Have Beyers Jumped The Shark

[PowerUpPaynter]

This is something iv been thinking about for the past few months. Is the beyer system an old fad that has lost validity?

Latest example: Nyquist getting a 94 Beyer yesterday running two seconds faster than Materiality last year who got a 110...

Is the beyer system a flawed fad that is dying?

[cj]

I had Materiality at 119, Nyquist at 116. I thought all along the Materiality Beyer figure was too high, and nothing that happened later in the year dispelled that IMO.

That said, the track was much slower last year. If you check the other races on both days it really can't be argued.

[PowerUpPaynter]

I had Materiality at 119, Nyquist at 116. I thought all along the Materiality Beyer figure was too high, and nothing that happened later in the year dispelled that IMO.

That said, the track was much slower last year. If you check the other races on both days it really can't be argued.

yes i agree and your figures are more like it. but a 110 to a 94 is a much bigger difference.

[Augenj]

This is something iv been thinking about for the past few months. Is the beyer system an old fad that has lost validity?

Latest example: Nyquist getting a 94 Beyer yesterday running two seconds faster than Materiality last year who got a 110...

Is the beyer system a flawed fad that is dying?
Pardon my cynicism, but doesn't Beyer subtract 10 points if it's a West Coast horse? ;)

[cj]

Pardon my cynicism, but doesn't Beyer subtract 10 points if it's a West Coast horse? ;)

Come on, that is just silly.

[pandy]

This kind of goes back to a conversation we were having on the other speed figure thread. In last year's Fla. Derby, the track was slow and the speed figures were over adjusted. As it turned out, the track wasn't the only thing that was slow, the horses were slow, too, because the Florida Derby turned out to be a negative key race. As I alluded to in the other thread, you can't trust high speed figures unless the actual time was fast.

[cj]

This kind of goes back to a conversation we were having on the other speed figure thread. In last year's Fla. Derby, the track was slow and the speed figures were over adjusted. As it turned out, the track wasn't the only thing that was slow, the horses were slow, too, because the Florida Derby turned out to be a negative key race. As I alluded to in the other thread, you can't trust high speed figures unless the actual time was fast.

I've done a few queries. I might post later this week, maybe not. But with my figures at least this isn't true at all.

[DeltaLover]

I agree that the beyers as published in DRF have been degenerated and are not a reliable measurement any more.

For the history my figures look as follows:

Nyquist: 102

Materiality: 105

The 3 point difference in favour of Materiality can be translated as approximately 3 ticks in six furlongs race.

Still, we gain absolutely nothing by complaining about the low quality of the published figures as they account for most of the errors that can be found in the public's betting.. Instead of brining up their inefficiency and pointing to their errors we better stay quiet and let people continue with them...

[DeltaLover]

This kind of goes back to a conversation we were having on the other speed figure thread. In last year's Fla. Derby, the track was slow and the speed figures were over adjusted. As it turned out, the track wasn't the only thing that was slow, the horses were slow, too, because the Florida Derby turned out to be a negative key race. As I alluded to in the other thread, you can't trust high speed figures unless the actual time was fast.

While what you say here might be true for some of the commercial figures, definitely does not apply globally and it is completely doable to create an algorithm that can perform even in the more extreme ranges of the variant distribution.

[pandy]

While what you say here might be true for some of the commercial figures, definitely does not apply globally and it is completely doable to create an algorithm that can perform even in the more extreme ranges of the variant distribution.


Not really. If there are 10 races and 8 of them are turf races, one is a dirt sprint and one is a route sprint, you may trust your dirt figures that day but I wouldn't. I did figures for all of the major tracks for years, so I know all of the pitfalls. My point in the other thread, when two horses come back to race against each other and they have the same figure over the track in the same class, but one of the horses ran a much faster race, the horse that ran the faster race has the edge. Now, this isn't fool proof. Sometimes the slower horse wins, but over the long run, the horse that ran the actual faster time finishes in front of the horse than ran the slower time more often.

If times don't matter, only speed figures, then methods like "velocity ratings", which are based on the actual fractions the horse ran, are worthless.

[cj]

Not really. If there are 10 races and 8 of them are turf races, one is a dirt sprint and one is a route sprint, you may trust your dirt figures that day but I wouldn't. I did figures for all of the major tracks for years, so I know all of the pitfalls. My point in the other thread, when two horses come back to race against each other and they have the same figure over the track in the same class, but one of the horses ran a much faster race, the horse that ran the faster race has the edge. Now, this isn't fool proof. Sometimes the slower horse wins, but over the long run, the horse that ran the actual faster time finishes in front of the horse than ran the slower time more often.

If times don't matter, only speed figures, then methods like "velocity ratings", which are based on the actual fractions the horse ran, are worthless.

That is a different story than your first post, having a limited sample. In that case, sometimes I am very confident in the figures, sometimes not. It depends on the horses and the consistency of my projections.

I personally think velocity ratings, while maybe not worthless, are inferior to ratings adjusted for the conditions.

[Augenj]

Come on, that is just silly.
Nobody every accused me of being serious. :lol:

[pandy]

That is a different story than your first post, having a limited sample. In that case, sometimes I am very confident in the figures, sometimes not. It depends on the horses and the consistency of my projections.

I personally think velocity ratings, while maybe not worthless, are inferior to ratings adjusted for the conditions.


My Diamond System is sort of like velocity ratings, although I prefer, "pace balanced" ratings, but my formula is different because I include late pace in the final rating. Speed figures should pick more winners than a velocity style rating but the average payoffs can be considerably higher with the velocity style rating, which is one of the reasons why people use them. I posted all of the top ranked Diamond horses for Del Mar on my website last summer and the top ranked horse won 20% of the time and generated a profit for the meet. At easier meets, the win percentage can be much higher.

But, I don't think I've ever seen a profit produced over the course of a meet using a horse's best recent or last race speed figure, although the win percentage is higher.

I'm not knocking speed figures. I'm just saying, a horse's actual fractions and final time should not be ignored. Fractional times are extremely important.

[DeltaLover]

I'm not knocking speed figures. I'm just saying, a horse's actual fractions and final time should not be ignored. Fractional times are extremely important.

I do not be think anyone can disagree with what you are saying here. Of course fractional times are important and the same applies for speed figures; still they are highly correlated and represent highly correlated metrics, something that is easy to overlook.

[classhandicapper]

I'm not knocking speed figures. I'm just saying, a horse's actual fractions and final time should not be ignored. Fractional times are extremely important.

I think you are on to something. I just don't want to elaborate much.

IMHO, the entire model upon which pace and final time speed figures is based is broken. I'm not sure how much it matters because figure makers often back into the right answers for the wrong reasons by splitting the variant, breaking races out etc... Still, if it were all done properly (or at least better), I'd have to think it would give someone an edge. I more or less know what has to be done from a theoretical perspective to get it all right, but actually doing the work to get there would be a huge project and I'm not up to the task now. Also, there's one complication I don't have a good solution for yet other than watching the races and using subjective judgement. There's only so many races one person can handicap thoroughly and watch.

In the end, all the current time based solutions are fraught with disagreement and error. There are no easy solutions.

Horse racing is closer to basketball (my other gambling hobby) than I realized. There are loads of advanced metrics in basketball used to measure player productivity. They are generally developed by guys with sky high IQs and advanced degrees in statistics and math. Yet despite their best efforts, these metrics all have subtle flaws in different areas and usually disagree (sometimes strongly) about the same players. You eventually get to the point where you realize there isn't a "right answer" among any of them that works all the time. They are all just tools that give you different views on the same thing that you can use to divine the right answer.

The next time I express a strong opinion on a horse you should probably smack me in the head, because unlike most people, I know better. :lol:

[cj]

I think you are on to something. I just don't want to elaborate much.

IMHO, the entire model upon which pace and final time speed figures is based is broken. I'm not sure how much it matters because figure makers often back into the right answers for the wrong reasons by splitting the variant, breaking races out etc... Still, if it were all done properly (or at least better), I'd have to think it would give someone an edge. I more or less know what has to be done from a theoretical perspective to get it all right, but actually doing the work to get there would be a huge project and I'm not up to the task now. Also, there's one complication I don't have a good solution for yet other than watching the races and using subjective judgement. There's only so many races one person can handicap thoroughly and watch.

In the end, all the current time based solutions are fraught with disagreement and error. There are no easy solutions.

Horse racing is closer to basketball (my other gambling hobby) than I realized. There are loads of advanced metrics in basketball used to measure player productivity. They are generally developed by guys with sky high IQs and advanced degrees in statistics and math. Yet despite their best efforts, these metrics all have subtle flaws in different areas and usually disagree (sometimes strongly) about the same players. You eventually get to the point where you realize there isn't a "right answer" among any of them that works all the time. They are all just tools that give you different views on the same thing that you can use to divine the right answer.

The next time I express a strong opinion on a horse you should probably smack me in the head, because unlike most people, I know better. :lol:

Ahhh...the old "I know how to do it better than everyone else, I'm just not going to tell anyone how or even actually do it" post.

[NTamm1215]

As someone who makes figures, you know when there's a scenario in place that would automatically make you question a certain figure. Yesterday at Gulfstream weather and race placement were up against anyone making figures. The intermittent rain showers clearly led to track condition changes, and almost certainly track speed changes at the same time.

The FL Derby figure fits the prior efforts of the also-rans, which is an important element of Beyer's methodology. Should it be the foundation of how someone makes figures? Absolutely not, but it should carry plenty of weight. In a situation where a race like the FL Derby is being run over a drying out surface that had not been run on in over 2 hours, you are going to have some element of projection in making it. Could the 94 be a 98? Of course it could. But it is imperative for anyone using figures to identify when they believe one may be wrong and capitalize.

[the little guy]

Ahhh...the old "I know how to do it better than everyone else, I'm just not going to tell anyone how or even actually do it" post.

I would actually nominate it for smarmiest post of the year....but that's just me.

[the little guy]

This is something iv been thinking about for the past few months. Is the beyer system an old fad that has lost validity?

Latest example: Nyquist getting a 94 Beyer yesterday running two seconds faster than Materiality last year who got a 110...

Is the beyer system a flawed fad that is dying?

I'm curious...how much do you know about computing speed figures and how long have you been following the game?

These are genuine questions.

[ronsmac]

Pardon my cynicism, but doesn't Beyer subtract 10 points if it's a West Coast horse? ;)It does seem like that sometimes. The Beyer California Chrome received when he won the Derby was an absolute joke.

[f2tornado]

It does seem like that sometimes. The Beyer California Chrome received when he won the Derby was an absolute joke.

The argument on this BSF is a joke, IMO. It was in fact one of the slowest fast track Derby times in modern history. The BSF should therefore follow.

[steveb]

As someone who makes figures, you know when there's a scenario in place that would automatically make you question a certain figure.



very sensible comment.
i guess if you use others, then 'figure blindness' is something to think about.
a long time ago, even when making my own, i suffered from the 'figure blindness' malady.
if i was still actively betting, then i would have a prob figure(automatically calculated as i don't like doing things subjectively when there are too many tracks involved) for each number so that i know how trustworthy any particular figure is.

[Stillriledup]

This is something iv been thinking about for the past few months. Is the beyer system an old fad that has lost validity?

Latest example: Nyquist getting a 94 Beyer yesterday running two seconds faster than Materiality last year who got a 110...

Is the beyer system a flawed fad that is dying?

The problem is that the Beyer SPEED figure somewhere morphed into the Beyer PERFORMANCE figure, you're right to question the system due to not really knowing where the speed figure part of his ratings end and where the performance/power rating part of the figs begins.

[EMD4ME]

The problem is that the Beyer SPEED figure somewhere morphed into the Beyer PERFORMANCE figure, you're right to question the system due to not really knowing where the speed figure part of his ratings end and where the performance/power rating part of the figs begins.

And he adjusts for pace many times, making horses who plodded along on a slow pace and finishing somewhat close GET a beyer much higher than they should be. (In races where he adjusts up due to a slow pace).

[DeltaLover]

I'm curious...how much do you know about computing speed figures and how long have you been following the game?

These are genuine questions.

Is this your best answer to this posting? What you are saying here is not relative to the question, which refers to an obvious error in the calculation of the beyer speed figurers. Please try not to answer with a question but with concrete evidence and data.

[pandy]

All of the speed figure services have certain figures that are off.

Speed figures are an educated guess, which is why a horse's recent and overall body of work is more important than any one particular number. The interpretation of speed figures, and how the horse's potential speed correlates to its final odds in today's race is the key to using figures in a efficient manner. Fortunately, many bettor's use the figures in an efficient manner, over betting the highest last race figure, which creates value on the other contenders.

Sometimes you'll see that the speed figures that are published in the various pps disagree. In other words, Bris has a horse slow, Beyer, or maybe Timeform, or Equibase, has the horse fast, and the horse wins, indicating that the Bris number was off. But, sometimes its the other way around, the horse gets trounced and the other guys had the number was way off. They all have some bad numbers. And it doesn't matter what method you use to make the variant or your tables, there are always going to be some bad numbers because there are so many variables that have to be evaluated, from changing track and weather conditions and wind, different distances, different run ups, days where there are few races to evaluate because they ran mostly turf races, etc.

And that's not even including the most puzzling part of speed figure analysis, which is the class element. Many horses improve their speed figure off drops in class and many horses have their speed figure decline when moved up in class, and this is more pronounced at certain class levels.

Another big mistake that many players make is putting too much emphasis on one or two points. If the two main contenders look like this, 88, 87 in last two starts vs 86, 86 in last two starts, because of the degree of error that is part of the mathematical process, these horses are basically the same on numbers. But most of the time the 88-87 horse will be 8-5 and the other horse will be much better odds, and if the 86-86 horse had wider trips, or raced on a dull rail, its figures may actually be better than the 88-87.

[Mc990]

Is this your best answer to this posting? What you are saying here is not relative to the question, which refers to an obvious error in the calculation of the beyer speed figurers. Please try not to answer with a question but with concrete evidence and data.

Gonna disagree here... I think his post is spot on. Anybody asking why the discrepancy in figures from last year's fla derby to this year's obviously hasn't been paying attention. GP played much slower last year at this time, simple as that. Other figure makers back this up. As do prior figures for upstart, mat and Nyquist. Big figures from last year's race look like "knockout" numbers to me.

[pandy]

All of the speed figure services have certain figures that are off.

Speed figures are an educated guess, which is why a horse's recent and overall body of work is more important than any one particular number. The interpretation of speed figures, and how the horse's potential speed correlates to its final odds in today's race is the key to using figures in a efficient manner. Fortunately, many bettor's use the figures in an efficient manner, over betting the highest last race figure, which creates value on the other contenders.

Sometimes you'll see that the speed figures that are published in the various pps disagree. In other words, Bris has a horse slow, Beyer, or maybe Timeform, or Equibase, has the horse fast, and the horse wins, indicating that the Bris number was off. But, sometimes its the other way around, the horse gets trounced and the other guys had the number was way off. They all have some bad numbers. And it doesn't matter what method you use to make the variant or your tables, there are always going to be some bad numbers because there are so many variables that have to be evaluated, from changing track and weather conditions and wind, different distances, different run ups, days where there are few races to evaluate because they ran mostly turf races, etc.

And that's not even including the most puzzling part of speed figure analysis, which is the class element. Many horses improve their speed figure off drops in class and many horses have their speed figure decline when moved up in class, and this is more pronounced at certain class levels.

Another big mistake that many players make is putting too much emphasis on one or two points. If the two main contenders look like this, 88, 87 in last two starts vs 86, 86 in last two starts, because of the degree of error that is part of the mathematical process, these horses are basically the same on numbers. But most of the time the 88-87 horse will be 8-5 and the other horse will be much better odds, and if the 86-86 horse had wider trips, or raced on a dull rail, its figures may actually be better than the 88-87.

What I meant to say was, fortunately many bettors use the figures in an inefficient manner....


The factor that muddles the whole thing is when a horse that appears to be too slow on paper wins the race, and this happens pretty often. If you can figure that out, you are really on to something.

[Robert Fischer]

The geek in me wants to mention that in order for something to "jump the shark", there has to be some desperate gimmick.

A 94 Beyer for Nyquist is hardly such a gimmick.


There is a need for speed figures, and they will continue to be supplied.
Generally the more straightforward the circumstances of the race happen to apply to the methodology of the figure making, the more "accurate", and in-line with the intent of the figure.

[classhandicapper]

Ahhh...the old "I know how to do it better than everyone else, I'm just not going to tell anyone how or even actually do it" post.

I've been discussing the major problems with speed figures since the first day I started posting on racing forums years ago. It has practically been an obsession for me at various times.

The problem with figures is apparent when you lay the 5 most respected sets of figures next to each other. They will disagree regularly, sometimes significantly. That has caused me a couple of decades of handicapping turmoil because I can never tell who has it right until after the fact (and even then I often can't tell). You have all these brilliant guys with decades of experience making great figures, but they don't agree on a lot of races.

I think I've come to understand a basic flaw in the assumptions that underly the charts everyone is using to make figures. I think it leads to some of the situations where figure makers are forced to debate whether the track changed speeds, should they break a race out, what variant should they use for the pace calls as opposed to the final time call etc... What I am less sure of is whether I could create a better system and actually execute it well enough to improve the results. If you break races out well, then it doesn't really matter much.

What I am describing ties in nicely to what Pandy has been describing, but I'm not interested in giving it away so a bunch of people smarter than I am can try to use it before I've even had a chance to try.

[pandy]

Going back to last year's Florida Derby, I noticed that Eclipse Awarding winning writer Jennie Rees wrote in the Courier Journal that Materality, Upstart, and all of the horses in the Florida Derb, were throw outs for the Derby, in her opinion...her reasoning is this, she wants to use horses that have at least one major prep race where they ran the last 1/8 in at least 13 seconds or faster, and the last 3/8's in :38 or better.

Materiality ran 13.7 and :39.8 in the 2015 Florida Derby and Upstart ran 13.8 and :40. Both of these horses never ran back to their Florida Derby speed figures. Upstart did finally win a race recently, the GR3 Razorback at Oaklawn, which was at 8.5 furlongs.

In her column, which was written after the Florida Derby last year, Rees goes on to say that she has learned from experience that it doesn't matter how slow the track was, and she admits that the Gulfstream track was slow. But, she says, in the Derby, she will not use horses that did not meet this criteria of :13 and :38 regardless of how slow the track was.

[DeltaLover]

Gonna disagree here... I think his post is spot on. Anybody asking why the discrepancy in figures from last year's fla derby to this year's obviously hasn't been paying attention. GP played much slower last year at this time, simple as that. Other figure makers back this up. As do prior figures for upstart, mat and Nyquist. Big figures from last year's race look like "knockout" numbers to me.


One of the main promises of a speed figure creator is to eliminate the impact of
the slowness or fastness of the surface, providing a comparable metric across
time, race track and distance.

What you are saying here, is not an excuse for the incapacity of Beyer's
methodology which obviously is not capable to provide valid outcomes. Your claim
that: "GP played much slower last year at this time, simple as that" is simply
not an excuse for the terrible inefficiency that is presented.

To be more specific, Materialize's beyer figure was so wrong to convert this
horse to a horrible underlay for several of his subsequent races (including the
classics as well).

[classhandicapper]

Big figures from last year's race look like "knockout" numbers to me.

This is exactly the kind of thing that comes up in these endless discussions.

Was the figure assigned too fast or did running that fast so early in their careers knock them out?

Damn if I know or can prove it either way.

So the only reasonable solution (at least imo) is to look at multiple sets of figures and use other tools as evidence (which will also have issues from time to time) and try to divine it the best you can for betting purposes.

I kind of object to someone claiming that "so in so" is best because he has better figures or "so and so" is mediocre because his figures aren't that fast compared to horses of the past with a kind of certainty. It depends on whose figures you are looking at and if any of them are right to begin with.

[the little guy]

I genuinely feel bad for the people that are so caught up in criticizing figures that they don't even understand that they miss all the myriad of reasons that horse might fail to live up to an actually accurate number....and instead because of their own issues, just say " the number was wrong. "

[classhandicapper]

Going back to last year's Florida Derby, I noticed that Eclipse Awarding winning writer Jennie Rees wrote in the Courier Journal that Materality, Upstart, and all of the horses in the Florida Derb, were throw outs for the Derby, in her opinion...her reasoning is this, she wants to use horses that have at least one major prep race where they ran the last 1/8 in at least 13 seconds or faster, and the last 3/8's in :38 or better.

Materiality ran 13.7 and :39.8 in the 2015 Florida Derby and Upstart ran 13.8 and :40. Both of these horses never ran back to their Florida Derby speed figures. Upstart did finally win a race recently, the GR3 Razorback at Oaklawn, which was at 8.5 furlongs.

In her column, which was written after the Florida Derby last year, Rees goes on to say that she has learned from experience that it doesn't matter how slow the track was, and she admits that the Gulfstream track was slow. But, she says, in the Derby, she will not use horses that did not meet this criteria of :13 and :38 regardless of how slow the track was.

This is the same kind of situation (and I'm not claiming to know the answer to that specific race).

The intuitive response to this based on prevailing wisdom is that all you have to do is adjust the closing times for the speed of the track and look at the pace and you have the necessary information to understand the closing times. But tracks are different in other ways and jockeys sometimes adjust to those tracks.

[pandy]

This is exactly the kind of thing that comes up in these endless discussions.

Was the figure assigned too fast or did running that fast so early in their careers knock them out?

Damn if I know or can prove it either way.

So the only reasonable solution (at least imo) is to look at multiple sets of figures and use other tools as evidence (which will also have issues from time to time) and try to divine it the best you can for betting purposes.

I kind of object to someone claiming that "so in so" is best because he has better figures or "so and so" is mediocre because his figures aren't that fast compared to horses of the past with a kind of certainty. It depends on whose figures you are looking at and if any of them are right to begin with.

I agree. If you want to have fun and use figures to try and compare horses from years ago to today, but realize the absurdity of it and don't take it too seriously, I don't have a problem with that. But I remember people saying stuff like, Ghostzapper ran a 128 Beyer, he was the greatest horse of all time. I mean, Formal Gold, had Beyers of 124, 125, and 126. Maybe he was the greatest horse of all time.

[mountainman]

This is exactly the kind of thing that comes up in these endless discussions.

Was the figure assigned too fast or did running that fast so early in their careers knock them out?

Damn if I know or can prove it either way.

So the only reasonable solution (at least imo) is to look at multiple sets of figures and use other tools as evidence (which will also have issues from time to time) and try to divine it the best you can for betting purposes.

I kind of object to someone claiming that "so in so" is best because he has better figures or "so and so" is mediocre because his figures aren't that fast compared to horses of the past with a kind of certainty. It depends on whose figures you are looking at and if any of them are right to begin with.

Beyond a temporary bounce, permanent regression might often be less mysterious than it seems. Few handicappers realize or acknowledge the degree to which infirmities and physical soundness can limit performance.

Such a powerful factor they can't quantify, research, or neatly incorporate just stymies most players. So they simply ignore it.

[classhandicapper]

I genuinely feel bad for the people that are so caught up in criticizing figures that they don't even understand that they miss all the myriad of reasons that horse might fail to live up to an actually accurate number....and instead because of their own issues, just say " the number was wrong. "

What you are saying is 100% correct in most situations, but not in those when equally brilliant and experienced figure makers disagree. In those situations, someone is clearly wrong, but even after the fact (let along before) it's not always clear who because of the myriad of reasons a horse might fail to duplicate its previous figures. That's the handicapping dilemma that has been bothering me for decades.

Where do figure makers sometimes go wrong and how can I solve these questions more accurately?

What other tools besides figures can I use?

[DeltaLover]

I genuinely feel bad for the people that are so caught up in criticizing figures that they don't even understand that they miss all the myriad of reasons that horse might fail to live up to an actually accurate number....and instead because of their own issues, just say " the number was wrong. "

It is a matter of definitions and semantics rather than personal opinions and
belief systems. It is completely possible for some of us to develop objective
metrics for the accuracy of a speed figure methodology. Of course this metric
consists the core of a figure making approach and those who understand how it is
created have no reason to expose it publicly.

I assure you that the complexity and the sophistication of this mechanism is way
above what is described in any of the figure maker's book. The sixth grade math
used by Beyer, Ragozin, Brohamer etc represent very primitive and simplistic
approaches and as such are very vulnerable and subject to errors.

Note:
The only commercial figures that I have tested (albeit using limited data)
and concluded that are above average are CJ's.

[cj]

What I am describing ties in nicely to what Pandy has been describing, but I'm not interested in giving it away so a bunch of people smarter than I am can try to use it before I've even had a chance to try.

So I pretty much nailed it then with my reply.

[cj]

In her column, which was written after the Florida Derby last year, Rees goes on to say that she has learned from experience that it doesn't matter how slow the track was, and she admits that the Gulfstream track was slow. But, she says, in the Derby, she will not use horses that did not meet this criteria of :13 and :38 regardless of how slow the track was.

You aren't suggesting being an Eclipse Award winning writer qualifies somebody as an expert handicapper, are you?

I threw out all the Florida Derby horses too, but because they were too slow not because of some arcane rule based on raw times. I'd still take figure (sectionals and overall) that are adjusted for track speed over raw fractions every time.

[classhandicapper]

So I pretty much nailed it then with my reply.

It's a competitive game.

If I actually have something that adds value, the last thing I want is for figure makers to incorporate it into their numbers, kill the value, and for me to never make a nickel betting on it, let alone get credit for the insight. I'm never going to make commercial figures. I'll either make a few dollars betting on the horses or the idea will die when I test it some day.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is this your best answer to this posting? What you are saying here is not relative to the question, which refers to an obvious error in the calculation of the beyer speed figurers. Please try not to answer with a question but with concrete evidence and data.Did you demand the same of the guy who started this thread? I mean, he presented as evidence an example with nothing really to back it up, other than the "final time" was different a year ago...whatever that means (nothing much, when talking about adjusted speed figures).

[cj]

It's a competitive game.

If I actually have something that adds value, the last thing I want is for figure makers to incorporate it into their numbers, kill the value, and for me to never make a nickel betting on it, let alone get credit for the insight. I'm never going to make commercial figures. I'll either make a few dollars betting on the horses or the idea will die when I test it some day.

Completely understandable. What isn't is the post saying you have a better method without saying anything. Why bother?

[f2tornado]

You aren't suggesting being an Eclipse Award winning writer qualifies somebody as an expert handicapper, are you?

I threw out all the Florida Derby horses too, but because they were too slow not because of some arcane rule based on raw times. I'd still take figure (sectionals and overall) that are adjusted for track speed over raw fractions every time.

I don't disagree with you but those raw fractions are quite useful for the handicapper that doesn't like getting caught up in speed numbers. It is true around 70% of Kentucky Derby winners ran a big 9F prep with a final 3/8th in 37 4/5 or less despite representing only around 30% of the starters. An average Derby field will have 5 to 6 such horses which gives you a positive ROI if they average around 5-1 or better. These horses have also made up a number of Derby day exacta and a few trifectas over the years.

If someone can beat it then I'm all ears. It seems to be one of the few reliable Derby "rules" that hasn't gone to the wayside (yet).

[DeltaLover]

Did you demand the same of the guy who started this thread? I mean, he presented as evidence an example with nothing really to back it up, other than the "final time" was different a year ago...whatever that means (nothing much, when talking about adjusted speed figures).

While it is quite possible that the OP cannot back his claim with data, his
observation is still valid. I have met (very) few gamblers who had enough
talent and intuition to reach the correct conclusion even without having the
necessary education and data analysis skills to back their position(still these
gamblers I am referring to, were mostly poker players than horse bettors)

[PaceAdvantage]

While it is quite possible that the OP cannot back his claim with data, his
observation is still valid. I have met (very) few gamblers who had enough
talent and intuition to reach the correct conclusion even without having the
necessary education and data analysis skills to back their position(still these
gamblers I am referring to, were mostly poker players than horse bettors)TLG's response was very relative to the original post, sorry to say.

If one is going to question the validity of the figures themselves, at least tell us WHY, other than a difference in final time spread out over 365 days or so.

You may think his observation is valid, but that doesn't tell us much. You haven't given us much to go on either.

[classhandicapper]

Completely understandable. What isn't is the post saying you have a better method without saying anything. Why bother?

It was a carry over from the conversation on the other thread where Pandy was talking about raw times unadjusted for track variants being useful and part of one of his methods. He brought it up again here. I think he's probably right about that on some level and that phenomenon may even be applicable to the original poster's inquiry into the Florida Derby last year. In rereading my post I can see how it didn't come off as intended, but I go buggy when people talk about horses and races in certain terms when it comes to figures. Seriously, just smack me in the head the next time I do that. It's complicated. :lol:

[Cratos]

It is a matter of definitions and semantics rather than personal opinions and
belief systems. It is completely possible for some of us to develop objective
metrics for the accuracy of a speed figure methodology. Of course this metric
consists the core of a figure making approach and those who understand how it is
created have no reason to expose it publicly.

I assure you that the complexity and the sophistication of this mechanism is way
above what is described in any of the figure maker's book. The sixth grade math
used by Beyer, Ragozin, Brohamer etc represent very primitive and simplistic
approaches and as such are very vulnerable and subject to errors.

Note:
The only commercial figures that I have tested (albeit using limited data)
and concluded that are above average are CJ's.
I agree with TLG; and I wish you would expand on this "other than 6th grade math" which you alluded too.

If I was to be critical from a science application it wouldn't be math; it would be physics because the essential science that critiques speed is physics.

However I see the speedfigure calculation as a methodology and not a science; therefore a figure maker can include esoteric nuances and not be wrong; just different.

[DeltaLover]

TLG's response was very relative to the original post, sorry to say.

If one is going to question the validity of the figures themselves, at least tell us WHY, other than a difference in final time spread out over 365 days or so.

You may think his observation is valid, but that doesn't tell us much. You haven't given us much to go on either.

Of course I have all the data to back what I am saying. Before I post them though, should we agree on what is going to disprove Beyers figures for these two specific races? I think that this is the point we are missing in this discussion; in other words what makes a specific figure methodology better than the other or proves it to be completely wrong.

[DeltaLover]

I agree with TLG; and I wish you would expand on this "other than 6th grade math" which you alluded too.

If I was to be critical from a science application it wouldn't be math; it would be physics because the essential science that critiques speed is physics.

However I see the speedfigure calculation as a methodology and not a science; therefore a figure maker can include esoteric nuances and not be wrong; just different.

I disagree with your approach. Eight grade Newtonian physics and sixth grade math does not provide a sufficient background to attack the (extremely) difficult task of building a valid methodology. Instead what is needed is discreete math, graph theory, least squares, statistics and a good portion of programming ability.

[Cratos]

I disagree with your approach. Eight grade Newtonian physics and sixth grade math does not provide a sufficient background to attack the (extremely) difficult task of building a valid methodology. Instead what is needed is discreete math, graph theory, least squares, statistics and a good portion of programming ability.
Good you disagree and that response was anticipated; and since you are the only one who have the academic achievement in higher math and science beyond 8th grade and you are very adept with graphs and curves I would like to see your explanation of the formula for the nonlinear race curve about speed.

Another way of asking this question is how would one with a limited math and science background integrate the resistance forces of wind, air, and surface to confront the GRF of the horse's hooves as they were come in contact with the track surface to produce the horse's rate of motion (speed).

[DeltaLover]

Another way of asking this question is how would one with a limited math and science background integrate the resistance forces of wind, air, and surface to confront the GRF of the horse's hooves as they were come in contact with the track surface to produce the horse's rate of motion (speed).

First of all I am not talking about limited math and science background. Quite the opposite..

The problem is that you seem to not understand what a mathematical model is and you are confused in the abstraction layers.

In the same way that a medical doctor does not rely on the law of physics when he is diagnosing a flu, a modeler also works with abstractions and reduced degrees of dimensionality.

[Cratos]

First of all I am not talking about limited math and science background. Quite the opposite..

The problem is that you seem to not understand what a mathematical model is and you are confused in the abstraction layers.

In the same way that a medical doctor does not rely on the law of physics when he is diagnosing a flu, a modeler also works with abstractions and reduced degrees of dimensionality.
You are correct I don't know and I will allow that response to satisfy your ego.

However you didn't offer an explanation or contradiction to my earlier post and that is okay because this thread shouldn't be about us.

I have all of the requisites to verify my credentials; additionally I can produce articles and position papers written by some respected people, but you probably will say so what?

[DeltaLover]

However you didn't offer an explanation or contradiction to my earlier post and that is okay because this thread shouldn't be about us.


Have you ever provide any concrete explanation or data that we can back test? Sorry, but I do not think so.. Apart from generalities and trivial Newtonian formulas nothing more..

[ronsmac]

The argument on this BSF is a joke, IMO. It was in fact one of the slowest fast track Derby times in modern history. The BSF should therefore follow.So you're in agreement that Chrome was many lengths faster in his derby preps and his Preakness and close to 10 lengths faster in the Breeders cup than the Derby. Yet still won the Derby easily. The Derby was one of those races when the time just didn't make sense. Whether it was the extended time between the last dirt race and the Derby , or some other factor.

[Cratos]

Have you ever provide any concrete explanation or data that we can back test? Sorry, but I do not think so.. Apart from generalities and trivial Newtonian formulas nothing more..
I don't subscribe to the "we and us" alleged camaraderie on this forum; I came here 12 years ago as an individual poster who enjoy exchanging ideas about horseracing and during that period I have learned a lot from many different posters.

However if you don't understand my posts I cannot help that because I have received enough PMs to understand that some posters did.

Also when name calling starts, it is the quintessential "I don't know."

I try to have a source to what I post and today's posts weren''t any different because I have two sources who have performed experiments to confirm what I posted.

Move on, I will always read your posts along with all others; I don't discriminate.

[Kash$]

According to Jeff Siegel at GP Dig Deep earlier on the card won a one turn mile and was assigned a 94 (Nyquist)

[cj]

According to Jeff Siegel at GP Dig Deep earlier on the card won a one turn mile and was assigned a 94 (Nyquist)

One turn miles are a bit tricky at Gulfstream for a variety of reasons I'd rather not get into here. I beat up on Guflstream enough already.

I gave Nyquist a 116 and Dig Deep a 104.

[Stillriledup]

It's a competitive game.

If I actually have something that adds value, the last thing I want is for figure makers to incorporate it into their numbers, kill the value, and for me to never make a nickel betting on it, let alone get credit for the insight. I'm never going to make commercial figures. I'll either make a few dollars betting on the horses or the idea will die when I test it some day.

Exactly. Must be nice to get 'called out' by someone who won't post his best stuff or methods either.

[cj]

Exactly. Must be nice to get 'called out' by someone who won't post his best stuff or methods either.

Assuming you are talking about me, you must be kidding with all the stuff I've posted on this forum. Or, as usual, just trolling.

[Stillriledup]

Assuming you are talking about me, you must be kidding with all the stuff I've posted on this forum. Or, as usual, just trolling.

CH has posted a lot of stuff too, just not everything including stuff he wants to keep for himself. He's a great poster, he didn't need the cheapie.

[PaceAdvantage]

CH has posted a lot of stuff too, just not everything including stuff he wants to keep for himself. He's a great poster, he didn't need the cheapie.You write as though you are in some sort of position to judge... :lol:

Fascinating.

[cj]

CH has posted a lot of stuff too, just not everything including stuff he wants to keep for himself. He's a great poster, he didn't need the cheapie.

Nice deflection when what you implied was an outright lie.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Doesn't every speed figure thread end this way? How about a new section purely devoted to this called "Speed Figure Psychosis(tell me all the trade secrets or get crucified)"?

[classhandicapper]

Stillriledup, I appreciate the defense, but CJ and I are fine.

He and I have discussed figure issues privately for many years trying to make them better. I probably shouldn't have even brought up the fact that I may have a new insight unless I was willing to elaborate a little in public. It was a spillover from a discussion on another thread where Pandy was talking about not ignoring raw times (like the Florida Derby last year), but it came out wrong in my first post.

[whodoyoulike]

Doesn't every speed figure thread end this way? How about a new section purely devoted to this called "Speed Figure Psychosis(tell me all the trade secrets or get crucified)"?

I don't think people should provide their trade secrets but rather point people in the correct direction and let them figure it out for themselves. This will eliminate needless testing. I think both CJ and Class have done this maybe too much info.

Do we really want someone to give us something without working for it?

If we can figure it out, then we'll know when it's applicable and won't bitch when someone else's algorithm doesn't work in your applied situation.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I don't think people should provide their trade secrets but rather point people in the correct direction and let them figure it out for themselves. This will eliminate needless testing. I think both CJ and Class have done this maybe too much info.

Do we really want someone to give us something without working for it?

If we can figure it out, then we'll know when it's applicable and won't bitch when someone else's algorithm doesn't work in your applied situation.

We agree totally. With repeat threads popping up every week I think it is absurd how the recipe gets hounded. CJ is a more patient man than me. There are a couple posters who if bumped into at the track might be laying on the ground in short order! :D

[Tom]

Several posters have jumped the shark. :rolleyes:

[the little guy]

Several posters have jumped the shark. :rolleyes:


That implies they had something to offer to begin with. :lol:

[EMD4ME]

You write as though you are in some sort of position to judge... :lol:

Fascinating.

I have to admit, this was funny! :D

[RunForTheRoses]

Aqueduct today, Wood Day must be a tough figure/variant day.

[Cratos]

Aqueduct today, Wood Day must be a tough figure/variant day.
Interesting question; why would you say that?

[cj]

Interesting question; why would you say that?

Probably because it rained much of the day and the track was being worked on constantly between races.

[Cratos]

Probably because it rained much of the day and the track was being worked on constantly between races.
That is a good answer .

[EMD4ME]

On a seperate note, I would go as far as saying that the rail was solid for the 1st 2 dirt races and then the rail was near death for races 5 up to race 11.

Adding to the complexity

And before someone says the 81/1 shot hugged the rail for the WOOD and finished well.

My 400 friend could have hugged the rail and finished well amongst those donkeys in the lane.

14 second last 1/8, ought to be ashamed of themselves. Trotters finish up faster.

[RunForTheRoses]

That is a good answer .

What CJ wrote, for instance the Gazelle went faster than the Wood, well that may not be a big deal this year as the fillies do seem faster...the Bay Shore also went faster than the Carter.

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/AQU040916USA.pdf

[Cratos]

What CJ wrote, for instance the Gazelle went faster than the Wood, well that may not be a big deal this year as the fillies do seem faster...the Bay Shore also went faster than the Carter.DJ

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/AQU040916USA.pdf
You asked a general question and got a good general answer.

Now you are attempting to answer with a specific example; please be reminded that horseraces are random events.

[the little guy]

It was nice to see Ami's Flatter, third beaten 14 lengths in the 2015 Florida Derby...aka the Jumped the Shark Derby, once again validate that fig with his second 105 Beyer figure in his last three race while winning yesterday's Commonwealth at Keeneland.

Happy Days are here again!

[fiznow]

This is something iv been thinking about for the past few months. Is the beyer system an old fad that has lost validity?

Latest example: Nyquist getting a 94 Beyer yesterday running two seconds faster than Materiality last year who got a 110...

Is the beyer system a flawed fad that is dying?

Well, I don't use Beyers and I wonder, even if you believe in them, are they profitable anymore. Beyers make favorites, the higher the Beyer the lower the odds. Plus Im sure the majority of horse players read at least one book how do use Beyers. So isn't it more profitable to bet against Beyers these days? However, for me theyre not worth spending 3,50$ per card when I can get the same information I need for 1$ per card at brisnet. And for my purposes the brisnet speed ratings work well, I take a look at them but don't use them as the main factor to select my horses.

Btw Nyquist and his performance in the Florida Derby are a good example. In many discussions, not just here I read many think now he is not such a good horse because he got a lower speed figure and it seems this number make people ignore the fact that he is 7 for 7 and a 4 time G1 winner. Well, some races are simply run slower than others and he ran fast enough to win comfortably by more than 3 lenghts. He did what was necessary. Should Guiterrez drive him and try to win by a bigger margin to get a higher speed figure? Im sure his connection care more about getting him out sound and safe. Although he is a very classy and special horse I won't bet him, I already posted in another topic here that the horse who finished 2nd to him is my Derby pick. I just wanted to point out why Beyers are overrated imo.