?

A: Our pace figures are based on the variant obtained from the Beyer Speed Figure. Thus if a Beyer figure changes, so does the pace figures.

However... and I hope this makes sense... sometimes a Beyer Speed Figure is “projected” upward or downward because of a slow pace or sometimes a fast pace, and when this happens, it will almost never be reflected in the pace figures.

[cj]

Here is a quote from Beyer himself, from the Paulick Report:

Nevertheless, synthetic tracks pose other problems that we rarely encounter on the dirt. The early pace on synthetics is sometimes so slow that the horses can’t accelerate fast enough at the end to run the fastest final time of which they are capable. If a horse is capable of running a mile in 1:36, but the first six furlongs of a race have been run in 1:14, he won’t get to the wire in 1:36. In such cases, we don’t want to give the horses in the field figures that are ridiculously low, so we’ll assign a figure to the race that more accurately reflects the horses’ true level of ability.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

It is kind of a contradiction from what he said in the Horseplayer Now video, where he stated that Beyer figs are determined by time, not how wide a horse went, if a horse got in trouble, pace, etc. Didn't he say the figure is used as a frame of reference and then other circumstances and factors can be looked at.
Here is a quote from Beyer himself, from the Paulick Report:

[cj]

It is kind of a contradiction from what he said in the Horseplayer Now video, where he stated that Beyer figs are determined by time, not how wide a horse went, if a horse got in trouble, pace, etc. Didn't he say the figure is used as a frame of reference and then other circumstances and factors can be looked at.

Like I said, I didn't watch the video, but I know reality. I also don't know the date of the video. Maybe it was earlier?

Races are broken out from others all the time by figure makers, and pace is just one of many reasons.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Like I said, I didn't watch the video, but I know reality. I also don't know the date of the video. Maybe it was earlier?

Races are broken out from others all the time by figure makers, and pace is just one of many reasons.

Not arguing. I know, this stuff as been going on for a long time. I'm just pointing out the contradiction. I'm old school though, if a speed figure is supposed to be only a speed figure, pace shouldn't matter. The case for a high wind during a race or a changing track is a different story though.

When I used to do my own speed figs, if a race was too slow or too fast, I wouldn't use it the average to determine the daily variant, but I would apply the variant to it in the future.

[raybo]

I think Beyer, of the major speed figure makers, comes closest to a true speed figure, as he does not arbitrarily upgrade or downgrade a figure unless the time was extreme. He leaves the interpretation of the figure to the user. Interpretations are opinions, and we all have them, so his approach seems more in the true spirit of the speed figure. I know that if I used figures, I would want the raw figure displayed so that any interpretations I have about the running of the race would not be compounded by a maker's interpretation.

As a matter of fact, the latest version of my program includes my own raw pace and speed figures, just to make comparisons easier than looking at feet per second velocities. I doubt I would ever use them, but some of my users prefer to look at numbers on a more familiar scale. They can then apply their own interpretations as they want, and feel comfortable doing.

[raybo]

CC's speed figure for the Derby was 4 and 5 points higher than the other 2 horses in the Preakness who also ran in the Derby with him, Ride On Curlin and General A Rod, respectively. Those were the only horses who had run 10f races. I don't project to longer or shorter distances, other means must be used to compare horses who have not run the distance before, IMO.

[thaskalos]

This is correct.

Pace is NOT part of some elaborate formula. However, those guys can recognize extreme paces by looking at the fractions, watching the races and knowing the horses (or using Moss pace figures) just as well as anyone else.

So they can make adjustments to figures that were impacted by extreme paces so they make sense.
There is another problem with these "advanced" adjustments which hasn't been mentioned so far.

Beyer or Cj may indeed be knowledgeable enough to determine how the extreme pace of the race is likely to affect the race's final time...but is it always Beyer or Cj who are making the figures -- or is the task relegated to their "associates". I may have supreme confidence in Beyer's figure-making...but he is no longer locked up in his room, making figures with his red flair pen. His operation has now become widespread...and there are other people who are doing the bulk of the work. I suspect that the same will happen with Cj and HIS figures...now that he too has to cater to a much wider audience. Am I to believe that the "associates" are as capable as Beyer and Cj, in making these fine-line figure adjustments?

[Tom]

Beyer has capable associates who share the load with him.
He has the power to oversee, as I believe I read.
I am sure no one is breaking out race without due diligence.
I know BRIS even does this, according to Ed Derosa on a Byk segment. Just not as often.

I do not worry about the capabilities of the teams. Their leaders are professionals.

[Cratos]

I'm not sure where this comment is coming from. The question was whether Beyer includes pace in his numbers.

To make it simple, assume 2 horses ran the following races and all else was equal.

A: 21 3/5 - 43 4/5 - 109
B: 22 ---- 44 3/5 - 109

They have the same final time, but clearly did not run the same race.

Beyer generally focuses on the 109 final time and gives both horses the same number.

There are some figure makers that will look at both the fractions and final time and give Horse A the better number because of the faster pace. When you do that, it becomes a performance figure instead of a final time figure.

Beyer generally chooses to leave pace analysis to the player other than in extreme cases. That's a very simple point.

Where it is coming from is that PACE is an inherent component of speed and that is a scientific fact. There is not anything that any speed figure maker can do to change that. Without pace speed does not exist.

If you are stating that PACE is not recognized by all speed figure makers that is a different story because all or most of all speed figure makers are methodologists and not scientists; and their speed figure making is governed by generally accepted rules, self-imposed rules, or a combination of the two. Scientists are governed by the LAWS of SCIENCE; in other words in science it is what it is.

In your example, Beyer if your assumption is correct, would be correct because it is the Andrew Beyer methodology and you might disagree, but so what? Andrew Beyer has the right to construct a speed figure any way he likes because as aforementioned we are not talking about laws; we are talking about methods.

Therefore when you are speaking of speed a simple understanding is that speed is the rate of change of distance with time or in the language of calculus speed is the first derivative of distance with respect to time.

Furthermore, what should be used to calculate speed figures in my opinion is instantaneous speed, that is, the speed determined over a very small interval of time.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Cratos is correct - making speed figures is an art, not a science. I don't think Andy Beyer or CJ would disagree with that. But for some reason, I suspect Cratos thinks they would.

[letswastemoney]

If DRF could just designate with a star which speed figures were adjusted for any extreme situation, that would go a long way to making people happy.

[cj]

Cratos is correct - making speed figures is an art, not a science. I don't think Andy Beyer or CJ would disagree with that. But for some reason, I suspect Cratos thinks they would.

Of course it is an art, I agree. Not only that, but a scientist would probably give up and find a new pursuit when he figured out the things he has to deal with in racing. That data is far from foolproof.

[classhandicapper]

Cratos is correct - making speed figures is an art, not a science. I don't think Andy Beyer or CJ would disagree with that. But for some reason, I suspect Cratos thinks they would.

Almost everyone I have ever met that makes figures thinks the process is part science and part art.

The art comes in because we often don't have all the information necessary to be certain what happened. Wind, moisture content, track maintenance, and a list of about 100 other things can impact the times in changing ways throughout a card. Plus, different figure makers are often working with prior speed figures that are not in agreement with each other. Add it all up and that's why 5 very competent people can come to a different conclusion about the same day or race.

Figure makers use the information they have available and their best judgement to estimate what happened.

[classhandicapper]

Where it is coming from is that PACE is an inherent component of speed and that is a scientific fact. There is not anything that any speed figure maker can do to change that. Without pace speed does not exist.

If you are stating that PACE is not recognized by all speed figure makers that is a different story because all or most of all speed figure makers are methodologists and not scientists; and their speed figure making is governed by generally accepted rules, self-imposed rules, or a combination of the two. Scientists are governed by the LAWS of SCIENCE; in other words in science it is what it is.

In your example, Beyer if your assumption is correct, would be correct because it is the Andrew Beyer methodology and you might disagree, but so what? Andrew Beyer has the right to construct a speed figure any way he likes because as aforementioned we are not talking about laws; we are talking about methods.

Therefore when you are speaking of speed a simple understanding is that speed is the rate of change of distance with time or in the language of calculus speed is the first derivative of distance with respect to time.

Furthermore, what should be used to calculate speed figures in my opinion is instantaneous speed, that is, the speed determined over a very small interval of time.

We've covered this ground too many times.

I was clearly talking about what Beyer does in his terms.

Almost everyone uses the term speed figures interchangeably with final time figures. They use the term pace figures to describe the fractions. That's the standard terminology. That's just the way it is.

I already know what you think and by now you should know what I think of your approach. I think some of your ideas have merit but I've never seen them tested in the real world to see if they produce superior results.

[Cratos]

We've covered this ground too many times.

I was clearly talking about what Beyer does in his terms.

Almost everyone uses the term speed figures interchangeably with final time figures. They use the term pace figures to describe the fractions. That's the standard terminology. That's just the way it is.

I already know what you think and by now you should know what I think of your approach. I think some of your ideas have merit but I've never seen them tested in the real world to see if they produce superior results.

I have no idea about “We've covered this ground too many times” because I was merely responding to the thread’s topic and not to you personally.

Also what someone uses does not make it right. The history of this country is littered with false assumptions and false accusations, but there isn’t anyone anywhere that can prove that the final time of an object’s movement is not a function of its pace.

In the most congenial and harmonious manner you do not know what I think and how I think. On the contrary the same applies of me to you; I have no idea how you think or what you think.

Our interaction is tacit at best on an Internet horseracing forum where we come together to form our opinions about different horseracing topics.

Far as what you think of my “approach” (what that is I don’t know because it is a mystery to me) is irrelevant and transcends a response.

Lastly, I do not use speed figures, but I have the acumen to comprehend their application and development very well, I have a strong appreciation for the contributions that Andy Beyer has made to the horseracing handicapping methodology. Through his writings (both in books and his columns) Beyer has informed horseplayers about this game in a way that they had never been informed before.

[classhandicapper]

Cratos,

I'm not going to argue with you over the terminology that most people have been using for decades to communicate to each other about the times of races and classify their style of handicapping. They are called pace and speed figures and the handicappers are called pace or speed handicappers (or a combination). You can either communicate with people on the terms that most will understand or not. If not, you'll endlessly be making posts about how the term "speed" is being misused.

You've spent enough time talking about your approach to get a gist of some of the things you do that are different than the standard speed figure approach. Some of it has been interesting. But like I said, I haven't seen a study on the ability to pick winners using your approach.

[highnote]

Of course it is an art, I agree. Not only that, but a scientist would probably give up and find a new pursuit when he figured out the things he has to deal with in racing. That data is far from foolproof.


Or a scientist would figure (pardon the pun) out how to scientifically make a representative figure.

What is a representative figure?

Do you want a final time speed figure that represents how fast the horse actually ran or do you want a figure that represents how fast the horse is capable of running?

This year's KY Derby is a good example. Beyer gave Chrome a 97. That was how fast he thought Chrome ran, but he also understood that Chrome was capable of running a bigger number than that in the Preakness and that Chrome had running a bigger number in the SA Derby.

If I had to choose one, I would prefer to look at speed figures that reflect the final time of the race and track variant and use them to predict upcoming races. I will account for a fast or slow pace myself. Some people prefer to look at figures that represent what the horse is capable of running.

Both figures can be useful. It just depends on what you prefer. It probably makes sense to look at both kinds of figures for a particular horses when you are assessing their ability to run a future race.

[highnote]

Whether you are measuring horseracing, car racing, or human racing pace is the independent variable and final time is the dependent variable.


Or final time could be the dependent variable and finish position could be the independent variable.

Intuitively, final time seems like it would have greater predictive value of finish position than pace would have toward final time.

[raybo]

Or final time could be the dependent variable and finish position could be the independent variable.

Intuitively, final time seems like it would have greater predictive value of finish position than pace would have toward final time.

Hmmm. I believe that finish position is dependent on both pace and final time, so how could finish position be independent to anything, except possibly final time, when horses are so far back that they quit racing and thus run a slower final time than they would have had they kept racing to the wire?

[highnote]

Hmmm. I believe that finish position is dependent on both pace and final time, so how could finish position be independent to anything, except possibly final time, when horses are so far back that they quit racing and thus run a slower final time than they would have had they kept racing to the wire?


I was thinking in terms of regression analysis. Final Time is the independent variable and it is used to predict the dependent variable Finish Position.

The horse with the fastest final time is usually the winner of the next race -- all else being equal.

Now there are a million other factors that can influence the outcome of the race, but if you could only use one factor to predict future winners Final Time would be more predictive than any fractional time.

[Cratos]

Cratos,

I'm not going to argue with you over the terminology that most people have been using for decades to communicate to each other about the times of races and classify their style of handicapping. They are called pace and speed figures and the handicappers are called pace or speed handicappers (or a combination). You can either communicate with people on the terms that most will understand or not. If not, you'll endlessly be making posts about how the term "speed" is being misused.

You've spent enough time talking about your approach to get a gist of some of the things you do that are different than the standard speed figure approach. Some of it has been interesting. But like I said, I haven't seen a study on the ability to pick winners using your approach.

There is much work done with math, statistics, and science in the handicapping of horseracing and much of it can be found on the Internet. For instance, if you use a search engine you might find:

• Speed, pacing strategy and aerodynamic drafting in Thoroughbred horse racing

• High-speed gallop locomotion in the Thoroughbred racehorse

• Centre of mass movement and mechanical energy fluctuation during gallop locomotion in the Thoroughbred racehorse.

• THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MECHANICAL WORK AND ENERGY
EXPENDITURE OF LOCOMOTION IN HORSE

I am not trying to encourage you to change your way of thinking, but the speed figure methodology which appears to be your frame of reference is a very small part of the racehorse speed analysis in the global sense.

However I will have no more say in a direct relationship to this topic although I would hope we can continue to exchange opinions about horserace handicapping in future discussions on this forum.

[Cratos]

Or final time could be the dependent variable and finish position could be the independent variable.

Intuitively, final time seems like it would have greater predictive value of finish position than pace would have toward final time.

I believe it was Tom Brohamer who said (and I am paraphrasing) that “ final time is the time of the race and pace is the time the race was run in.”

Just final time of any moving object including race horses tells you very little. If you have the pace and the distance you can derived an objective singular the final time of a race.

However if you have just the final time and the distance it is very difficult to derive an objective singular final time of a race.

[highnote]

I believe it was Tom Brohamer who said (and I am paraphrasing) that “ final time is the time of the race and pace is the time the race was run in.”

Just final time of any moving object including race horses tells you very little. If you have the pace and the distance you can derived an objective singular the final time of a race.

However if you have just the final time and the distance it is very difficult to derive an objective singular final time of a race.


I don't agree with a lot of this because Beyer speed figures have been a mainstay of horse race handicapping and produced a lot of winning bets, but the surface is a big factor. Dirt races are usually run in a quick pace and the horses decelerate. Turf horses can have an excruciatingly slow pace and then a sprint for the wire. Pace can help in turf races, but less so in dirt. But I am a big fan of pace handicapping, but final time can tell you a lot.

Plus the shorter the distance the more "objective singular final time of a race" you have.

On the other hand, Secretariat set the world record by running 12 furlongs in two and a half minutes. I don't care what his pace was in the Belmont he was going to beat most other horses in his upcoming races and all you needed to know was his final time. Now, it's not always helpful to use an extreme example to prove a point. Many systems break down at the tails.

But even in a 6 furlong race Final Time can tell you a lot. You have one horse that ran 1:10 flat in it's last race and another that ran in 1:11 flat. In a head to head match up the 1:10 horse will win more often, all else being equal.

Now if the 1:10 horse went 47 to the half and the 1:11 horse went 45 to the half then things definitely get interesting in a match race between the two.

But if the pace is unknown and you only have speed figures based on final times available, then the 1:10 flat horse is going to have a higher figure and I'm going to bet him to win every time -- especially if they're both even money.

[classhandicapper]

I am not trying to encourage you to change your way of thinking, but the speed figure methodology which appears to be your frame of reference is a very small part of the racehorse speed analysis in the global sense.


I haven't discussed what I think much at all. I've been discussing the methodology of Beyer and the other well known figure makers.

[Cratos]

I don't agree with a lot of this because Beyer speed figures have been a mainstay of horse race handicapping and produced a lot of winning bets, but the surface is a big factor. Dirt races are usually run in a quick pace and the horses decelerate. Turf horses can have an excruciatingly slow pace and then a sprint for the wire. Pace can help in turf races, but less so in dirt. But I am a big fan of pace handicapping, but final time can tell you a lot.

Plus the shorter the distance the more "objective singular final time of a race" you have.

On the other hand, Secretariat set the world record by running 12 furlongs in two and a half minutes. I don't care what his pace was in the Belmont he was going to beat most other horses in his upcoming races and all you needed to know was his final time. Now, it's not always helpful to use an extreme example to prove a point. Many systems break down at the tails.

But even in a 6 furlong race Final Time can tell you a lot. You have one horse that ran 1:10 flat in it's last race and another that ran in 1:11 flat. In a head to head match up the 1:10 horse will win more often, all else being equal.

Now if the 1:10 horse went 47 to the half and the 1:11 horse went 45 to the half then things definitely get interesting in a match race between the two.

But if the pace is unknown and you only have speed figures based on final times available, then the 1:10 flat horse is going to have a higher figure and I'm going to bet him to win every time -- especially if they're both even money.

You loss me because I thought the subject was about determining the speed of a horse race using either pace or the final time.

Also I hope you realize that final time is a static entity that can be converted into an average speed which is based on an average pace if nothing else is known.

Speed figures are assigned based on the speed figure methodology and I think that is what Andy Beyer does, assigns a figure to a race based on his methodology.

This really has nothing to do with final time being a function of pace.

[highnote]

You loss me because I thought the subject was about determining the speed of a horse race using either pace or the final time.

I guess it depends on the definition of speed that you use. One definition is the distance traveled divided by travel time.

Also I hope you realize that final time is a static entity that can be converted into an average speed which is based on an average pace if nothing else is known.

Distance divided by Final time is speed per the formula above.

Speed figures are assigned based on the speed figure methodology and I think that is what Andy Beyer does, assigns a figure to a race based on his methodology.

Agreed.

This really has nothing to do with final time being a function of pace.

The final time of a race is function of pace.

Run too fast early in the race then the final time will suffer.

Run too slow early in the race then the final time will suffer.

In general, a horse that runs an evenly paced race (that is, not too fast or slow for his ability) will produce the best final race time for that given horse.

[PhantomOnTour]

I think this entire thread (and the one about the Derby fig) is testament to why people should make their own figs.
You know exactly what went into every number, and why.
You also know which races to re-visit in order to verify a number.
Excellent par times are available for purchase and that's all you need to get going.

It's time consuming, esp if you play multiple tracks, but you gain an intimate knowledge of what's going on at your track.

Following a circuit day to day & track to track is the best education a player can get...all the better if you make your own figs for that circuit, too.

[highnote]

I think this entire thread (and the one about the Derby fig) is testament to why people should make their own figs.
You know exactly what went into every number, and why.
You also know which races to re-visit in order to verify a number.
Excellent par times are available for purchase and that's all you need to get going.

It's time consuming, esp if you play multiple tracks, but you gain an intimate knowledge of what's going on at your track.

Following a circuit day to day & track to track is the best education a player can get...all the better if you make your own figs for that circuit, too.


Totally agree -- with a couple of caveats. If you're a casual player then using speed figures made by others is better than nothing, but if you're a serious player then you probably want to make them yourself. But there is probably a point where the super serious or professional player uses a combination of their own figures and figures made by others.

The professional player that uses computer assisted wagering probably has an automated system to generate figures and the professional probably also buys certain data from various services -- some of those services might include speed figures or daily variants.

[Tom]

I think this entire thread (and the one about the Derby fig) is testament to why people should make their own figs.

But at what cost?
You won't do every track in the country and Canada. You won't have access to powerful computer programs to review your work and how the track to track stuff plays out. For the few races you gain insight, you take alot of other convenience off the table.

If you are limiting yourself to one track or circuit, that is one thing, but the ability to play anywhere any time can be pretty profitable.

[classhandicapper]

But at what cost?
You won't do every track in the country and Canada. You won't have access to powerful computer programs to review your work and how the track to track stuff plays out. For the few races you gain insight, you take alot of other convenience off the table.

If you are limiting yourself to one track or circuit, that is one thing, but the ability to play anywhere any time can be pretty profitable.

I'm with you Tom. I used to make my own pace and speed figures for NY for a long time. There were some advantages that Phantom highlighted, but there was also an opportunity cost. Whatever time and energy I put into figures was not available for other things.

Trying to get the best of both worlds is why I got into using multiple sets of figures. When the services disagreed, I would take a better look at the race and decide for myself. Otherwise I'd assume the figure was fine.

I also like to use the Formulator Charts with the Beyer Figures function on. Then I can see all the horses' Beyer figures in and out of a race quickly to see if anything seems out of line and worthy of investigation.

[highnote]

My take on this is that in order for me to be moderately successful I would make my own figures for one circuit and then make huge bets when I know I have an edge, but most of the time I will just be watching and waiting. That is how Pittsburgh Phil did it. He would study the charts from the previous season during the off-season. Then eventually he was successful enough that he could afford to own horses. Then he bet on his own horses. Until the 1980's he was probably the most successful horse race bettor of all time. He also bet with and against bookmakers. The books I have read about him say that he was eventually kicked out of NY tracks because he was too successful at betting.

Bill Benter also received the same push back from the HK racing authorities because he was too successful. Authorities felt he had an unfair advantage. He did. He was smarter than everyone else.

If you want to be extremely successful and join the ranks of the most successful bettors then you would automate your betting so that you can bet all the tracks in the country and even tracks in other countries. For this you need powerful computers, lots of data to create a factor model, you would probably need to make your own figures for your model as well as buy figures from others and you will need a team of people working with you.

There are degrees in between these two scenarios a person or persons could do. And an individual might even be successful buying figures and betting multiple tracks. It depends on your definition of success.

Some people consider losing only a little money at the track as being successful. The small loss was the cost of their entertainment.

Other people only feel successful if they make a million dollars per year.

A computer team might need to make tens of millions per year in order to be successful.

[Stillriledup]

But at what cost?
You won't do every track in the country and Canada. You won't have access to powerful computer programs to review your work and how the track to track stuff plays out. For the few races you gain insight, you take alot of other convenience off the table.

If you are limiting yourself to one track or circuit, that is one thing, but the ability to play anywhere any time can be pretty profitable.

I agree, the cost is too high. Its easier to purchase others figs, let them do the work, i like to spend my time on breaking down tape, as far as i know there's no service out there that sells detailed notes on video replays.

[Tom]

Is Logic Dictates still around?
I think they did trip notes for NYRA?

[traynor]

But at what cost?
You won't do every track in the country and Canada. You won't have access to powerful computer programs to review your work and how the track to track stuff plays out. For the few races you gain insight, you take alot of other convenience off the table.

If you are limiting yourself to one track or circuit, that is one thing, but the ability to play anywhere any time can be pretty profitable.

Am I missing something here, or do I have you confused with someone else on this forum? I seem to recall a fairly recent post in which you stated that your current wagers were a small fraction of what they had been previously, and you were doing so poorly you were considering a complete cessation of wagering. Was that you or someone else?

If I have you mixed up with some other poster, please accept my apology in advance. My impression (possibly erroneous) is that you were not doing very well at all in the profit department.

[traynor]

Totally agree -- with a couple of caveats. If you're a casual player then using speed figures made by others is better than nothing, but if you're a serious player then you probably want to make them yourself. But there is probably a point where the super serious or professional player uses a combination of their own figures and figures made by others.

The professional player that uses computer assisted wagering probably has an automated system to generate figures and the professional probably also buys certain data from various services -- some of those services might include speed figures or daily variants.

I think the super serious or professional bettors differ from the recreational bettors so much that any service available to the general public (or even a "select clientele" subset of the general public) would be dismissed as useless. The logic is simple--any figures (of whatever kind) good enough to be used in serious, professional level wagering would not be sold. They would be used by the developers for their own serious, professional level wagering.

The serious, professional level bettors stay that way by developing their own proprietary figures, algorithms, strategies, tactics, and software applications. They don't really care what the rookies and wannabes are doing, saying, thinking, or using. They only care what the handful of other serious, professional level bettors are doing, saying, thinking, or using because that handful of others is the only real competition.

[traynor]

I think this entire thread (and the one about the Derby fig) is testament to why people should make their own figs.
You know exactly what went into every number, and why.
You also know which races to re-visit in order to verify a number.
Excellent par times are available for purchase and that's all you need to get going.

It's time consuming, esp if you play multiple tracks, but you gain an intimate knowledge of what's going on at your track.

Following a circuit day to day & track to track is the best education a player can get...all the better if you make your own figs for that circuit, too.

Absolutely. Unless you go through the steps of doing it all yourself, you will never really learn what you need to know. Not that you will learn everything, but you will learn to know what you need to know--what knowledge, information, or whatever you lack that would enable you to do what you want to do.

Way too many seem willing to use the information, services, data, figures, strategies, or software applications of others with little or no real knowledge of what those works of others are really doing. Perhaps that is to avoid the cognitive dissonance of losing by blaming the poor results on some other (external, uncontrollable, unknowable, whatever) factors.

None of which means the average bettor should not use figures, services, or software apps developed by others. However, if one aspires to be mroe than average, a bit more effort may be needed to keep up.

[dannyhill]

Is Logic Dictates still around?
I think they did trip notes for NYRA?
Yes they are.

[highnote]

I think the super serious or professional bettors differ from the recreational bettors so much that any service available to the general public (or even a "select clientele" subset of the general public) would be dismissed as useless. The logic is simple--any figures (of whatever kind) good enough to be used in serious, professional level wagering would not be sold. They would be used by the developers for their own serious, professional level wagering.

The serious, professional level bettors stay that way by developing their own proprietary figures, algorithms, strategies, tactics, and software applications. They don't really care what the rookies and wannabes are doing, saying, thinking, or using. They only care what the handful of other serious, professional level bettors are doing, saying, thinking, or using because that handful of others is the only real competition.

Widely available figures could be used by syndicates as indicators for market sentiment. They might use figures to bet against rather than to bet with.

For example, a horse that gets a big last race Beyer will probably take a lot of action. Professional teams can use this knowledge to their advantage and take account of it (quantify it) in their models. The average punter could have a difficult time quantifying the negative pari-mutuel value of a big Beyer, if they even consider its negative value.

[Tom]

Am I missing something here, or do I have you confused with someone else on this forum? I seem to recall a fairly recent post in which you stated that your current wagers were a small fraction of what they had been previously, and you were doing so poorly you were considering a complete cessation of wagering. Was that you or someone else?

If I have you mixed up with some other poster, please accept my apology in advance. My impression (possibly erroneous) is that you were not doing very well at all in the profit department.

No, it was me.
Not doing badly at all profit-wise, but getting very tired of small fields and low odds. I don't bet nearly what I used to. I am getting a lot more action now that the summer tracks are running. I do not play Aqueduct inner, GP, SA, FG.......gave up on Tampa last year. Monday was a banner day - more plays Monday than all of February!

[Cratos]

The final time of a race is function of pace.

Run too fast early in the race then the final time will suffer.

Run too slow early in the race then the final time will suffer.

In general, a horse that runs an evenly paced race (that is, not too fast or slow for his ability) will produce the best final race time for that given horse.

You have stated in a very eloquent what I have been saying; apparently we don't differ at all

[classhandicapper]

Is Logic Dictates still around?
I think they did trip notes for NYRA?

Yes. He's still around.

[Moto Pete]

I'm in a similar situation Tom. My play dropped so much I gave up my subscription to HTR. Can't justify the cost when you're playing so sparingly. My bottom line isn't bad either but it's frustrating and a huge strain on the brain trying to find decent races to play. Tampa was always my favorite winter track but in 2012-13 I bet half of what I bet the year before and this year I bet half of what I did last year. Small fields are a part of it, but the dirty trainers are too. Tampa did the right thing by banning 2 of them but 1 guy can still ruin a lot of races. I also don't play AQU Inner and I look to turf races mostly at GP. With my closers mentality I'll be looking at Woodbine primarily this summer.

[classhandicapper]

Widely available figures could be used by syndicates as indicators for market sentiment. They might use figures to bet against rather than to bet with.

For example, a horse that gets a big last race Beyer will probably take a lot of action. Professional teams can use this knowledge to their advantage and take account of it (quantify it) in their models. The average punter could have a difficult time quantifying the negative pari-mutuel value of a big Beyer, if they even consider its negative value.


I spend more time looking for bad figures to bet against than good figures to bet on. It's rare than you find a standout figure horse (where the figure is an accurate representation of the performance) that pays a good price. Everyone has figures now. If the horse is a legitimate standout all figure sources will generally agree even if the margin varies a bit because of accuracy and other issues.