Beyer Figures -- Slippery Slope?

[Track Phantom]

As we know, handicapping is an imperfect application. One of the most appealing parts of the game is the myriad of approaches one can take to slice and dice a given race.

I know speed figures often lead to fantastic finds. I don't doubt they are, at times, the best way to find the winner.

Andy Beyer described the 103 Beyer given to California Chrome this way: CC and company weren’t going to run a fast final time after going the first half in 49.12 (compared to 47.77 for the allowance race). If we had given the San Pasqual a “true” figure, California Chrome would have earned a 95—the same as Follow Me Crev. Imperative, Hoppertunity and Hard Case would have received figures of 93, 91 and 86 - all far below their normal performances. The 103 may be imperfect but it makes a lot more sense than 95.

I don't like the idea of adjusting a final Beyer figure to account for what horses normally run. The whole idea of speed figures are to identify those anomalies that indicate a race might have come up much weaker (or stronger) than we might assume.

I understand how subjectivity in these numbers can make them a bit more in line with what is to be expected. But, to me, it feels like a slippery slope.

Does anyone else feel this way or am I over reading this?

[Stillriledup]

Seems more like a 'power figure' than a speed figure.

If he's just going to "make up" a number, why wait till after the race, just add the figure to today's PPs.

If you handicap under the guise that the Beyer figs are 'square' numbers (square meaning not 'sharp') than you can get thrown off by misc. alterations to those numbers.

I think the more he tampers with them the less valuable they become because its just a guess as to which ones were altered and which ones were left alone.

[thaskalos]

I don't understand the obsession to make every single past performance line indicative of the horse's "true ability". If the pace of the race is unusually slow, and it results in an unusually slow speed figure, then let the slow speed figure stand...and let the individual PLAYER make the necessary pace adjustments. Give the horseplayer the raw tools...and allow him to do some of the work HIMSELF. The way it is now...there is no way for the player to know which is the "true figure", and which is the added "adjustment".

IMO...these "made-up" figures are enough of a reason for the serious horseplayer to FORGO relying on commercial figures...and start creating figures of his own. On one hand, Beyer tells us that his ratings are "pure speed" figures...which comprise only one PIECE of the handicapping puzzle. But on the other hand, he endeavors to turn these figures into POWER RATINGS. Extensive research of my own has convinced me that Beyer also includes class considerations into his figures...although he vehemently denies it.

No offense, Andy...but some of us have been playing this game for almost as long as YOU have...and a few of us feel that we have a better handle on "pace" than what you have so far demonstrated. If you are going to insist on adjusting your figures, at least supply us with the UNADJUSTED figures too...in case we choose to make these adjustments OURSELVES.

[rastajenk]

Remember this date, Mr. T: I agree with you completely.

:cool:

[thaskalos]

Remember this date, Mr. T: I agree with you completely.

:cool:
How long have I waited to hear you say that? :)

[illinoisbred]

Thaskalos...I share the exact same sentiments. I couldn't agree more.

[Capper Al]

Latest version same race as above:
........ AMS ...... EuroSpd ... BRIS ...... JCap ... Finish .... Qck Pick .... ML
R9: .. 4-5-10 .. 5-3-4 ........ 8-2-3 ..... 2-8-3 .. 8-2-3 .... 8-2-3 ....... 8-2-10

What's interesting to note is that handicapping the ML and myself both get the 8-2, but AMS and EuroSpd which are feet per second based don't. The question now becomes are JCAP and BRIS speed figures real speed figures or are they changed by a handicapping factors outside of the basic equations of speed plus variant? Both the 8 and 2 only have one start and neither make the top three in my FTS based figure.

If you have done some reading you'll come across projecting speeds for younger horses to augment the figures. This could be going on here or some other form of handicapping can be modifying these speed figures. Is it a good thing? Their speed figures did well here.


Same for other commercial speed figs. This is a quote from 'What's up with the Capper?' thread. Based on this example, it appears that the commercial speed figs are power figures.

[pacer]

I don't understand the obsession to make every single past performance line indicative of the horse's "true ability". If the pace of the race is unusually slow, and it results in an unusually slow speed figure, then let the slow speed figure stand...and let the individual PLAYER make the necessary pace adjustments. Give the horseplayer the raw tools...and allow him to do some of the work HIMSELF. The way it is now...there is no way for the player to know which is the "true figure", and which is the added "adjustment".

IMO...these "made-up" figures are enough of a reason for the serious horseplayer to FORGO relying on commercial figures...and start creating figures of his own. On one hand, Beyer tells us that his ratings are "pure speed" figures...which comprise only one PIECE of the handicapping puzzle. But on the other hand, he endeavors to turn these figures into POWER RATINGS. Extensive research of my own has convinced me that Beyer also includes class considerations into his figures...although he vehemently denies it.

No offense, Andy...but some of us have been playing this game for almost as long as YOU have...and a few of us feel that we have a better handle on "pace" than what you have so far demonstrated. If you are going to insist on adjusting your figures, at least supply us with the UNADJUSTED figures too...in case we choose to make these adjustments OURSELVES.


I agree 100%

[classhandicapper]

This issue has been debated for decades.

Most serious trip/pace handicappers would probably prefer the actual number and then to subsequently do any pace analysis on their own.

Most casual handicappers are probably better off with a number that reflects the ability of the horses because they won't know the pace was very slow or won't understand all the relationships between pace and final time.

But even more advanced handicappers can benefit from a figure that expresses the quality of the race. I have argued that the figure should simply be identified as either broken out or pace adjusted. That would tell handicappers to dig.

There is another complication. Sometimes the track actually did change speeds or the wind picked up and was against them in the early part of the race. So what appears to be a pace issue is actually a change in conditions. It's not always clear what happened.

If you are a serious handicapper and use final time figures you should probably either make your own figures (so you know what you did) or back into what the figure maker did by looking at all the figures for the day like people are doing in this high profile case.

Another possibility is to accept that figures are not the definitive statement about how well a horse ran because of the complications of pace, wind, changing track speed, and the subjective nature of making figures etc..

It's not like this was a particularly tough race to analyze without the clock. The ability of the top 3 is pretty clear.

[Robert Fischer]

The pace was legitimately slow, so I don't have a problem with it.

[Stillriledup]

The pace was legitimately slow, so I don't have a problem with it.

What if he's trumping up some numbers due to ground loss while leaving some alone? How can you tell?

This was a race with a name horse so it got more scrutiny, does the slow paced 4k claimer at penn national also get adjusted?

[classhandicapper]

What if he's trumping up some numbers due to ground loss while leaving some alone? How can you tell?



That's a risk with anyone that is not including ground loss into their thinking, but it's a similar risk to someone adding ground loss into the figure when the fastest paths were outside.

I suspect that when a single figure doesn't fit well with the rest of the day, someone glances at the chart and would notice extreme ground loss.

The greater risk is when all the riders know the inside is bad and virtually everyone is out in the 4 path or wider. Then the figures will probably incorporate the ground loss. So if you add it in also you'll be overrating those horses. I think ground loss is one of those things that's definitely on the handicapper. You have to know how the track was playing.

These are the kinds of things that have moved me away from figures.

It's way easier to say something like "This was a solid NW1 ALW race that had a slow pace and where most of the horses stayed well out on the track on a day where the fastest paths seemed to be outside" than it is to first figure out what the speed figure maker did and then make adjustments for the pace and ground loss on a day like that.

IMHO, figures are best used as an interpretive tool when you are less familiar with the quality of the horses or unsure what happened.

[LottaKash]

Got this message from a "Chinese fortune cookie slip" (serious)...

"The speed of the leader determines the rate of the pack"...

[illinoisbred]

Got this message from a "Chinese fortune cookie slip" (serious)...

"The speed of the leader determines the rate of the pack"...
How can that be? Seriously, I got the very same message a couple weeks back. I've held on to that little of strip of paper.

[dilanesp]

If I were Beyer, I'd report the figure the math points to, but add a "+" or "-" notation to figures that the figure-maker suspects to be too high or too low.

That would seem to me to be more useful for handicappers-- let them know what figure the horse really earned but put a warning on it when the person making the figures is legitimately suspicious.

[dilanesp]

This issue has been debated for decades.

Most serious trip/pace handicappers would probably prefer the actual number and then to subsequently do any pace analysis on their own.

Most casual handicappers are probably better off with a number that reflects the ability of the horses because they won't know the pace was very slow or won't understand all the relationships between pace and final time.

But even more advanced handicappers can benefit from a figure that expresses the quality of the race. I have argued that the figure should simply be identified as either broken out or pace adjusted. That would tell handicappers to dig.

There is another complication. Sometimes the track actually did change speeds or the wind picked up and was against them in the early part of the race. So what appears to be a pace issue is actually a change in conditions. It's not always clear what happened.

If you are a serious handicapper and use final time figures you should probably either make your own figures (so you know what you did) or back into what the figure maker did by looking at all the figures for the day like people are doing in this high profile case.

Another possibility is to accept that figures are not the definitive statement about how well a horse ran because of the complications of pace, wind, changing track speed, and the subjective nature of making figures etc..

It's not like this was a particularly tough race to analyze without the clock. The ability of the top 3 is pretty clear.

Without disagreeing with anything you wrote, the wind is rarely an issue at Santa Anita.

The track where it's a gigantic issue, in my experience, is Aqueduct. That backstretch can be a wind tunnel sometimes.

[raybo]

As we know, handicapping is an imperfect application. One of the most appealing parts of the game is the myriad of approaches one can take to slice and dice a given race.

I know speed figures often lead to fantastic finds. I don't doubt they are, at times, the best way to find the winner.

Andy Beyer described the 103 Beyer given to California Chrome this way: CC and company weren’t going to run a fast final time after going the first half in 49.12 (compared to 47.77 for the allowance race). If we had given the San Pasqual a “true” figure, California Chrome would have earned a 95—the same as Follow Me Crev. Imperative, Hoppertunity and Hard Case would have received figures of 93, 91 and 86 - all far below their normal performances. The 103 may be imperfect but it makes a lot more sense than 95.

I don't like the idea of adjusting a final Beyer figure to account for what horses normally run. The whole idea of speed figures are to identify those anomalies that indicate a race might have come up much weaker (or stronger) than we might assume.

I understand how subjectivity in these numbers can make them a bit more in line with what is to be expected. But, to me, it feels like a slippery slope.

Does anyone else feel this way or am I over reading this?

We had a discussion in the two threads for California Chrome, and that was my argument. If Beyer is going to make a "speed" figure, then he should always make speed figures, regardless of the pace. The only thing he should add to the final time conversion is the variant, broken out or not. I can live with a race that was broken out due to surface change, wind, etc., but when he obviously includes past "ability" or "class" then he is straying from the historical backbone of his speed figures, final time and variant.

If, however, he has decided to change his calculations then he needs to tell everyone about it, and be consistent with the new calculations thereafter. Otherwise, he leaves the handicapper guessing at what the speed figure is actually telling them. Either it's a speed figure, or it's something else. The people who use his figures (and those who look at them from an oddsline point of view, looking for value when his figures are "off", without having watched each race live or from replays) deserve to know that. You can't expect all of your users to have intimate knowledge of every single race in the PPs, in order to "un-adjust" Beyer figures that were calculated using factors not normally used in those calculations, the figures should be consistent within their own basic factor set (final time and variant, only).

And, regarding his comments that you quoted, if G1 and G2 horses run like AOC horses, then the speed figures should reflect that, not something that does not represent their performances. If a G1 horse runs slow early and his final time reflects that then that final time should be represented as such, not a guess at what he might have, or would have run with a faster pace. That is a pace analysis problem, not a speed figure problem.

[Stillriledup]

Good write up Ray.

Anyone who is familiar with Thorograph I would love to hear your thoughts on what Jerry does with a slow pace, isn't there a squiggly line or a ''P' as a notation for a number in an unusually fast or slow paced race?

[tophatmert]

Good write up Ray.

Anyone who is familiar with Thorograph I would love to hear your thoughts on what Jerry does with a slow pace, isn't there a squiggly line or a ''P' as a notation for a number in an unusually fast or slow paced race?

Rag and TG both have a pace designation for extremely fast or slow paces . It shows up mostly for slow paced races. My opinion only but their idea of fast or slow paces seems somewhat arbitrary .

[sammy the sage]

the BIG question...what did THE local hero here do w/the TF figs for the mentioned 2 races in question...

[raybo]

the BIG question...what did THE local hero here do w/the TF figs for the mentioned 2 races in question...

119 for the winner of race 7 and 118 for CC. But, his figs include pace whereas Beyer figs are not supposed to, at all.

[Fager Fan]

Were basically all of Zenyatta's races assigned higher Beyers than earned given how often they slowed the pace (to no avail)?

Beyer makes his numbers irrelevant if he's going to randomly decide which horses/races to upgrade based on pace.

[Stillriledup]

Were basically all of Zenyatta's races assigned higher Beyers than earned given how often they slowed the pace (to no avail)?

Beyer makes his numbers irrelevant if he's going to randomly decide which horses/races to upgrade based on pace.

I agree.

If Z runs Beyers in the 100 to 115 range and then wins a race with a '93' they might just assign her a 105 because it looks like it makes more sene, and if that's what's going on, it cheapens the number, makes it virtually unusable.

[luisbe]

So Beyer is telling us not to spend money on Moss Pace Figures.

[PICSIX]

Does anyone believe the winner of race 7 would beat CC if they met in a future race? If not, wouldn't a lower Beyer for CC be a misrepresentation?

Did the variant change, track get groomed between races, the timing off, etc.?

[Tom]

The sprint race afterwards was right in line with the early part of the card.
In two days, Fri/Sat, CC's race was the only one out of line.

What bothers me is that that affects all the other horses in that race.

[classhandicapper]

Were basically all of Zenyatta's races assigned higher Beyers than earned given how often they slowed the pace (to no avail)?



A couple were tweaked up for extremely slow paces, but generally her speed figures VASTLY understated her ability. That was early in the synthetic days when the synthetic tracks were especially dull and Beyer had yet to tweak his formula to bring the figures closer to being in line with dirt.

[classhandicapper]

As I said in the other thread, this is a relatively rare occurrence on dirt, but every major figure maker ROUTINELY makes adjustments exactly like this for turf races. If they didn't, everyone's turf numbers would be a joke. So it's not just Beyer.

The other point I want to make (and this is clearly in defense of Beyer's position), if he had given CC a 95 and the horses behind him low 90s and high 80s like they really earned, there would be other threads with a different set of handicappers screaming about how Beyer figures are vastly understating the ability of those horses and are worthless.

All figure makers are in a no win position on this.

IMO, the solution is a notation that tells you whether or not a figure was pace adjusted (and even better by how much), but I haven't had much luck trying to convince anyone of that. Most people (even among experienced handicappers) don't even understand the issue, let alone grasp the possible solutions and why they matter (present company excepted because this group is exceptionally sharp).

[Fager Fan]

i don't think anyone would have a problem with two horses running identical final times getting the same speed figure. We can all look at the early fractions and make an adjusent in our minds if we want due to pace. I think 95 was more representative of the race than a 103. He pressed the pace and recorded a slowish final time -what about that warrants a triple digit Beyer?

[classhandicapper]

i don't think anyone would have a problem with two horses running identical final times getting the same speed figure. We can all look at the early fractions and make an adjusent in our minds if we want due to pace. I think 95 was more representative of the race than a 103. He pressed the pace and recorded a slowish final time -what about that warrants a triple digit Beyer?


It doesn't warrant a 103. However, if the horse came back and faced a field of horses that normally run in the 100 range, he would clearly be favored over them on the assumption that he is capable of 103 or better. The problem is that some people do NOT understand those pace issues and would think he was off form or ran a poor race when it was actually a pace issue. There are two segments of customers. Those that pay close attention to pace and the relationship between pace and time and those that do not or don't know enough to. It's hard to satisfy both.

[Fager Fan]

It doesn't warrant a 103. However, if the horse came back and faced a field of horses that normally run in the 100 range, he would clearly be favored over them on the assumption that he is capable of 103 or better. The problem is that some people do NOT understand those pace issues and would think he was off form or ran a poor race when it was actually a pace issue. There are two segments of customers. Those that pay close attention to pace and the relationship between pace and time and those that do not or don't know enough to. It's hard to satisfy both.

Handicappers shouldn't want Beyer appealing to the uneducated or uninformed as that hurts the prices. But that's another matter.

The horse was coming off a 9-month layoff and ran a slowish race. Had he run faster, I'm not sure that wouldn't have affected his finish and therefore the results. Can Beyer know?

The 95 seems a fair representation of the race. We all know that he ran well enough over so-so competition and now he'll need to step it up to beat better competition.

[raybo]

To my knowledge, Beyer figs have never been "ability" or "performance" figs, they have always been "speed" figs. By definition, speed figs should only reflect final time and variant. If some handicappers don't now how to adjust speed figures by other factors, like pace, then maybe they should learn how to do that. The answer is not for Beyer to do that for them in his speed figs. If he wants to include pace or other factors, other than variant, then he should publish two figs; speed, and ability/performance. If a horse runs a slow or fast final time, then its speed figure should reflect that.

[classhandicapper]

Handicappers shouldn't want Beyer appealing to the uneducated or uninformed as that hurts the prices. But that's another matter.

The horse was coming off a 9-month layoff and ran a slowish race. Had he run faster, I'm not sure that wouldn't have affected his finish and therefore the results. Can Beyer know?

The 95 seems a fair representation of the race. We all know that he ran well enough over so-so competition and now he'll need to step it up to beat better competition.

The rest of the field was part of the analysis. Had he given CC a 95, he would also have been forced to give the rest the field figures that were clearly not in line with their ability. That's how he knew it was the slow pace that impacted the entire race and not just a CC issue. Look at the original poster's note. It contains an excerpt of Beyer's comments.

[classhandicapper]

To my knowledge, Beyer figs have never been "ability" or "performance" figs, they have always been "speed" figs.

He's been doing this from day one, but as I said, it's very rare on dirt. Everyone does it for turf or the numbers would be useless.

I can't argue with you about what should be done. I already expressed my preference that races like that should have a notation so we know the race was pace adjusted. I'm not in a position to help change that.

[Stillriledup]

The rest of the field was part of the analysis. Had he given CC a 95, he would also have been forced to give the rest the field figures that were clearly not in line with their ability. That's how he knew it was the slow pace that impacted the entire race and not just a CC issue. Look at the original poster's note. It contains an excerpt of Beyer's comments.

Does he spend time adjusting the 4k claimer at Penn Nat or just tinkers w CC because he's a 'brand name'?

how do we know which numbers were tinkered with and which ones were not.

[classhandicapper]

Does he spend time adjusting the 4k claimer at Penn Nat or just tinkers w CC because he's a 'brand name'?

how do we know which numbers were tinkered with and which ones were not.

I can only speak from personal experience in NY.

It's very rare on dirt but is quite frequent on turf (as it is for everyone).

The only way to know is to monitor it like I do (that's why I do it). Like I said, I like the idea of a notation. That would eliminate the need to monitor without changing what any figure maker thinks is best for their own product. A little "P" that means "pace adjusted" next to the 103 would suffice and should satisfy most people. But no one ever listens to me. I make too much sense. :lol:

[Tom]

Does he spend time adjusting the 4k claimer at Penn Nat or just tinkers w CC because he's a 'brand name'?

how do we know which numbers were tinkered with and which ones were not.

You buy the Simulcast Daily and you look at every race every day at tracks you play and note what races are out of line. You also discover that tracks he has deviated from his charts that way. I make a list of races that might look better or worse than the official Beyer number would indicate and wait for your spots. You also get to see when a number of a period of numbers get changed later on. It sure looks like he is on top of the cheapest races as well.

[Baron Star Gregg]

I agree with almost everything each of you have written but would like to add a couple thoughts for your consideration when considering Beyers. I call them Beyers NOT speed figures. I'm sure we know the evolution of these numbers and how they have become altered and fungible by the Beyer team. This is arguably helpful to the general public, which was their goal, but minimizes our edge. If we keep that in mind I think we can deal with it.
Another thing I'm sure we all know is how difficult it is to learn this game and how much we need new blood to keep the industry healthy. The Beyers help the casual players ease into the game by doing some of the "advance work" if you will. I call it "Uncle Leo," your knowledgeable guide to aspects of the game best left to more experienced practitioners,"trust me, it just is." Those casual players will either let the Beyers do their work and end up on the same horses as everyone else or they will become curious and delve into the details to find out if Uncle Leo is full of it. Either way it is good for the long term health of the industry.

[AndyC]

Is there anybody posting in this thread still using Beyer numbers as a primary tool to make significant bets? Would a casual race fan be helped or hurt by a Beyer number that has been adjusted?

I think most casual fans couldn't tell you the difference between a speed fig and a performance fig. Their use of the figs are generally limited to "horse A is better than horse B because the numbers are higher". From that perspective, I see no problem with adjusting the numbers. If I actually used the numbers it would be another story.

[Stillriledup]

I agree with almost everything each of you have written but would like to add a couple thoughts for your consideration when considering Beyers. I call them Beyers NOT speed figures. I'm sure we know the evolution of these numbers and how they have become altered and fungible by the Beyer team. This is arguably helpful to the general public, which was their goal, but minimizes our edge. If we keep that in mind I think we can deal with it.
Another thing I'm sure we all know is how difficult it is to learn this game and how much we need new blood to keep the industry healthy. The Beyers help the casual players ease into the game by doing some of the "advance work" if you will. I call it "Uncle Leo," your knowledgeable guide to aspects of the game best left to more experienced practitioners,"trust me, it just is." Those casual players will either let the Beyers do their work and end up on the same horses as everyone else or they will become curious and delve into the details to find out if Uncle Leo is full of it. Either way it is good for the long term health of the industry.

I don't know how experts selling information that's affordable for mostly everyone helps the game 'grow'.

This is a you against me game and if "you" or "me" has the ability for 4 bucks to get info that would otherwise take hours and skill to accumulate, how is that beneficial to the guy who has the ability to work on horses full time? In other words, if you take away the ability of the full time guy to earn a yearly profit, how does that give the weekend warrior (or the person with family obligations) any hope? Isn't the 'hope' we all have the idea that if you outwork everyone or have more time on your hands than most people you can be a successful bettor? I'm not sure taking that one away creates growth.

[AndyC]

I don't know how experts selling information that's affordable for mostly everyone helps the game 'grow'....

Because the information allows a new player to feel like they are making educated bets and not just guessing. People who become regular players do so because they feel the intellectual process of handicapping results in a good bet. Focusing on just Beyer numbers any player can get a relative understanding on which horses have run better races.

[thaskalos]

Any idea of when Andy Beyer will finally stop calling his ratings "pure-speed figures"? :)

[AndyC]

Any idea of when Andy Beyer will finally stop calling his ratings "pure-speed figures"? :)

Perhaps there needs to be some new government regulation or a Department of Speed Figure Administration. We could all be assured by an "approved by the DFSA" stamp on each document containing speed figures that no adjustments were used in the production of the numbers.

Don't know when Beyer will stop calling his ratings "pure-speed figures" whatever that term actually means.

[Capper Al]

If they were real speed, the public would have to figure out when the numbers were good or not. Just thing of how many handicapping methods depend on speed figures as they are now?

[Overlay]

Got this message from a "Chinese fortune cookie slip" (serious)...

"The speed of the leader determines the rate of the pack"...
On two different occasions (separated by many years and miles), I've gotten one that said, "You love horses, sports, and gambling, but not to excess."

[SG4]

On two different occasions (separated by many years and miles), I've gotten one that said, "You love horses, sports, and gambling, but not to excess."

You have just helped solve one of the mysteries of my lifetime, thank you! Many years ago I got the same fortune ("you love horses, sports & gambling") and I always assumed my parents somehow got a personalized fortune into my cookie & was annoyed that they never admitted to it. Who knew that fortune cookies could really be that smart.

Now if they can just get a fortune to read "I agree, Beyer figures should not be adjusted for any pace scenario & should be pure speed figures based on final time" then I'll know these cookies truly are in my head.

[thaskalos]

Is there anybody posting in this thread still using Beyer numbers as a primary tool to make significant bets?
Are you suggesting that only the FRIVOLOUS player should consider these figures to be a primary handicapping tool?

I wonder if Andy Beyer is of the same opinion...

[Track Phantom]

Here is my issue:

When you start tinkering with a "math problem" in order to have it fall in line with the expected outcome, it losses its core value, which is a comparison in exact "like for like" situations. When subjectivity is added to the equation, it is dependent on the skill of the person adding their "opinion".

If Beyer was going to tinker with anything, he should change his variant related to par time. What I mean is, in order to apply a variant, he uses par times vs class to find the variant. If a maiden claimer is supposed to run 1:11.3 and actually runs 1:09.4, it will impact the variant to help make a very fast track. But, if you notice the winner of that maiden claimer won by 14 lengths, it may be a much more useful variant to disregard the winner altogether and use the runner-up time for variant purposes.

[paulbenny]

The par times are a reflection of a statistical summary. Judgement in Beyers is fine. However, here we have a classic case of really not making sense in the judgement at all. The reason: so a hot million dollar 2 year old crosses the wire under wraps by 15 at 5.5 furlongs. Do we adjust? The integrity of the par time, the overall comparative data is compromised if this is systemic. We don't know how often this is done, but it goes back to the adjustment of high profile Easy Goer. I think it is patently wrong and should not be done. The conclusion that the slow pace is the reason is really a fraud. Maybe they did run slow. Maybe the track changed. I doubt it but it is very much a wrong approach. He or his team don't get into this on a daily basis, but I have to assume it happens less so with debuting 2 year olds.

[Cratos]

You have just helped solve one of the mysteries of my lifetime, thank you! Many years ago I got the same fortune ("you love horses, sports & gambling") and I always assumed my parents somehow got a personalized fortune into my cookie & was annoyed that they never admitted to it. Who knew that fortune cookies could really be that smart.

Now if they can just get a fortune to read "I agree, Beyer figures should not be adjusted for any pace scenario & should be pure speed figures based on final time" then I'll know these cookies truly are in my head.
I don't know how Andrew Beyer and other figure makers formulate their speed figure methodologies, but what I do know is that speed and pace are the same; and can straightforwardly be defined as: "the rate of motion."

For those who say that the BSF does not include "pace" is emphatically incorrect.

What is probably correct is that the BSF developer might have a peripatetic approach to pace.

Although I don't use speed figures, I believe any figure maker who overtly make their users aware of pace in their speed figures are giving their users better info.

[thaskalos]

I don't know how Andrew Beyer and other figure makers formulate their speed figure methodologies, but what I do know is that speed and pace are the same; and can straightforwardly be defined as: "the rate of motion."

For those who say that the BSF does not include "pace" is emphatically incorrect.

What is probably correct is that the BSF developer might have a peripatetic approach to pace.

Although I don't use speed figures, I believe any figure maker who overtly make their users aware of pace in their speed figures are giving their users better info.

You honestly have never seen an example where a high speed figure is contradicted by your "pace analysis" of the race?

[Cratos]

The par times are a reflection of a statistical summary. Judgement in Beyers is fine. However, here we have a classic case of really not making sense in the judgement at all. The reason: so a hot million dollar 2 year old crosses the wire under wraps by 15 at 5.5 furlongs. Do we adjust? The integrity of the par time, the overall comparative data is compromised if this is systemic. We don't know how often this is done, but it goes back to the adjustment of high profile Easy Goer. I think it is patently wrong and should not be done. The conclusion that the slow pace is the reason is really a fraud. Maybe they did run slow. Maybe the track changed. I doubt it but it is very much a wrong approach. He or his team don't get into this on a daily basis, but I have to assume it happens less so with debuting 2 year olds.
A very good post, but what is lacking is a definition and a distinction of the "variant" metric.

Let me be specific, a variant can be developed by calculating the tolerance around the meantime of each race distance with respect to class.
or
Calculate a variant metric based on environmental influences and track geometry.

I prefer the latter because you can eliminate or minimize the effect of nonhomogeity of class and include the effect of physical resistance that is transferable from environment to environment and is embodied by the irrefutable laws of science and math.
.

[Cratos]

My retorts were not to address "contradictions" of the speed figure, but to point out the inherent inclusion of "pace" within any speed figures.

[ReplayRandall]

My retorts were not to address "contradictions" of the speed figure, but to point out the inherent inclusion of "pace" within any speed figures.

So when CJ posts his speed figures AND pace figures, is he being redundant?

[thaskalos]

My retorts were not to address "contradictions" of the speed figure, but to point out the inherent inclusion of "pace" within any speed figures.
But you said before that those who claim that speed figures do not include pace are "emphatically incorrect". If there are pace "contradictions" to the speed figure...then, WHAT is "emphatically incorrect"?

[thaskalos]

So when CJ posts his speed figures AND pace figures, is he being redundant?

As usual, Randall...you phrased things better than I could ever hope to. :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

But you said before that those who claim that speed figures do not include pace are "emphatically incorrect". If there are pace "contradictions" to the speed figure...then, WHAT is "emphatically incorrect"?

I think he means that final time is determined by pace. I don't think he means that pace is separately included in the speed figure calculations, for pure speed figs, because it either isn't, or shouldn't be, if they are pure speed figs. He is correct, but there are pace problems associated with pure speed figs that his post does not address, as I'm sure most here know already.

[raybo]

As usual, Randall...you phrased things better than I could ever hope to. :ThmbUp:

CJ's "speed" figs do NOT include pace, but his enhanced figs do. There are 2 types of figs in TFUS.

At least that is my understanding anyway.

[ReplayRandall]

CJ's "speed" figs do NOT include pace, but his enhanced figs do. There are 2 types of figs in TFUS.

Tell that to Cratos....

[raybo]

Tell that to Cratos....

See post #57.

[ReplayRandall]

See post #57.

Sorry, I didn't see it, my bad...

[thaskalos]

I think he means that final time is determined by pace. I don't think he means that pace is separately included in the speed figure calculations, for pure speed figs, because it either isn't, or shouldn't be, if they are pure speed figs. He is correct, but there are pace problems associated with pure speed figs that his post does not address, as I'm sure most here know already.

He may MEAN that the "final time is determined by pace"...but what he SAID was that "those who say that the BSF does not include pace are emphatically incorrect". Of course, this must include Andy Beyer...because Beyer HIMSELF says that his speed figures "do not include pace"...except for extreme situations.

Cratos is being deliberately obtuse. That's his calling card here.

[Cratos]

So when CJ posts his speed figures AND pace figures, is he being redundant?
Why would he be redundant?

Your question is typical of how threads/posts on this forum go off on tangents.

I prefaced my earlier remarks by saying that I don't know how figure makers make their speed figure calculations, but however they the figures are made; pace is inherently included.

Respectfully I cannot make it any more clearer to you and your "think group."

[thaskalos]

Why would he be redundant?

Your question is typical of how threads/posts on this forum go off on tangents.

I prefaced my earlier remarks by saying that I don't know how figure makers make their speed figure calculations, but however they the figures are made; pace is inherently included.

Respectfully I cannot make it any more clearer to you and your "think group."

Don't worry. Raybo will come along and explain it better.

[ReplayRandall]

Your question is typical of how threads/posts on this forum go off on tangents.

Typical wise-ass comments from you lately.....You're losing credibility, post by post. It's your funeral.....bye.

[Cratos]

I always appreciate Raybo posts and if he can add simplification to any of my posts I am all for it.

Honestly I prefer to explain quantitative ideas via math/science equations, but that can become confusing and a need for more explanation.

[Capper Al]

The discussion centers are the randomness of final time and a conversion of times into a parallel chart for comparing speeds vs. a power rating in place of speed. When we tackle speed most go into thinking that they can figure out the randomness in their variants. They might include a daily variant and/or a track variant and some even include the wind. No one ever suggests other ways of looking at speed. The closest we come to an alternative view are the fractional time players. A solution for the little guy would be to see if they can think outside of this box.

[Tom]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, post.

[castaway01]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, post.

That would probably be more biting if it didn't come from someone with 72,000 posts.

[cj]

If Beyer was going to tinker with anything, he should change his variant related to par time. What I mean is, in order to apply a variant, he uses par times vs class to find the variant. If a maiden claimer is supposed to run 1:11.3 and actually runs 1:09.4, it will impact the variant to help make a very fast track. But, if you notice the winner of that maiden claimer won by 14 lengths, it may be a much more useful variant to disregard the winner altogether and use the runner-up time for variant purposes.

This may have been true years ago, but he uses the projection method now. Maybe pars play a small part, but they aren't the main tool for projecting outcomes.

[Capper Al]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, post.

I have been posting my test in the 'What's up with the Capper' thread. BRIS has outperformed my AMS speed figs. I'm about to add another speed fig in my test. What baffles me is what to do knowing that my speed figs are getting beat by a power ranking. My own handicapping can generate a power fig that beats the speed fig also. Need to keep thinking about this. You're forgiven.

[Tom]

That would probably be more biting if it didn't come from someone with 72,000 posts.

D'oh!

[bks]

I always appreciate Raybo posts and if he can add simplification to any of my posts I am all for it.

Honestly I prefer to explain quantitative ideas via math/science equations, but that can become confusing and a need for more explanation.

The hole you're digging is getting deeper.

You say you "prefer to explain quantitative ideas via math/science equations" but that that can become "confusing" and require "more explanation." But surely you mean more VERBAL explanation? Or perhaps you don't know what the f*ck you mean?

Here's some help: No math/science equations are self-explaining, just as no pictures are self-captioning. The reason a picture can feel like it's worth a thousand words is because there is already a shared context of meaning in place to make sense of it. No shared context, no thousand words worth.

All representations need linguisitic context, or else their meaning(s) cannot be pinned down. This goes for math/science as well as art.

Now let's try again: how do you *know* that however speed figures are made, pace is inherently included in them? Explain any way you like.

[elhelmete]

I'm not thoroughly familiar with how/why Beyers are made and adjusted so feel free to ignore...but

My take on why pace is inherently included can be explained like this, using the example of the Chrome race last weekend and the race preceding it.

What are the possible/probable explanations for the similarity in times but the resulting difference in BSFs?

Major change in atmospheric conditions (wind, humidity, whatever)...highly doubt this is the case at Santa Anita that day. In fact I'd say about a 0% chance.

Major change in track surface. I don't buy it. I had a few friends there who are sticklers for counting the # of passes a water truck makes...nothing. I just simply don't buy this likelihood within a 30 minute window, at SA, and with the above (weather) being ssteady as well.

All horses in CC's race experienced a simultaneous erosion of form. Yeah...no.

So...to me at least, pace is left standing as the probable explanation.

[raybo]

Why would he be redundant?

Your question is typical of how threads/posts on this forum go off on tangents.

I prefaced my earlier remarks by saying that I don't know how figure makers make their speed figure calculations, but however they the figures are made; pace is inherently included.

Respectfully I cannot make it any more clearer to you and your "think group."

Cratos,

Of course, you are correct, pace helps determine final time, and as a result, speed figures, because speed figures are only a different way of expressing final time to include variant. But, the question in this thread goes beyond the mere fact that pace affects final time, the question is whether or not the Beyer figures have been further adjusted by things other than variant, like a significantly fast or slow early pace, or assumed class of one or more of the runners. Everything I have read about Beyer figs tells me that he does not adjust his speed figures further by adjusting them for pace scenarios. However, in the case of the San Pasqual, he obviously made a further adjustment because he assumed the pace was not "normal" for the runners in that race, he adjusted his fig for CC, upwards, because he assumed that CC could have run a better final time than he did in that race, and was not representative of his "assumed" class that day. I find that goes against what his figs have always been based on, final time and variant.

[Fager Fan]

I'm not thoroughly familiar with how/why Beyers are made and adjusted so feel free to ignore...but

My take on why pace is inherently included can be explained like this, using the example of the Chrome race last weekend and the race preceding it.

What are the possible/probable explanations for the similarity in times but the resulting difference in BSFs?

Major change in atmospheric conditions (wind, humidity, whatever)...highly doubt this is the case at Santa Anita that day. In fact I'd say about a 0% chance.

Major change in track surface. I don't buy it. I had a few friends there who are sticklers for counting the # of passes a water truck makes...nothing. I just simply don't buy this likelihood within a 30 minute window, at SA, and with the above (weather) being ssteady as well.

All horses in CC's race experienced a simultaneous erosion of form. Yeah...no.

So...to me at least, pace is left standing as the probable explanation.

I'm lost. Pace IS the explanation. That's why it's a problem that the number was changed. The horses ran a slow pace and hence ran a slow race. Why does that warrant an adjustment higher as if they ran a faster pace and hence ran a faster race?

[elhelmete]

I'm lost. Pace IS the explanation. That's why it's a problem that the number was changed. The horses ran a slow pace and hence ran a slow race. Why does that warrant an adjustment higher as if they ran a faster pace and hence ran a faster race?

I am in agreement with you. I think pace in this case is the only explanation, and I think "slippery slope" describes this dilemma perfectly. Upgrading ALL horses in a paceless race is dicey.

[cj]

I find that goes against what his figs have always been based on, final time and variant.

I'll say this, don't want to get too much into the competition but I also have great respect for Beyer. This has been going on a LONG time. It is only now a talking point because they have been so big and because it is easy for people that understand the figures to come together on the internet. So, I'm just saying this isn't new. I remember making a killing on Mossflower in her first stakes attempt because her huge allowance win was adjusted "down" by the Beyer team for no reason other than it looked too big. It wasn't even a pace issue.

I remember this one specifically from 1998, but I'm sure these kinds of adjustments go back even farther than that. This isn't a knock on "adjusting" the figures at all. It is a necessary evil of having one dimensional (or final time only) figures. It was probably also born out of necessity. The timers can't always be trusted and if you don't do this you'll make a lot of ridiculous figures. The good news is today it can be checked with computers and video replays with a fair degree of certainty.

[ultracapper]

And because you get to the final time of the race by the pace of the race, pace is inherent in the making of the speed figure. It's not calculated into the speed figure, it's just a factor that ultimately determines what the final time of the race will be. Just like a head wind. In a true speed figure, you won't make any calculation for it, but if the final time comes in low, and a handicapper knows there was a head wind that day, it will explain why the number came in low.

Slow Beyers when there is a valid explanation, can be a winning angle. Leave them alone Mr. Beyer. Please.

[classhandicapper]

This has been going on a LONG time.

The only way you could know that is if you've spent some time making your own figures and comparing them to Beyer, reading the TG and RAG forums a lot, or having access to your and my email accounts :lol: where these kinds of issues have been discussed passionately in the past.

A lot people are just learning how messy the process can become.

[raybo]

And because you get to the final time of the race by the pace of the race, pace is inherent in the making of the speed figure. It's not calculated into the speed figure, it's just a factor that ultimately determines what the final time of the race will be. Just like a head wind. In a true speed figure, you won't make any calculation for it, but if the final time comes in low, and a handicapper knows there was a head wind that day, it will explain why the number came in low.

Slow Beyers when there is a valid explanation, can be a winning angle. Leave them alone Mr. Beyer. Please.

Totally agree, just take the final time, and your variant, broken out or not, and convert it using your fig chart and let the handicapper do what he/she will with it. But, don't create your figs in a "hit or miss" fashion, that only creates added confusion in subsequent race analysis. Be consistent in your methodology, whatever that is.

[Cratos]

Cratos,

Of course, you are correct, pace helps determine final time, and as a result, speed figures, because speed figures are only a different way of expressing final time to include variant. But, the question in this thread goes beyond the mere fact that pace affects final time, the question is whether or not the Beyer figures have been further adjusted by things other than variant, like a significantly fast or slow early pace, or assumed class of one or more of the runners. Everything I have read about Beyer figs tells me that he does not adjust his speed figures further by adjusting them for pace scenarios. However, in the case of the San Pasqual, he obviously made a further adjustment because he assumed the pace was not "normal" for the runners in that race, he adjusted his fig for CC, upwards, because he assumed that CC could have run a better final time than he did in that race, and was not representative of his "assumed" class that day. I find that goes against what his figs have always been based on, final time and variant.
Thanks, but I wasn’t debating against the thesis of this thread; I was merely pointing out that pace and speed are not separate entities.

Pace to the best of my knowledge is not a scientific metric; whereas speed is because it is the magnitude of velocity.

However there are some posters on this forum who invariably argue in any quantitative post/thread without offering any meritorious rebuttal.

Again, thanks.

[Cratos]

And because you get to the final time of the race by the pace of the race, pace is inherent in the making of the speed figure. It's not calculated into the speed figure, it's just a factor that ultimately determines what the final time of the race will be. Just like a head wind. In a true speed figure, you won't make any calculation for it, but if the final time comes in low, and a handicapper knows there was a head wind that day, it will explain why the number came in low.

Slow Beyers when there is a valid explanation, can be a winning angle. Leave them alone Mr. Beyer. Please.
Excellent recognition

[raybo]

Thanks, but I wasn’t debating against the thesis of this thread; I was merely pointing out that pace and speed are not separate entities.





Most here know that, so reiterating it in this thread didn't address the real issue very well, that being the lack of continuity in the present Beyer speed figure methodology. CJ says it's been happening a long time, but some here, who seem to be Beyer followers, or at least Beyer knowledgeable, don't seem to share that view. Personally, I don't use any speed figures at all, but I do know what they represent, or at least what they should represent.

[castaway01]

I'll say this, don't want to get too much into the competition but I also have great respect for Beyer. This has been going on a LONG time. It is only now a talking point because they have been so big and because it is easy for people that understand the figures to come together on the internet. So, I'm just saying this isn't new. I remember making a killing on Mossflower in her first stakes attempt because her huge allowance win was adjusted "down" by the Beyer team for no reason other than it looked too big. It wasn't even a pace issue.

I remember this one specifically from 1998, but I'm sure these kinds of adjustments go back even farther than that. This isn't a knock on "adjusting" the figures at all. It is a necessary evil of having one dimensional (or final time only) figures. It was probably also born out of necessity. The timers can't always be trusted and if you don't do this you'll make a lot of ridiculous figures. The good news is today it can be checked with computers and video replays with a fair degree of certainty.

CJ, do you think this is done because of the criticism that "simple" figures receive because they don't take pace into account, almost a peer pressure of the figure-makers to try to give something more accurate but having to guess at it?

[castaway01]

Most here know that, so reiterating it in this thread didn't address the real issue very well, that being the lack of continuity in the present Beyer speed figure methodology. CJ says it's been happening a long time, but some here, who seem to be Beyer followers, or at least Beyer knowledgeable, don't seem to share that view. Personally, I don't use any speed figures at all, but I do know what they represent, or at least what they should represent.

CJ is right about it happening for a while, but I think Beyer and his team view this as an improvement in the figures, providing a logical adjustment rather than mechanical numbers, rather than an error.

[raybo]

CJ is right about it happening for a while, but I think Beyer and his team view this as an improvement in the figures, providing a logical adjustment rather than mechanical numbers, rather than an error.

OK, if CJ says so and the Beyer guys agree, I suppose he has been doing it for a while. But, that really doesn't make that last race worth anything to me, regarding future analysis, it's a throw-out for me, except for the work they got done. I expect all the graded stakes winners from that field to improve drastically off that race. In short, it was a poor race concerning anything other than form analysis, IMO.

[Track Phantom]

CJ, do you think this is done because of the criticism that "simple" figures receive because they don't take pace into account, almost a peer pressure of the figure-makers to try to give something more accurate but having to guess at it?
I think the answer is likely YES.

Without anything to back it up, my feeling is that final times (and fractions) are much more illogical than we'd like them to be. Quite often, a slow pace collapses and the pacesetters are swarmed by a fleet of closers on a day when speed has been carrying in every race.

Whether it is clock error or something more complex like transfer of motion or critical spots in the race where pressure occurs or the moon is full or whatever, I tend to not trust the time of the race to asses the quality of the race and its entrants. Just my personal opinion and preference.

[thaskalos]

CJ, do you think this is done because of the criticism that "simple" figures receive because they don't take pace into account, almost a peer pressure of the figure-makers to try to give something more accurate but having to guess at it?
Seeing that most of these adjustments take place in the Stakes races, and also seeing that the Beyer Figures have crept into the breeding ads of these better horses...it could be that the upward adjustments are made in order to avoid having these low unadjusted figures become blemishes on the horses' breeding resumes.

[rastajenk]

Holy cow, I agree with you again (albeit in the same thread on the same topic). At some point Beyers, at least at the top end of the hierarchy, became Lifetime Achievement Figures rather than simple handicapping aids. This is especially apparent when the annual Derby winner's figure is compared to other Derby winners; Derby winners facing off against one another is extremely rare, and when or if it happens there are plenty of intervening figures to plot their form cycles. But that doesn't stop the useless historical comparisons. I couldn't say whether there is politicking or pressure behind the scenes (or simple bribery :eek: ) or simply the Beyer Boyz taking it upon themselves to be historically significant, but if it's noticeable to me, it must be happening. :cool:

[Fager Fan]

OK, if CJ says so and the Beyer guys agree, I suppose he has been doing it for a while. But, that really doesn't make that last race worth anything to me, regarding future analysis, it's a throw-out for me, except for the work they got done. I expect all the graded stakes winners from that field to improve drastically off that race. In short, it was a poor race concerning anything other than form analysis, IMO.

I agree with this.

I saw the race. I know the horses. I saw the times, of both this race and the other races. It wasn't a triple digit performance. That's ok with me. The winner and best horse was coming off a 9 month layoff. The pace was slow. The winner should move forward off this, and will need to. This is all ok. It doesn't call for a fictional member to be given. It only makes me distrust Beyers at the top level (I doubt he cares enough about lesser horses numbers).

[classhandicapper]

Like I said, if figure makers didn't make pace related adjustments like this on turf, turf figures would be totally useless. They'd make no handicapping sense at all a lot of the time. So keep that in mind. Those adjustments for pace you may be making to whatever turf figures you are using, you are probably making errors you don't know about all the time.

So if we understand it's absolutely essential to do this on turf because of the frequent very slow paces, an occasional tweak on dirt is hardly the thing to be getting upset about.

IMO the thing customers should be asking for is a notification next to the figure to let you know when it was done (and even better by how much). That's what I've been asking for ever since I started using commercial speed figures 20 years ago.

If CC's figure said 103P8. That would mean it was pace adjusted figure ("P") where 8 points was added. Then you would know the real figure was 95, it was pace adjusted, and the quality of the race given those horses suggests it was about a 103 level race. At that point you'd know everything you need to know. It would be BETTER than just getting the 95 like people seem to be asking for. Ask! Maybe someone will listen.

[Fager Fan]

Why is it better? They ran a slow race, so why shouldn't the figure represent that? Chrome wasn't put at a disadvantage with that slow pace - he pressed a longshot in setting that slow pace. It was an advantage for Chrome.

In additiion, horses don't run averages. It's reasonable that they fluctuate. If you adjust numbers up and down to fit the average, then you're falsely affecting that same average.

[Track Phantom]

The race was extraordinarily weak for a race of that caliber. Chrome was coming off a huge layoff and didn't exactly bury that field. The runner-up was almost scratched due to a foot problem. I would trust a 95 more than a 103.

[ultracapper]

I agree with this.

I saw the race. I know the horses. I saw the times, of both this race and the other races. It wasn't a triple digit performance. That's ok with me. The winner and best horse was coming off a 9 month layoff. The pace was slow. The winner should move forward off this, and will need to. This is all ok. It doesn't call for a fictional member to be given. It only makes me distrust Beyers at the top level (I doubt he cares enough about lesser horses numbers).

This isn't necessarily true. Don't remember the horse's name but a couple years ago, the horse won one of those N2L $25K claimers at SA by about 12 and was given a 104. A couple starts later, it was magically a 90. Wish I could remember the horse. 104 was about 30 above his lifetime high when he ran it, and I believe he followed it up with a couple of low 70's. Don't remember if any other races were adjusted that day later on down the road.

[classhandicapper]

Chrome wasn't put at a disadvantage with that slow pace - he pressed a longshot in setting that slow pace. It was an advantage for Chrome.

He was advantaged relative to closers in terms of winning the race, but they were all disadvantaged in terms of running a fast final time.

[Fager Fan]

He was advantaged relative to closers in terms of winning the race, but they were all disadvantaged in terms of running a fast final time.

That's called horse racing.

If he supposedly wants to correctly adjust for pace, then wouldn't he be upping the numbers for the closers and not the pacesetters? Maybe lower the numbers for them?

Slippery slope indeed.

[classhandicapper]

That's called horse racing.

If he supposedly wants to correctly adjust for pace, then wouldn't he be upping the numbers for the closers and not the pacesetters? Maybe lower the numbers for them?



I assume this is his thinking.

You up the figure for the race to a level that reflects CC's general ability. That drags everyone up by a similar amount and makes their figures more representative of their ability. Then the handicapper knows how that group fits with horses that ran in other races with a more neutral pace. Within the CC race, you also know that horses like Hoppertunity were disadvantaged relative to CC as a separate part of the pace analysis.

[raybo]

I assume this is his thinking.

You up the figure for the race to a level that reflects CC's general ability. That drags everyone up by a similar amount and makes their figures more representative of their ability. Then the handicapper knows how that group fits with horses that ran in other races with a more neutral pace. Within the CC race, you also know that horses like Hoppertunity were disadvantaged relative to CC as a separate part of the pace analysis.

I don't see Hoppertunity, or any other closer type in that race being disadvantaged. The pace was so slow that they should have been able to stay closer to the lead and should have had even more gas in the tank in the stretch. Those closer types ran very poor races also. As I said, the race is a throw-out, for future analysis, other than that we now know that none of the better horses in that field were in good physical condition for that race (or they have lost some ability).

[cj]

I don't see Hoppertunity, or any other closer type in that race being disadvantaged. The pace was so slow that they should have been able to stay closer to the lead and should have had even more gas in the tank in the stretch. Those closer types ran very poor race also. As I said, the race was a throw-out, for future analysis, other than that we now know that none of the better horses in that field were in good physical condition for that race (or they have lost some ability).


This seems logical, but it rarely seems to work out that way in my experiences...at least on dirt.

[raybo]

This seems logical, but it rarely seems to work out that way in my experiences...at least on dirt.

Yep, I see that race as the exception, and rare in the top ranks of horses. Just because it's rare doesn't mean it isn't the truth, there are always exceptions.

[classhandicapper]

That wasn't my analysis of what you should do with the figures.

My analysis would be more like this.

These are older horses with relatively stable form and there was nothing mysterious about the outcome that required you to dig deeper into trying to understand what actually happened.

CC is a multiple Grade 1 winner that towered over that field but was probably not 100% because layoffs are not a specialty of the trainer and we know he's trying to get a peak for the Dubai Cup. He didn't look 100% through the stretch drive either. So he'll probably inch forward next out.

Hoppertunity is more of Grade 2 horse that can be competitive at the Grade 1 level on occasion, but his running style often leaves him with too much to do late and 9.5F furlong was probably a hair short of what he wants. The uncompetitive pace made matters worse for him as did being a step slow out of the gate.

Imperative is a clear notch below Hopportunity, but he occasionally fires a pretty good shot and has been in decent form lately. Having first run in this slow paced race is what probably got him home ahead of Hoppertunity.

So going forward, I'd expect CC to improve, and Hoppertunity to beat Imperative in a more neutrally paced race at 9F or longer. I don't care what the numbers say.

[castaway01]

Seeing that most of these adjustments take place in the Stakes races, and also seeing that the Beyer Figures have crept into the breeding ads of these better horses...it could be that the upward adjustments are made in order to avoid having these low unadjusted figures become blemishes on the horses' breeding resumes.

Interesting idea, maybe so.

[dilanesp]

Interesting idea, maybe so.

I bet these adjustments happen all the time in non-stakes races too. We just don't notice them.

[cj]

I bet these adjustments happen all the time in non-stakes races too. We just don't notice them.

It has been a few years since I've even looked at Beyer figures, but when I did, there were plenty of these adjustments. I would say percentage wise stakes races get more adjustments, but volume wise there are many more for your everyday races. But again, maybe that has changed in recent years, I wouldn't know.

[delayjf]

I grew to like Fotias's approach - he didn't adjust his final time figures by pace - he just let the figures represent themselves and left it to Handicappers to interpret how the race stacked up.

[EMD4ME]

I bet these adjustments happen all the time in non-stakes races too. We just don't notice them.

They do......And sometimes they make simply erroneous errors by 10-20 points. (Not pace adjustments but plain old typos on the 1st digit).

That's why I like to check them out myself all the time. Many adjusted numbers are made for pace.

[Fager Fan]

It has been a few years since I've even looked at Beyer figures, but when I did, there were plenty of these adjustments. I would say percentage wise stakes races get more adjustments, but volume wise there are many more for your everyday races. But again, maybe that has changed in recent years, I wouldn't know.

yourr talking about adjustments for pace, not projection/class?

[thaskalos]

I grew to like Fotias's approach - he didn't adjust his final time figures by pace - he just let the figures represent themselves and left it to Handicappers to interpret how the race stacked up.
Have you read Fotias's book on how his figures were created? Pace played a BIG role in Fotias's ratings.

[cj]

yourr talking about adjustments for pace, not projection/class?

No way to really know.

[cj]

Have you read Fotias's book on how his figures were created? Pace played a BIG role in Fotias's ratings.


Right, but his figures were two dimensional, a pace figure (maybe two?) and a final time figure.

[thaskalos]

Right, but his figures were two dimensional, a pace figure (maybe two?) and a final time figure.
I don't recall Fotias EVER providing a "pace-free" speed figure. He used multiple figures for every race...but these figures were PACE figures...not "speed figures".

He did provide a final-time figure...but he called it a "Final PACE Figure".

[Tom]

It has been a few years since I've even looked at Beyer figures, but when I did, there were plenty of these adjustments. I would say percentage wise stakes races get more adjustments, but volume wise there are many more for your everyday races. But again, maybe that has changed in recent years, I wouldn't know.

Lots of races, all classes are out of wack. I download Winner's Books every week and look for races out of line wit the day. Not some much split variants, but one race obviously different. Might be legit, maybe a timing error, or something Beyer caught, but I list them all and wait for them to come to play.

[cj]

I don't recall Fotias EVER providing a "pace-free" speed figure. He used multiple figures for every race...but these figures were PACE figures...not "speed figures".

He did provide a final-time figure...but he called it a "Final PACE Figure".

I still have the book around here somewhere but it is in rough shape. It fell apart because I was reading it daily poolside in Saudi Arabia and the binding glue melted!

Point is the last figure was a speed figure, whether he called it pace or not. That is how I remember it, but I've been wrong before.

[classhandicapper]

I was reading it daily poolside in Saudi Arabia and the binding glue melted!

That got a good chuckle out of me. :lol:

[aaron]

I still have the book around here somewhere but it is in rough shape. It fell apart because I was reading it daily poolside in Saudi Arabia and the binding glue melted!

Point is the last figure was a speed figure, whether he called it pace or not. That is how I remember it, but I've been wrong before.
I remember reading the book and spoke to Cary numerous times and the last figure was a speed figure. As i remember he did not change his figures due to pace of the race,but would make adjustments in his betting based on the pace of the previous race,if he felt that was necessary.

[aaron]

Also,Cary would expect horses who were coming off New Pace Tops etc. but not new final top to go forward in their next race. I don't remember how many numbers forward he projected,but I think it was at least 3-5 numbers in certain situations.

[Stillriledup]

Interesting discussion from over 10 years ago on beyer figs and pace

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22267&highlight=Fotias

[thaskalos]

Interesting discussion from over 10 years ago on beyer figs and pace

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22267&highlight=Fotias

You are right...that WAS interesting. I never knew that Traynor posted here back in 2005.

[classhandicapper]

Interesting discussion from over 10 years ago on beyer figs and pace

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22267&highlight=Fotias

The example Dougie gave at the start of the thread was a much better example of the dangers of breaking out a race based on pace than this CC race.

When a pace is extremely slow, it probably impacted everybody in the race similarly. So if you adjust the whole race, no major issue.

When a pace is extremely fast, it clearly impacts the horses battling on the lead a lot differently than some of the closers. So if you adjust the whole race, you clearly have a problem.

[cj]

The example Dougie gave at the start of the thread was a much better example of the dangers of breaking out a race based on pace than this CC race.

When a pace is extremely slow, it probably impacted everybody in the race similarly. So if you adjust the whole race, no major issue.

When a pace is extremely fast, it clearly impacts the horses battling on the lead a lot differently than some of the closers. So if you adjust the whole race, you clearly have a problem.

I don't really agree on the slow pace. If a couple dominant horses can run a 100, but suddenly run an 80 due to slow pace but still win, sure, you can give them 100. But what then happens is all the horses behind them are artificially inflated. A horse that usually runs 75 may very well have finished 2.5 lengths back and really ran 75, but now he gets a 95.

I see this all the time on turf which is why I have to visually see something that would make me want to bet these horses, not just a decent figure without making any real move.

[classhandicapper]

I don't really agree on the slow pace. If a couple dominant horses can run a 100, but suddenly run an 80 due to slow pace but still win, sure, you can give them 100. But what then happens is all the horses behind them are artificially inflated. A horse that usually runs 75 may very well have finished 2.5 lengths back and really ran 75, but now he gets a 95.

I see this all the time on turf which is why I have to visually see something that would make me want to bet these horses, not just a decent figure without making any real move.

These crazy pace scenarios never impact all the horses exactly the same. So you are always taking a little risk making race level adjustments like that. I was thinking more in terms of dirt.

I'm pretty lost on turf as far as numbers go. I don't make my own (never have) and I generally don't trust them. Just from observation and looking at other figures, discussing the issue with you, etc.. I know what you are saying is correct about turf racing.

I'm not saying this is right, but I look more at class, raw closing times, and how the horses finished relative to each other to handicap turf routes. I barely look at turf sprints at all. I have no real insights that I think might translate into an edge even at the stakes level in those sprints.

[Fager Fan]

In the case of CC, he pressed that slow pace. He was advantaged by going slow on the front against a longshot. I can't see how the number he earned shouldn't have stood. Want a faster fig? Then run faster. The idea that good horses can't occasionally run a slow number - even the whole field - is disproven by this race among others. What's not as likely is that horses are machines who are always consistent.

[delayjf]

I still have the book around here somewhere but it is in rough shape. It fell apart because I was reading it daily poolside in Saudi Arabia and the binding glue melted!

Got my copy on a trip to Saratoga and it too fell apart at the binding.