Arrogate

[outofthebox]

Impressive maiden win at Santa Anita Sunday. I know the pace was slow, but final time and come home time off the charts for a mdn win. Son of Unbridled Song out of Distorted Humor dam certainly has a bright future if stays sound. Baffert usually aggressive with his 3yo's so could show up in some of the lesser "Derby" races around.

[Fager Fan]

Impressive maiden win at Santa Anita Sunday. I know the pace was slow, but final time and come home time off the charts for a mdn win. Son of Unbridled Song out of Distorted Humor dam certainly has a bright future if stays sound. Baffert usually aggressive with his 3yo's so could show up in some of the lesser "Derby" races around.

Don't get your hopes up for this one lasting long.

[outofthebox]

Another stroll in the park against older condition allowance horses. 1:41 under a hand ride. Will be interesting where Baffert points him next.

[v j stauffer]

Another stroll in the park against older condition allowance horses. 1:41 under a hand ride. Will be interesting where Baffert points him next.

The VET?

[outofthebox]

The VET?Ha Ha. Have worked with many Unbridled Songs that either never made it to the races, or had short careers. So i get your humor. But i really hope he overcomes the stereotype. We need more 3yos to step up and shake up this boring division.

[outofthebox]

105 Beyer if anyone is interested...Couldn't make Bafferts hair move in the winners circle.

[outofthebox]

Another victory over cut down field of three in nw2ot at Del Mar. He is ready for a challenge. He comes home fast like a turf horse. Baffert had mentioned WVD before he came down with a temp and missed a few days of training. He would be a great addition to the Travers field..

[theiman]

Another victory over cut down field of three in nw2ot at Del Mar. He is ready for a challenge. He comes home fast like a turf horse. Baffert had mentioned WVD before he came down with a temp and missed a few days of training. He would be a great addition to the Travers field..

I had read somewhere if he ran well the Travers was an option. Not sure how beating 2 others affects the decision.

[SG4]

Well they've gotta strike while the iron is hot, probably Travers and/or PA Derby like most other nice 3yo's who still have it together as fall approaches. Nice little race today, took a spot of dirt, ran down an OK older horse loose on the lead while being forced wide several paths as well down the backside. Lots of talent but concern for me is he continues to break slow, not that easy to overcome in a large field with a horse who has speed as an asset.

Is it just me or does an oddly high number of these gray offspring (Unbridled's Songs & Tapits) often seem to have issues with breaking fast during their careers?

[Robert Fischer]

He was pointed for the WVD, but had a minor issue.

[picojim]

wow!

[outofthebox]

Pure Bliss.

[Tom]

Double that!
Wow! Wow!

Nice day for Mike!

[johnhannibalsmith]

Kudos to Baffert and Smith for not subscribing to the east coast newsletter on 'winning tactics'. Dominant.

[Secondbest]

Impressive maiden win at Santa Anita Sunday. I know the pace was slow, but final time and come home time off the charts for a mdn win. Son of Unbridled Song out of Distorted Humor dam certainly has a bright future if stays sound. Baffert usually aggressive with his 3yo's so could show up in some of the lesser "Derby" races around.
You spotted him before anybody.Good Eyes

[VeryOldMan]

You spotted him before anybody.Good Eyes

+1

Fun stuff. I love these top NYRA cards. Great racing today.

[judd]

Impressive maiden win at Santa Anita Sunday. I know the pace was slow, but final time and come home time off the charts for a mdn win. Son of Unbridled Song out of Distorted Humor dam certainly has a bright future if stays sound. Baffert usually aggressive with his 3yo's so could show up in some of the lesser "Derby" races around.
Great cappin :ThmbUp:

[bobphilo]

Impressive maiden win at Santa Anita Sunday. I know the pace was slow, but final time and come home time off the charts for a mdn win. Son of Unbridled Song out of Distorted Humor dam certainly has a bright future if stays sound. Baffert usually aggressive with his 3yo's so could show up in some of the lesser "Derby" races around.
Great catch.
The biggest jump up performance I've seen in a long time. Looks like we have another contender for the BC classic and HOTY.

[SuperPickle]

I'm dying to know where he takes this horse. His only straight three option is Parx for the PA Derby. His hometown option is the Awesome Agsin but Crome will be there. I doubt with the BC in Cal Baffert will ship him east to prep.

There's got to be a real shot to faces Crome which makes the Awesome Again super interesting.

[ronsmac]

I'm dying to know where he takes this horse. His only straight three option is Parx for the PA Derby. His hometown option is the Awesome Agsin but Crome will be there. I doubt with the BC in Cal Baffert will ship him east to prep.

There's got to be a real shot to faces Crome which makes the Awesome Again super interesting.I would think the Pa Derby is a no brainer. Baffert won both the Pa Derby and the Classic with Bayern two years ago. Plus the race is worth 1 million minimum and there's a bonus for winning the Travers. The Awesome Again is only 300k.

[cj]

I would think the Pa Derby is a no brainer. Baffert won both the Pa Derby and the Classic with Bayern two years ago. Plus the race is worth 1 million minimum and there's a bonus for winning the Travers. The Awesome Again is only 300k.

Probably 1-9 he goes there. The rail always seems to miraculously transform to a highway for the big day too.

[Donttellmeshowme]

When someone gets the early Beyer on this horse please post it.

[cj]

139 TimeformUS Speed Figure today for Arrogate.

[ribjig]

All that whining about
race horses genetically
descending into mediocrity???

AH HA HA HA HA
AH HA HA HA HA
AH HA HA HA HA HA
:bang: :lol: :jump: :bang: :lol: :jump: :bang: :lol: :jump:

[EMD4ME]

Kudos to Baffert and Smith for not subscribing to the east coast newsletter on 'winning tactics'. Dominant.

:D :D :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree 100000000%!!!! Nice to see those stupid NYRA jocks get their asses handed to them 1 pole behind Baffert and 2 Cali Riders.

Not saying this horse wasn't best but I love the margin of victory. Was DOMINANT due to the jocks of the 1 and 2 GOING.

[Tom]

139!

Holy Mackerel!

Will we see ~119 Beyer, to?
Or a 107.

[JustRalph]

I thought America. Freedom was a gift at 5-1

Baffert has to be smiling like crazy

[cj]

139!

Holy Mackerel!

Will we see ~119 Beyer, to?
Or a 107.

I predict it will be pretty big. I don't see how it can't to be honest.

[EMD4ME]

When someone gets the early Beyer on this horse please post it.

Not in yet but I am going to venture to say it will be 116. Maybe 117

[EMD4ME]

Anytime you see a 5th quarter way faster than a horse's dirt 4th quarter AFTER showing such good speed,


WOW

Is all I can say.

If this horse was around last year, American Pharoah would've been toasted OFF the map.

[bobphilo]

139 TimeformUS Speed Figure today for Arrogate.
Wow. That's the all-time record, right?

[theiman]

Arrogate was giant today. However, watch the ride by Bejarano on AF making sure nobody from the outside was going to press Arrogate on the lead. The head on shows Bejarano goes to about the 6 path in the first quarter, tightening up the possible leavers, then made sure #13 Laoban was not going up to press the lead.
AF still comes in 2nd.

[cj]

Wow. That's the all-time record, right?

Yes and no. Ghostzapper had a 141 but that was created using old methods that we adapted to the Timeform scale. Since we have been in business, it is the top figure.

[cj]

Arrogate was giant today. However, watch the ride by Bejarano on AF making sure nobody from the outside was going to press Arrogate on the lead. The head on shows Bejarano goes to about the 6 path in the first quarter, tightening up the possible leavers, then made sure #13 Laoban was not going up to press the lead.
AF still comes in 2nd.

I don't think that was team riding to be honest, just doing what was best for his horse IMO. He knew where the other speed was coming from in Laoban.

[EMD4ME]

Arrogate was giant today. However, watch the ride by Bejarano on AF making sure nobody from the outside was going to press Arrogate on the lead. The head on shows Bejarano goes to about the 6 path in the first quarter, tightening up the possible leavers, then made sure #13 Laoban was not going up to press the lead.
AF still comes in 2nd.

Great ride by Bejarano. I loved that. (6 path early).

Nice having some talented jocks here in NY, at least for .000055 % of the year.

[EMD4ME]

I don't think that was team riding to be honest, just doing what was best for his horse IMO. He knew where the other speed was coming from in Laoban.

I agree with that too. I don't think he was being a policeman for the 1 BUT if he doesn't go wide, then that invites the 13 or someone else to maybe go on.

He made sure he made the other pin heads think/pause AND we all know what happens when you make these guys think.

Success for the initiator, defeat for the pin heads.

[EMD4ME]

123 BEYER

[rastajenk]

So now the question is: what do you do with him the next time out?

[theiman]

PA Derby.

[EMD4ME]

So now the question is: what do you do with him the next time out?

Treat him like AP and make sure the competition is taken care of, oops, I mean pick the right spots.

[rastajenk]

No, I meant as a handicapper and bettor. Do you watch him go 1-9 and pass, knowing full well he's not going to duplicate that? Do you take a shot that he'll return to mortality, and thus vulnerability? Just wait til the Classic and see what happens to others in the meantime?

A number like that is nearly a shock to the system, these days anyway. Putting it in its proper perspective might be a challenge.

[EMD4ME]

No, I meant as a handicapper and bettor. Do you watch him go 1-9 and pass, knowing full well he's not going to duplicate that? Do you take a shot that he'll return to mortality, and thus vulnerability? Just wait til the Classic and see what happens to others in the meantime?

A number like that is nearly a shock to the system, these days anyway. Putting it in its proper perspective might be a challenge.

It all depends where, vs who, price etc.

We'll see. You never know, he might be retired by 7 am tomorrow morning.

[NY BRED]

[QUOTE=theiman]Arrogate was giant today. However, watch the ride by Bejarano on AF making sure nobody from the outside was going to press Arrogate on the lead.

I figured he was waiting for Kent D after their last incident

[infrontby1]

Yes and no. Ghostzapper had a 141 but that was created using old methods that we adapted to the Timeform scale. Since we have been in business, it is the top figure.

For the turf as well, also?

[anotherCAfan]

Would be neat to see him run at Los Al -- know the purse and prestige are nowhere near the Pennsylvania Derby at Parx or the Goodwood at Santa Anita.

[cj]

For the turf as well, also?

Yes, best I can remember. I'll run some queries this week during the slow days.

[SuperPickle]

Great ride by Bejarano. I loved that. (6 path early).

Nice having some talented jocks here in NY, at least for .000055 % of the year.

Post race he was more or less complaining that if he and his agent had a choice he'd have ridden the :1: but Baffert and the Wests wanted him on the other horse.

He seemed unhappy about the situation.

[iceknight]

Another victory over cut down field of three in nw2ot at Del Mar. He is ready for a challenge. He comes home fast like a turf horse. Baffert had mentioned WVD before he came down with a temp and missed a few days of training. He would be a great addition to the Travers field..What field? He was alone at the wire....wasnt it uncontested? :lol::lol::lol:

Great, great call! :ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[Bigadam119]

Impressive maiden win at Santa Anita Sunday. I know the pace was slow, but final time and come home time off the charts for a mdn win. Son of Unbridled Song out of Distorted Humor dam certainly has a bright future if stays sound. Baffert usually aggressive with his 3yo's so could show up in some of the lesser "Derby" races around.

Awesome job on this one! He was unbelievable today. Just watched it again and got chills.

Credit to you and also credit to this forum and the sharp handicappers that make it great.

[sammy the sage]

this horse might end up like "Twilight Eclipse"....esp. considering his breeding....we'll see....I hope NOT tho...

ps...T.E. set the WORLD record for 12F on the Turf...never ran back to that...not even close

there are other Track record holders who've ended up the same way...

[Donttellmeshowme]

139 TimeformUS Speed Figure today for Arrogate.



I said the Beyer not the timeform speed figure.

[outofthebox]

Awesome job on this one! He was unbelievable today. Just watched it again and got chills.

Credit to you and also credit to this forum and the sharp handicappers that make it great.Thank you. Followed him since his maiden loss at Los Al, but never had the opportunity to make any money off him because of his short odds in California. Drefong and Arrogate made for a nice day yesterday. Hope everyone enjoyed the races. Back to the grind!

[outofthebox]

Don't get your hopes up for this one lasting long.He lasted long enough!

[cj]

I said the Beyer not the timeform speed figure.

So I'm not allowed to post now as an authorized advertiser? I didn't quote your post. I just put the info out there. You can go get bent.

[classhandicapper]

123 BEYER


The thing that makes this even more impressive is that it was by a 3yo.

Another interesting point is that some people with experience making figures have been whining about depressed and shrinking Beyer figures for the last 6-8 years (myself included). I thought it started around the time trainers stopped using steroids. Now we've had three 120+ Beyers within the last 12 months. (American Pharoah, Frosted, and now Arrogate).

I'm not sure what that means.

Either we've seen some truly mind numbing performances that are even better than they look, trainers are now using some legal substitute for steroids and figures at the top will start rising again, the figures weren't depressed (the horses were bad), or something else related to figures is going on. I refuse to believe the horses suddenly got worse for 1/2 dozen years.

[ronsmac]

The thing that makes this even more impressive is that it was by a 3yo.

Another interesting point is that some people with experience making figures have been whining about depressed and shrinking Beyer figures for the last 6-8 years (myself included). I thought it started around the time trainers stopped using steroids. Now we've had three 120+ Beyers within the last 12 months. (American Pharoah, Frosted, and now Arrogate).

I'm not sure what that means.

Either we've seen some truly mind numbing performances that are even better than they look, trainers are now using some legal substitute for steroids and figures at the top will start rising again, the figures weren't depressed (the horses were bad), or something else related to figures is going on. I refuse to believe the horses suddenly got worse for 1/2 dozen years.Based on shrinking Beyers, I thought American Pharoah's Classic may have been a little high. Based on old school Beyers , I'd say Frosted and Arrogate's are a little low.

[cj]

The thing that makes this even more impressive is that it was by a 3yo.

Another interesting point is that some people with experience making figures have been whining about depressed and shrinking Beyer figures for the last 6-8 years (myself included). I thought it started around the time trainers stopped using steroids. Now we've had three 120+ Beyers within the last 12 months. (American Pharoah, Frosted, and now Arrogate).

I'm not sure what that means.

Either we've seen some truly mind numbing performances that are even better than they look, trainers are now using some legal substitute for steroids and figures at the top will start rising again, the figures weren't depressed (the horses were bad), or something else related to figures is going on. I refuse to believe the horses suddenly got worse for 1/2 dozen years.

When was the last time horses were winning top level G1s by double digit lengths? Simple math almost mandates those kind of wins get big numbers.

[Cratos]

Impressive maiden win at Santa Anita Sunday. I know the pace was slow, but final time and come home time off the charts for a mdn win. Son of Unbridled Song out of Distorted Humor dam certainly has a bright future if stays sound. Baffert usually aggressive with his 3yo's so could show up in some of the lesser "Derby" races around.
You deserve kudos for your early insight about Arrogate; I hope you had a few dollars on him in the Travers.

Again his Travers "come home time was off the charts."

[bobphilo]

I don't think that was team riding to be honest, just doing what was best for his horse IMO. He knew where the other speed was coming from in Laoban.
If the wide path to the 1st turn was meant to get an advantage from Laoban that was a dumb move since giving other more serious contenders a multiple length advantage because of your own wide trip makes no sense. That's just as bad as trying to act as your own rabbit.
Didn't Espinoza once get suspended once for forcing Shared Belief wide with his horse on the 1st turn once at Santa Anita?

[classhandicapper]

Based on shrinking Beyers, I thought American Pharoah's Classic may have been a little high. Based on old school Beyers , I'd say Frosted and Arrogate's are a little low.

That's my view also.

[cj]

If the wide path to the 1st turn was meant to get an advantage from Laoban that was a dumb move since giving other more serious contenders a multiple length advantage because of your own wide trip makes no sense. That's just as bad as trying to act as your own rabbit.
Didn't Espinoza once get suspended once for forcing Shared Belief wide with his horse on the 1st turn once at Santa Anita?

Looked to me like he moved in as the turn began so as not to lose much ground. I'll watch again though, haven't seen it since watching live.

I think that Shared Belief race was much more egregious and deserving of a suspension. I don't see that in this case.

[Hoops McCann]

ArroGREAT! Spectacular performance

[bobphilo]

Looked to me like he moved in as the turn began so as not to lose much ground. I'll watch again though, haven't seen it since watching live.

I think that Shared Belief race was much more egregious and deserving of a suspension. I don't see that in this case.
I just watched the replay myself. In defense of AF's rider he didn't do anything to force Laoban wide. He went right to the 2 path right off Arogon's flank going into the 1st turn. I was mistakenly reacting to a previous wild claim that he was taking Laoban 6 wide.

That would have been both egregious and dumb.

[classhandicapper]

When was the last time horses were winning top level G1s by double digit lengths? Simple math almost mandates those kind of wins get big numbers.

The time of the race was spectacular for 10F on any track no matter how fast the surface was playing. So there's no reason the figure can't be off the charts also. If it was a 129 instead, would that look so outlandish in the era when really top notch Grade 1 horses used to run in the 114-118 range and similar top 3yos a few points below that at this time of year?

What that 123 figure is saying is that Arrogate was a monster, but that American Freedom, Gun Runner etc.. are below average Grade 1 3yos.

The average winning figure for the Travers used to be in the 110 range. AF and GR ran lifetime tops of 104 and 102 after not cracking 100 before that (which would suggest they were terrible relative to PAR before reaching this new peak).

I'm still not sure I'm buying any of it despite this handful of huge figs. I can't believe the rest of the horses are all so slow. Some of the rest of this crop looks OK to me. But it could be a steroid or other related issue. It's tough to tell.

[GMB@BP]

All this talk about Beyer figures that are mechanically broken right now for use in any historical context.

[Hambletonian]

I still can't comprehend it, i watched the replay in rapt amazement, his first stakes outing and he simply runs the best race by a three year old at Saratoga in the 40 plus years I have been following the runners upstate.

The field was stretched out from Saratoga to Schenectady at the end of that race. He ran a wicked fast pace and drew away at ease through the lane.

My guess is he bounces next out, or maybe he is simply right now the best three year in training on this planet.

[theiman]

I just watched the replay myself. In defense of AF's rider he didn't do anything to force Laoban wide. He went right to the 2 path right off Arogon's flank going into the 1st turn. I was mistakenly reacting to a previous wild claim that he was taking Laoban 6 wide.

That would have been both egregious and dumb.

Perhaps you were referring to my post.

However, watch the ride by Bejarano on AF making sure nobody from the outside was going to press Arrogate on the lead. The head on shows Bejarano goes to about the 6 path in the first quarter, tightening up the possible leavers, then made sure #13 Laoban was not going up to press the lead.

I suggest you watch the head on replay to see if I was correct what happened in the first quarter.(perhaps it was the first 2- 3/16th)

[bobphilo]

Perhaps you were referring to my post.

However, watch the ride by Bejarano on AF making sure nobody from the outside was going to press Arrogate on the lead. The head on shows Bejarano goes to about the 6 path in the first quarter, tightening up the possible leavers, then made sure #13 Laoban was not going up to press the lead.

I suggest you watch the head on replay to see if I was correct what happened in the first quarter.(perhaps it was the first 2- 3/16th)
Bejarano drifted out to about the 3-4 path on the run to the 1st turn (probably to keep from trapping his stablemate), but since he then moved inside that wasn't going to keep Laoban wide and prevent him contesting the pace, which he did anyway. Arrogate simply capitalized on his early speed and rail position to get the early lead.

[bobphilo]

Definition of Arrogate from Merriam-Webster:

a : to claim or seize without justification
b : to make undue claims to having

Fortunately the name seems to be a misnomer with this horse.

[cj]

The time of the race was spectacular for 10F on any track no matter how fast the surface was playing. So there's no reason the figure can't be off the charts also. If it was a 129 instead, would that look so outlandish in the era when really top notch Grade 1 horses used to run in the 114-118 range and similar top 3yos a few points below that at this time of year?

What that 123 figure is saying is that Arrogate was a monster, but that American Freedom, Gun Runner etc.. are below average Grade 1 3yos.

The average winning figure for the Travers used to be in the 110 range. AF and GR ran lifetime tops of 104 and 102 after not cracking 100 before that (which would suggest they were terrible relative to PAR before reaching this new peak).

I'm still not sure I'm buying any of it despite this handful of huge figs. I can't believe the rest of the horses are all so slow. Some of the rest of this crop looks OK to me. But it could be a steroid or other related issue. It's tough to tell.

True. But if he didn't win by 13 but by 2 with the show horse three back, he wouldn't have gotten 115 most likely, and rightfully so. Everyone would assume the track was doctored between dirt races.

[bobphilo]

Bejarano drifted out to about the 3-4 path on the run to the 1st turn (probably to keep from trapping his stablemate), but since he then moved inside that wasn't going to keep Laoban wide and prevent him contesting the pace, which he did anyway. Arrogate simply capitalized on his early speed and rail position to get the early lead.
I stand corrected. I finally got to see the head-on and Bejarano did take him very wide. Looks like he was acting like an NFL blocker in trying to make sure the other horses behind him got rough trips. The chart describes how the race resembled a roller derby due to the crowding tactics. He was lucky nobody took advantage and moved inside him forcing him to go wide.

[classhandicapper]

True. But if he didn't win by 13 but by 2 with the show horse three back, he wouldn't have gotten 115 most likely, and rightfully so. Everyone would assume the track was doctored between dirt races.

Absolutely. Having one horse freak seems plausible. Having several horses freak makes you think the track must have changed.

On another note, I'm not sure the track didn't change in some fashion yesterday, though I haven't reviewed anything other than the replays yet.

The races appeared normal to me early. In the middle of the card the way a couple of races were run I started thinking the track was drying out and getting more tiring. I sent a note to some friends asking if they started watering. They did water right after that. Then the track started playing more normal again. It may all be coincidence because I wasn't monitoring it. I do not know.

[Broad Brush]

105 Beyer if anyone is interested...Couldn't make Bafferts hair move in the winners circle.

Great job by you!!!

Coming up with this horse like you did--makes this game so much fun.
Hope you cashed good on him.

[outofthebox]

Great job by you!!!

Coming up with this horse like you did--makes this game so much fun.
Hope you cashed good on him.Thank you. I really liked Drefong, and the obvious next two odds on favorites really keyed a nice pick 4. I'm pretty low keyed by nature, but i lost it a little bit the final 3/8 of the race.

[theiman]

I stand corrected. I finally got to see the head-on and Bejarano did take him very wide. Looks like he was acting like an NFL blocker in trying to make sure the other horses behind him got rough trips. The chart describes how the race resembled a roller derby due to the crowding tactics. He was lucky nobody took advantage and moved inside him forcing him to go wide.


:)

[sammy the sage]

this horse might end up like "Twilight Eclipse"....esp. considering his breeding....we'll see....I hope NOT tho...

ps...T.E. set the WORLD record for 12F on the Turf...never ran back to that...not even close

there are other Track record holders who've ended up the same way...

He could also end up like BIG RED...the mighty 'Sec."...holding several track records...

only time will tell...although w/today's use of Lasix....think the former is more likely than the later....hope I'm wrong...

[Tom]

Another drubbing of the East coast 3 yos by a West coast horse.
Getting embarrassing.

Mohaymen now going to get a rest.
Hasn't he been resting since Florida?

I might not have been that far off when I suggested he come to Finger Lakes.:D

And then there is Kent, riding in "Desormeaux's Alley", back and out of it....deja vus.


Greatness never comes from one race.
I'll reserve judgment on this on until he does something else to marvel at.
Two many 1-2 run wonder horses in my ligfetime to waste excitement.
I loved the race, went WOW when it was over. There are others out there who have done much more, and trouncing this field of 3yos was harldy earth shaking. The other California horse ran second all the way around, too.

It was a tremendoulsy impressive race.
End of story.

[Redboard]

It was a tremendously impressive race. My first thought was "do that again." Still in shock. Baffert hasn't won this race in 15 years and he's brought a handful of impressive bullets in that time.

Not sure why he's going to train up to the BCC. It made sense with AP who had a tough race in the Travers. I can see why he wouldn't want to face CC yet, but the PA derby would be a walk in the park.

[cj]

It was a tremendously impressive race. My first thought was "do that again." Still in shock. Baffert hasn't won this race in 15 years and he's brought a handful of impressive bullets in that time.

Not sure why he's going to train up to the BCC. It made sense with AP who had a tough race in the Travers. I can see why he wouldn't want to face CC yet, but the PA derby would be a walk in the park.

Nyquist isn't a walk in the park in my opinion.

[pele polo]

Baffert has Cupid for PA Derby

[Fager Fan]

It was a tremendously impressive race. My first thought was "do that again." Still in shock. Baffert hasn't won this race in 15 years and he's brought a handful of impressive bullets in that time.

Not sure why he's going to train up to the BCC. It made sense with AP who had a tough race in the Travers. I can see why he wouldn't want to face CC yet, but the PA derby would be a walk in the park.

Simple, he's afraid of bouncing.

He's not the soundest horse in the world either based on his race record. And being by UBS.

[outofthebox]

Simple, he's afraid of bouncing.

He's not the soundest horse in the world either based on his race record. And being by UBS.What gives you the idea he is not sound. So what that it took him to April of his 3yo year to make the races. He went through 2yo aches. He had a slight shin which was blistered and they gave him 60 days off. I do agree with your comment about Baffert believing in the bounce theory.

[SuperPickle]

What gives you the idea he is not sound. So what that it took him to April of his 3yo year to make the races. He went through 2yo aches. He had a slight shin which was blistered and they gave him 60 days off. I do agree with your comment about Baffert believing in the bounce theory.


He's an Unbridled Song who are notoriously unsound and he's already been injured.

Also Buffert is now training him up to the Classic. I think that's a concession that he's a horse with a finite amount of starts. I know people are going to say "just like AP" but this horse is not AP.

I'll some it up this way. I'd bet my life savings he doesn't race more than three more times. I'd also bet a nice amount of money at decent odds the Classic is his last race. Win or Loss they retire him.

[outofthebox]

He's an Unbridled Song who are notoriously unsound and he's already been injured.

Also Buffert is now training him up to the Classic. I think that's a concession that he's a horse with a finite amount of starts. I know people are going to say "just like AP" but this horse is not AP.

I'll some it up this way. I'd bet my life savings he doesn't race more than three more times. I'd also bet a nice amount of money at decent odds the Classic is his last race. Win or Loss they retire him.We all know the history of Unbridled Songs. Arrogate had a tender shin, not a soundness problem. Yes, he is not AP. AP had a more serious injury as a 2yo. Juddmonte is planning on a 4yo campaign for Arrogate. So i hope you don't double up on your life savings!

[Fager Fan]

We all know the history of Unbridled Songs. Arrogate had a tender shin, not a soundness problem. Yes, he is not AP. AP had a more serious injury as a 2yo. Juddmonte is planning on a 4yo campaign for Arrogate. So i hope you don't double up on your life savings!

A tender shin IS a soundness problem. It's a bone issue.

When a horse doesn't start until April of its 3yo year, it had physical issues to keep him from starting earlier. He should've gotten over shin issues when he was in pre-training a year and a half earlier. That he was having shin issues late in his 2yo year is a sign of soft bone, which is what UBS is notorious for siring.

Good luck to them racing him at 4. The UBSs usually decide differently, Will Take Charge excluded (who in build didn't at all resemble dad, so I think we can thank his mom for his soundness).

[Donttellmeshowme]

He's an Unbridled Song who are notoriously unsound and he's already been injured.

Also Buffert is now training him up to the Classic. I think that's a concession that he's a horse with a finite amount of starts. I know people are going to say "just like AP" but this horse is not AP.

I'll some it up this way. I'd bet my life savings he doesn't race more than three more times. I'd also bet a nice amount of money at decent odds the Classic is his last race. Win or Loss they retire him.




The way Baffert trains would not surprise me at all if this horse broke down at some point in time. UBS's are very brittle.

[PaceAdvantage]

I said the Beyer not the timeform speed figure.Should he get you a pillow and blanket too so you can be even more comfortable than you already are?

[BCOURTNEY]

Another drubbing of the East coast 3 yos by a West coast horse.
Getting embarrassing.

Mohaymen now going to get a rest.
Hasn't he been resting since Florida?

I might not have been that far off when I suggested he come to Finger Lakes.:D

And then there is Kent, riding in "Desormeaux's Alley", back and out of it....deja vus.


Greatness never comes from one race.
I'll reserve judgment on this on until he does something else to marvel at.
Two many 1-2 run wonder horses in my ligfetime to waste excitement.
I loved the race, went WOW when it was over. There are others out there who have done much more, and trouncing this field of 3yos was harldy earth shaking. The other California horse ran second all the way around, too.

It was a tremendoulsy impressive race.
End of story.

Very Impressive. Hope the soft bones hold up.

[RunForTheRoses]

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/a-numerical-perspective-on-arrogates-travers/

[outofthebox]

This unsound and brittle soft boned colt has endured 21 furlongs of breezes in less than 3 weeks :) Baffert has him primed for a big effort. He will need it, as Chrome is in lifetime form. Hope Frosted shows up with his game too. Not a betting race for me, just as a racing fan alone will have my blood pumping....

[SuperPickle]

This unsound and brittle soft boned colt has endured 21 furlongs of breezes in less than 3 weeks :) Baffert has him primed for a big effort. He will need it, as Chrome is in lifetime form. Hope Frosted shows up with his game too. Not a betting race for me, just as a racing fan alone will have my blood pumping....

The work this morning was soooo impressive. Watch the video. He's going 46 and change to the half and it literally looks like :49. But the impressive part is he sits off the horse inside and when Garcia asks him he just goes by.

Btw... in case anyone still wonders why Baffert always goes back to Garcia he's the best workout jockey on the planet. Just the watch his hands in the work. He just cues the horse and the horse responds like its a verbal command. They just listen to him like he speaks horse.

Victor Espinoza might not sleep all week after this morning.

[DeltaLover]

The work this morning was soooo impressive. Watch the video. He's going 46 and change to the half and it literally looks like :49. But the impressive part is he sits off the horse inside and when Garcia asks him he just goes by.

Btw... in case anyone still wonders why Baffert always goes back to Garcia he's the best workout jockey on the planet. Just the watch his hands in the work. He just cues the horse and the horse responds like its a verbal command. They just listen to him like he speaks horse.

Victor Espinoza might not sleep all week after this morning.

The problem is that the "impressiveness" (?) of his workouts are well advertised and in conjunction to his monstrous Travers win, they will make the crowd to over-bet him dramatically. Although he holds a significant chance to win the race, he is clearly a bet against.

[DeltaLover]

Those excited with Arrogate, need to review Secretariat's record and pay attention to how he performed against older.

[SuperPickle]

The problem is that the "impressiveness" (?) of his workouts are well advertised and in conjunction to his monstrous Travers win, they will make the crowd to over-bet him dramatically. Although he holds a significant chance to win the race, he is clearly a bet against.

The classic will be bet as a two horse race. Crome should be even money to 3/2, Arrogate 2-1 to 3-1 and Frosted should be third choice somewhere 8-1 range probably higher.

The issue is given the two horses run the exact same style Victor and Mike could ride it like a match race and set it up for someone to come get them late.

[DeltaLover]

The classic will be bet as a two horse race. Crome should be even money to 3/2, Arrogate 2-1 to 3-1 and Frosted should be third choice somewhere 8-1 range probably higher.

The issue is given the two horses run the exact same style Victor and Mike could ride it like a match race and set it up for someone to come get them late.

I can only hope that Arragate is bet down so heavily. I am ready to unload against him!

[burnsy]

Victor Espinoza might not sleep all week after this morning.

Maybe, but I doubt it. He's probably shits and giggles right now and he probably has a big old target setting the pace for him. Most likely no dirty work to do this time at all. Last race, he dictated because no one else can even keep up, this set up may be a favor if this horse goes fast early.

The experience factor also looms large if the race plays out like that. What will this horse do if someone eyeballs him and breathes down his neck? Just can't gauge that sort of thing off of a work out...and the speed of it is probably not such a great thing because during the race he may have to have bottom to reach for to hold off the older horses.

We will find out but this 3yo crop appears to be weak. The derby winner quit.....I mean "retired". The other ones took turns winning unless it rained out. You gotta ask for 6-1 at least. That could be a problem. Class test time.

[SuperPickle]

Maybe, but I doubt it. He's probably shits and giggles right now and he probably has a big old target setting the pace for him. Most likely no dirty work to do this time at all. Last race, he dictated because no one else can even keep up, this set up may be a favor if this horse goes fast early.

The experience factor also looms large if the race plays out like that. What will this horse do if someone eyeballs him and breathes down his neck? Just can't gauge that sort of thing off of a work out...and the speed of it is probably not such a great thing because during the race he may have to have bottom to reach for to hold off the older horses.

We will find out but this 3yo crop appears to be weak. The derby winner quit.....I mean "retired". The other ones took turns winning unless it rained out. You gotta ask for 6-1 at least. That could be a problem. Class test time.


You're making a big assumption I disagree with. That Arrogate goes to the lead and Crome stalks. Every time Victor rode Crome or AP where's he thought either horse was the best horse in the race or he only had one to beat he put the horse on the lead. Combine that with Arrogate drawing outside of him. Combine that with Baffert working Arrogate off a horse this morning I think Mike is more than comfortable sitting off Crome. And I think Victor isn't willing to concede the lead to the only horse he thinks can beat him on the square.

Go back and look at the 2015 SA Handicap. Look at what Make Smith does to Crome. It's one of the best rides of his career. He basically uses Shared Belief to rattle Crome every time Victor relaxes him. Mike rode both horses that day. He dictated terms.

I think he uses Arrogate the same way. He basically prevents Crome from settling on the lead.

I think he has a blueprint to beat Crome. Am I sure Crome will lose. No. But off this morning's work I'm confident Arrogate can go six furlongs in 1:09 and change and test Crome and perhaps at least set it up for another horse.

What some of the Cromie's aren't recognizing is you have a Grade 1 caliber horse with the exact running style that gives Crome fits and he's ridden by perhaps the biggest money rider on earth who's already beaten Crome with a horse with a similar running style.

The idea of taking Arrogate lightly is wrong. He can at least spoil Crome's day.

[depalma113]

Those excited with Arrogate, need to review Secretariat's record and pay attention to how he performed against older.

Arrogate has already handled older, so I don't really see that as a factor.

[depalma113]

I think he has a blueprint to beat Crome. Am I sure Crome will lose. No. But off this morning's work I'm confident Arrogate can go six furlongs in 1:09 and change and test Crome and perhaps at least set it up for another horse.

What some of the Cromie's aren't recognizing is you have a Grade 1 caliber horse with the exact running style that gives Crome fits and he's ridden by perhaps the biggest money rider on earth who's already beaten Crome with a horse with a similar running style.

THIS 100% ^^^^^^^

[upthecreek]

POSITION RUNNER JOCKEY TRAINER ODDS

Effinex
Flavien Prat
Jimmy Jerkens
15-1

Frosted
Joel Rosario
Kiaran McLaughlin
5-1

Keen Ice
Javier Castellano
Todd Pletcher
20-1

California Chrome
Victor Espinoza
Art Sherman
1-1

Win the Space
Gary Stevens
G. Papaprodromou
30-1

Melatonin
Joe Talamo
David Hofmans
12-1

War Story
Scott Speith
Mario Serey Jr.
30-1

Shaman Ghost
Irad Ortiz Jr.
Jimmy Jerkens
20-1

Hoppertunity
John Velazquez
Bob Baffert
15-1

Arrogate
Mike Smith
Bob Baffert
5-2

[DeltaLover]

Arrogate has already handled older, so I don't really see that as a factor.

My point is that even the once in fifty years horses can behave way below their capacity when as three year olds are facing top companies, especially after a huge race. As an obvious example you can use Secretariat who faced older five times losing the two of them as the prohibitive odds-on favorite. The attached image says more about it:


http://i63.tinypic.com/oqvksw.jpg

[Redboard]

Comparting the raw final times of the Travers and the BCC in the last four times that the BC was at Santa Anita. The BCC times have always been 2 seconds faster. If that happens this year, yikes!

YEAR TRAVERS BCC
2009 02:02.83 02:00.6 (synthetic)
2012 02:02.74 02:00.1
2013 02:02.68 02:00.7
2014 02:02.93 01:59.9
2016 01:59.36 ?????


Certainly gives on pause on just how fast this freak might be.

[depalma113]

My point is that even the once in fifty years horses can behave way below their capacity when as three year olds are facing top companies, especially after a huge race. As an obvious example you can use Secretariat who faced older five times losing the two of them as the prohibitive odds-on favorite. The attached image says more about it:


http://i63.tinypic.com/oqvksw.jpg


The loss to Onion had to do with running on a dead rail and not much else. If he runs outside, he wins by a half dozen.

[DeltaLover]

The loss to Onion had to do with running on a dead rail and not much else. If he runs outside, he wins by a half dozen.

I believe that for every loss we can find an excuse.. What counts for me is that the Big Red lost two and won three races when competing against open companies. Note that I do not mean that all three year old should be avoided routinely in unrestricted races; under the right conditions they can become very good bets as for example Beyern who was my main bet a few years ago when he won the BC, the problem with AR is that he consists a very poor bet and this is why I am looking elsewhere for some high prices.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by depalma113
Arrogate has already handled older, so I don't really see that as a factor.


But nothing close to this level of older horses.
He beat a mediocre filed in the Travers. He will face far better this time.

[EasyGoer89]

The classic will be bet as a two horse race. Crome should be even money to 3/2, Arrogate 2-1 to 3-1 and Frosted should be third choice somewhere 8-1 range probably higher.

The issue is given the two horses run the exact same style Victor and Mike could ride it like a match race and set it up for someone to come get them late.

I know the pools will be gigantic, but isnt Chrome a 1-5 shot? He's appearing to be an unbeatable superhorse, can you really get '1-1' on a horse like this?

[DeltaLover]

I know the pools will be gigantic, but isnt Chrome a 1-5 shot? He's appearing to be an unbeatable superhorse, can you really get '1-1' on a horse like this?

Yes you do. I do not see him lower than 4-5 while a 6-5 is possible.

[Rex Phinney]

You're making a big assumption I disagree with. That Arrogate goes to the lead and Crome stalks. Every time Victor rode Crome or AP where's he thought either horse was the best horse in the race or he only had one to beat he put the horse on the lead. Combine that with Arrogate drawing outside of him. Combine that with Baffert working Arrogate off a horse this morning I think Mike is more than comfortable sitting off Crome. And I think Victor isn't willing to concede the lead to the only horse he thinks can beat him on the square.

Go back and look at the 2015 SA Handicap. Look at what Make Smith does to Crome. It's one of the best rides of his career. He basically uses Shared Belief to rattle Crome every time Victor relaxes him. Mike rode both horses that day. He dictated terms.

I think he uses Arrogate the same way. He basically prevents Crome from settling on the lead.

I think he has a blueprint to beat Crome. Am I sure Crome will lose. No. But off this morning's work I'm confident Arrogate can go six furlongs in 1:09 and change and test Crome and perhaps at least set it up for another horse.

What some of the Cromie's aren't recognizing is you have a Grade 1 caliber horse with the exact running style that gives Crome fits and he's ridden by perhaps the biggest money rider on earth who's already beaten Crome with a horse with a similar running style.

The idea of taking Arrogate lightly is wrong. He can at least spoil Crome's day.

I agree with all of this. You've also got several others that may push the pace as well.

Mark my words, Hoppertunity is not in the race just to take up a spot in the gate, Baffert sees Chrome as very hard to beat. And Bobby boy is sitting here with Arrogate who can clearly go nose to nose with Chrome and either beat him or destroy both their chances. And he also has Hoppertunity who is not good enough to win this race without some help. Win-Win for Bobby boy.

Mike Smith is going to put Espinoza in a psych ward Saturday.

[depalma113]

But nothing close to this level of older horses.
He beat a mediocre filed in the Travers. He will face far better this time.



You think this field isn't mediocre?

[cj]

You think this field isn't mediocre?

I don't know many people that would call California Chrome mediocre. Frosted is up and down but certainly not mediocre either.

[DeltaLover]

You think this field isn't mediocre?

No, this field in definitely not mediocre. It actually attracts the top horses in training and one of the best horses of the century.

[classhandicapper]

"Mediocre" has a negative connotation. If we said it was average for a BC Classic give or take, that seems reasonable. BC Classics are almost always very strong Grade 1 races, but some are stronger than others.

[DeltaLover]

"Mediocre" has a negative connotation. If we said it was average for a BC Classic give or take, that seems reasonable.

Which BCC field of the past you would consider above average for example?

[classhandicapper]

Which BCC field of the past you would consider above average for example?

Ghostzapper's BC Classic was killer strong (off the top of my head).

[DeltaLover]

Ghostzapper's BC Classic was killer strong (off the top of my head).

Yes I agree. I also believe that this year's BCC is also very strong as well.

[depalma113]

No, this field in definitely not mediocre. It actually attracts the top horses in training and one of the best horses of the century.

Really? The top horses in training? Win the Space? War Story?

This is two good mile and a quarter horses, one top miler and a bunch of also rans.

[overthehill]

I dunno the Travers win was one of the most impressive races I ve seen by a 3 year old. The others were probably General Assembly's Travers and Risen Star's Belmont. California Chrome has run several really good races this year and Frosted has run a couple. I'd say it shapes up to be a pretty good race.
I think I wold make Chrome 4/5 and Arrogate 8/5.everyone else over 10-1..The amazing thing about Arrogate was that the outstanding race came out of nowhere. I like the notion of trying a longshot in this race.

[DeltaLover]

Really? The top horses in training? Win the Space? War Story?

This is two good mile and a quarter horses, one top miler and a bunch of also rans.

Can you name any other top horses in training that you would like to see in this race?

[bobphilo]

Ghostzapper's BC Classic was killer strong (off the top of my head).
Yes, that was a good one. Yet the usual detractors claimed it was a soft win because Roses in May did not challenge him for the early lead. Some people are never happy.

[depalma113]

Can you name any other top horses in training that you would like to see in this race?

Beholder, Dortmund, Gun Runner, American Freedom, Connect

[Tom]

You don't like Dortmund, do you? :D

[outofthebox]

Don't get your hopes up for this one lasting long.He lasted long enough. All kidding aside, i understood your skepticism with the breeding and late start..

[classhandicapper]

120 Beyer for Arrogate, 119 for Chrome

[depalma113]

No, this field in definitely not mediocre. It actually attracts the top horses in training and one of the best horses of the century.

At least we can confirm that this was a mediocre field.

[Tom]

It was a deep field that got trounced to two supe-horses.

[pele polo]

Arrogate or Pharoah?

[nearco]

Arrogate or Pharoah?

Pharoah easily at the moment, just on body of work. But Arrogate has immense potential, I don't think we have seen his best yet, he could be a monster. I hope he stays sound.

[classhandicapper]

Arrogate or Pharoah?

I'd take Pharoah because he had more speed, enough stamina, and was also still developing rapidly. But Arrogate is freaky to be doing what he is doing after such a brief campaign. We should all be praying he stays healthy and comes back next year.

[Robert Fischer]

if this were something like swimming

American Pharoah = talented , perfectly efficient, highly trained, 6'2 210lbs of muscle or whatever a perfectly balanced swimmer is considered to be

Arrogate = Michael Phelps

[Tom]

Dortmund = Gilligan

[depalma113]

It was a deep field that got trounced to two supe-horses.

No it wasn't. It was two really good mile and a quarter horses and nothing else.

[EMD4ME]

Arrogate or Pharoah?

No question Arrogate would've trounced AP.

[GMB@BP]

No question Arrogate would've trounced AP.

Your never going to here the connections say that, but AP never ran a race as good as Arrogates last two, and he never beat a horse as good as California Chrome (yesterdays classic version at least).

[PaceAdvantage]

How cool would it have been if Arrogate had come along differently and Baffert ended up training back-to-back Triple Crown winners? :lol:

[EMD4ME]

How cool would it have been if Arrogate had come along differently and Baffert ended up training back-to-back Triple Crown winners? :lol:

How cool would it have been if Arrogate was born in 2012 and not 2013? Arrogate instead of Dortmund facing AP!

[ronsmac]

How cool would it have been if Arrogate was born in 2012 and not 2013? Arrogate instead of Dortmund facing AP!Arrogate buries him.

[cj]

Arrogate buries him.

He'd might beat him, he wouldn't bury him, whatever that means. Pharoah was as fast as Chrome, and only a little slower than Arrogate this year. If he matured at all it would be a hell of a race.

Now if they raced both being 3yos, obviously only hypothetical, I'd give Arrogate the edge. But no way I see a burial.

[DeltaLover]

Why would anyone try to compare Arrogate to AP (or any other horse of the past who will never face him in a live race).

Greatness in this game is only decided based on accomplishments and not by opinions, visual observations or speed figures.

Based on this, both CC and Arrogate are clearly inferior to American Pharoah who belongs in the very small set of the really great horses that can be counted in our fingers.

[GMB@BP]

Why would anyone try to compare Arrogate to AP (or any other horse of the past who will never face him in a live race).

Greatness in this game is only decided based on accomplishments and not by opinions, visual observations or speed figures.

Based on this, both CC and Arrogate are clearly inferior to American Pharoah who belongs in the very small set of the really great horses that can be counted in our fingers.


I think your confusing discussing what a horse has accomplished and how much talent a horse has. Apples and oranges.

In a sport with a clock and speed figures, video, past performances half the sport is comparing what A would do with B historically.

Why would anyone do it you say? What a boring sport it would be if we did not.

[DeltaLover]

I think your confusing discussing what a horse has accomplished and how much talent a horse has. Apples and oranges.
In a sport with a clock and speed figures, video, past performances half the sport is comparing what A would do with B historically.

My point is that statements like "how much talent a horse has" are nothing more than expressions of opinion that must be confirmed by accomplishments, otherwise they have no real value.

Why would anyone do it you say? What a boring sport it would be if
we did not.

Yes, it surely is an extremely boring sport (but the best form of gambling in parallel).

If it was not for the betting this game would had been extremely boring and meaningless and probably disappear.

I really do not understand the excitement that some racing fans(?) seem to express when it comes to a three sigma outlier (like CC or AP) who becomes dominant to his contemporaries! Statistics 101 is enough to explain why this is happening and there is absolutely nothing to be excited about...

[Tom]

Yes, it surely is an extremely boring sport

Not to a great many.

[Niko]

I find it difficult to compare great horses because you never know how well they'll run given the competition. Case in point - Songbird. All the sharpies knew her figures were too slow - until the level of competition was raised. The great ones always rise to the level of competition and find a win more than their fair share of races (when healthy).

Although I understood she was a great race horse, I lost a couple bets to Zenyatta for that reason.

It's even more difficult with horses over the decades with all the changes in training and medications. I do know from my dad however, that the older horses, athletes and actors/actresses are ALWAYS better than the current ones. Just imagine what they would do now facing such weak competition in an over saturated market. :lol: I hope I never get to that point but I'm already old enough to be AARP accredited and a cynical SOB

[Niko]

that said I was amazed by the ease of Chrome's recent wins and taken aback at Arrogate's last two races. What a sight to behold - a memory to hold for a while as a horse racing fan. (I think both jockeys gave great rides - if Chrome moves earlies so does Arrogate - no way Smith lets him get too far away)

[classhandicapper]

There have been other horses that have run one or two 120 Beyer figures whose overall record would not put them within shouting distance of American Pharoah's overall record. It's one thing to say that you think Arrogate's BC Classic was better than AP's or that his last 2 races have been great. But IMO, to be called great you have to sustain a high level of performance over one or more seasons. One or two great races does not make a horse an all time great.

The amazing thing about Arrogate is how quickly he developed and that he already had the look of a potentially really good horse even before he exploded forward in the Travers. So it seems likely he has more great races ahead of him. But he has to actually do it first.

[classhandicapper]

My point is that statements like "how much talent a horse has" are nothing more than expressions of opinion that must be confirmed by accomplishments, otherwise they have no real value.



I love this statement. I wish I said it. :lol:

It dovetails perfectly with my view that how good a horse is depends on whose figures you are looking at or whether you are making qualitative comparisons instead. It also fits nicely with the thread where I was arguing that it sometimes takes visual and other skills to determine if a horse might be able to run faster if tested against better competition.

The perfect example was American Pharoah.

Beyer had him kind of mediocre through most of his 3yo campaign and CJ had him really fast in the same races.

What you thought depended on whose figures you were looking at.

After initially betting against him in the Derby, I thought he was even better than he was showing in subsequent races. He eventually ran a 120 Beyer also.

These questions are answered by accomplishments over time. He ripped off a Triple Crown, Haskell, terrific race in defeat against a bias in the Travers, and then a huge win in fast time in the Classic, all after being the 2yo Champion also. That's a lot. It's a shame we didn't see him at 4 because he was still improving.

[bobphilo]

The perfect example was American Pharoah.

Beyer had him kind of mediocre through most of his 3yo campaign and CJ had him really fast in the same races.

What you thought depended on whose figures you were looking at.



Speed figures are not as arbitrary as you imply. Beyer and CJ use slightly different methodologies. CJ takes pace into account. Any reasonable figure handicapper who uses Beyers also takes pace and other factors into account and comes up with similar conclusions. Do not classify those who handicap with speed figures as slavish followers of the figures to the exclusion of other factors.

[cj]

Speed figures are not as arbitrary as you imply. Beyer and CJ use slightly different methodologies. CJ takes pace into account. Any reasonable figure handicapper who uses Beyers also takes pace and other factors into account and comes up with similar conclusions. Do not classify those who handicap with speed figures as slavish followers of the figures to the exclusion of other factors.

There were some people that are serious handicappers and that bet a lot of money swearing Pharoah was an undeserving Triple Crown winner and betting against him repeatedly because of low Beyer Speed Figures.

I'd have to pull his career chart up again and will when I get some time, but I don't think many of his figures were boosted much by pace.

[DeltaLover]

It dovetails perfectly with my view that how good a horse is depends on whose figures you are looking at or whether you are making qualitative comparisons instead.

Although I am firm believer in the value of figure based handicapping and the creation of custom figures lies in the core of my approach, I also believe that neither "talent" nor "greatness" can be decided upon them.

Winning a race, trumps any kind of "visual" observation or "number" estimation. What counts is who beat whom in the real world while "opinions" about track biases, impact of pace or even gallop outs are clearly of secondary importance (if any).

I can use this year's BC distaff as an example of this concept.

Discussing the race with a track buddy, I was trying to make a case of why betting against Songbird was the way to go enumerating several solid handicapping opinions based on experience, figures and historical facts. While my position was very well documented and seemed quite reasonable I've detected an unheard stubbornness from his part!

He kept on repeating that he believes in his two eyes who were telling him, that so far she had always winning very easily, running against the track bias and she had more to give and improve to win the race etc. In other words my friend was deceived by "visual handicapping", concluding that SB posses such a great "talent" to allow her to beat older mares despite the fact that the appeared to be clearly superior both in accomplishments and in "numbers" as well. As expected after the show down which proved me correct, his stubbornness continued to exist, this time coming up with a bunch of excuses about the loss of his heroine!

[Trips]

As expected after the show down which proved me correct, his stubbornness continued to exist, this time coming up with a bunch of excuses about the loss of his heroine!
Had Songbird won instead of losing by a few inches would that have proven him correct?

[Tom]

Sounds like the friend was correct, jut off an inch.
SB DID rise to the occasion and almost beat an older mare of great accomplishment.

[bobphilo]

There were some people that are serious handicappers and that bet a lot of money swearing Pharoah was an undeserving Triple Crown winner and betting against him repeatedly because of low Beyer Speed Figures.

I'd have to pull his career chart up again and will when I get some time, but I don't think many of his figures were boosted much by pace.
Let's no make this into a Beyers vs. TimeformUS commercial.
I have been a lonely defender of speed figures in general and TimeformUS in particular, in this discussion in which I have stated that CJ's figures were my prefered sourced, even when not adjusted for pace.

Funny how CJ has remained silent in this discussion until it was mentioned that Beyers adjusted for pace were similar to his. Yes, their are differences in their methodologies but TimeformUS itself states that they are different because of their adjustments for pace. Their words not mine.

Let us not get away from the broader issue here that posters are debunking speed figures in favor of their supposedly superior "visual impressions".

CJ, would you not be better served by responding to your detractors regarding speed figures than picking a bone with one of your defenders who argues that speed figures are not that arbitrary?

[DeltaLover]

Had Songbird won instead of losing by a few inches would that have proven him correct?

Given the odds SB was a terrible bet (Arrogate was also a terrible bet, despite the fact that he won the classic).

Had she won a few inches as you say would certainly not convert it to bargain. Note that I do not deny that she could have won the race, my point is that she was clearly over-bet based on those who believed in her "talent" and the easiness of her victories that could allow her to run faster if pressed a little harder.

[cj]

Given the odds SB was a terrible bet (Arrogate was also a terrible bet, despite the fact that he won the classic).

Had she won a few inches as you say would certainly not convert it to bargain. Note that I do not deny that she could have won the race, my point is that she was clearly over-bet based on those who believed in her "talent" and the easiness of her victories that could allow her to run faster if pressed a little harder.

I disagree Arrogate was a terrible bet. Only of of two horses were winning that race and at worst I had it 50/50, more like 60/40 for Arrogate though.

[DeltaLover]

I disagree Arrogate was a terrible bet. Only of of two horses were winning that race and at worst I had it 50/50, more like 60/40 for Arrogate though.

How about the others CJ? What % you give them as a group?

[classhandicapper]

Speed figures are not as arbitrary as you imply. Beyer and CJ use slightly different methodologies. CJ takes pace into account. Any reasonable figure handicapper who uses Beyers also takes pace and other factors into account and comes up with similar conclusions. Do not classify those who handicap with speed figures as slavish followers of the figures to the exclusion of other factors.

I've had as many as 5 sets of high quality figures on my desk at the same time. Even adjusted for differences in how they handle ground loss, weight, and pace, they are OFTEN very far apart on many horses in the same race. I didn't end up with the handicapping style I use on a whim, by using intuition, or because I have a theory etc... I ended up there by looking at lots of figures, testing them, comparing to other methods, seeing where they were good and where they had problems etc.. They obviously have a ton of predictive ability, but there are issues, weaknesses, inconsistencies etc.. It doesn't hurt to acknowledge that and try to find other ways of looking at things.

[classhandicapper]

Given the odds SB was a terrible bet (Arrogate was also a terrible bet, despite the fact that he won the classic).

Had she won a few inches as you say would certainly not convert it to bargain. Note that I do not deny that she could have won the race, my point is that she was clearly over-bet based on those who believed in her "talent" and the easiness of her victories that could allow her to run faster if pressed a little harder.

I don't know anyone that thought Songbird was a good betting value. I know a lot of people that thought she was much closer in ability to Beholder and Stellar Wind than the figures indicated.

[cj]

How about the others CJ? What % you give them as a group?

Very little, other than the top two falling down.

[DeltaLover]

Very little, other than the top two falling down.

If this is the case then you are probably correct that A was not a terrible bet.

[cj]

If this is the case then you are probably correct that A was not a terrible bet.

It was a weird weekend for me in that two low priced horses I had as overlays (Arrogate, Beholder) won and saved me from a losing weekend, while several long priced horses I had as overlays kept running well but losing. Those kinds of horses help me maintain some sanity. :)

[bobphilo]

I've had as many as 5 sets of high quality figures on my desk at the same time. Even adjusted for differences in how they handle ground loss, weight, and pace, they are OFTEN very far apart on many horses in the same race. I didn't end up with the handicapping style I use on a whim, by using intuition, or because I have a theory etc... I ended up there by looking at lots of figures, testing them, comparing to other methods, seeing where they were good and where they had problems etc.. They obviously have a ton of predictive ability, but there are issues, weaknesses, inconsistencies etc.. It doesn't hurt to acknowledge that and try to find other ways of looking at things.

Actually most speed figures tend to agree more than they disagree though some are better than others. So if there's a difference of opinion, all speed figures are unreliable? Every handicapper must pick the one he finds is better and go with it before abandoning the whole lot as you suggest.

[DeltaLover]

Every handicapper must pick the one he finds is better and go with it before abandoning the whole lot as you suggest.

I am not sure about this.

Yes, I understand that the way a speed figure is processed might differ, meaning that one can find a specific methodology to work best for him but I also believe that there has to exist some objective criterion to serve as a universal comparison of its quality. The problem is not so simple as it might appear at first glance as it hides some very challenging problems to be solved that require a lot of processing power and advanced algorithms of CS.

[classhandicapper]

I am not sure about this.

Yes, I understand that the way a speed figure is processed might differ, meaning that one can find a specific methodology to work best for him but I also believe that there has to exist some objective criterion to serve as a universal comparison of its quality. The problem is not so simple as it might appear at first glance as it hides some very challenging problems to be solved that require a lot of processing power and advanced algorithms of CS.

When I used to do comparative tests (albeit with small samples), all the figures produced similar results even though they disagreed a lot. So I came to the conclusion that if I focused a lot of attention on where they differed and could figure out who had it right, I would have an edge. Fortunately, my sanity survived the experience. ;)

[Cratos]

Impressive maiden win at Santa Anita Sunday. I know the pace was slow, but final time and come home time off the charts for a mdn win. Son of Unbridled Song out of Distorted Humor dam certainly has a bright future if stays sound. Baffert usually aggressive with his 3yo's so could show up in some of the lesser "Derby" races around.
I am belatedly congratulating you on your insightful post.

I have been on this forum for over 12 years (and in horseracing much longer); and this is one of the best posts that I have read about a young horse and you were very right.

[johnhenry81]

Yes Outofthebox, I must say you pegged him. His first race at Los Al a MSW he got beat, I cant find that video anywhere. Anyone have a link?


jh

[Spalding No!]

Yes Outofthebox, I must say you pegged him. His first race at Los Al a MSW he got beat, I cant find that video anywhere. Anyone have a link?
Sign up for a free account at www.calracing.com

They archive race replays, you can search by date, track, or horse. It used to have out of state too, or at least some out of state, but I believe its only CA races now.

[johnhenry81]

thanks Spalding, it certainly looked like a first race for a horse, but it also looked like it was the first race Martin Garcia ever rode.

[cj]

Let's no make this into a Beyers vs. TimeformUS commercial.
I have been a lonely defender of speed figures in general and TimeformUS in particular, in this discussion in which I have stated that CJ's figures were my prefered sourced, even when not adjusted for pace.

Funny how CJ has remained silent in this discussion until it was mentioned that Beyers adjusted for pace were similar to his. Yes, their are differences in their methodologies but TimeformUS itself states that they are different because of their adjustments for pace. Their words not mine.

Let us not get away from the broader issue here that posters are debunking speed figures in favor of their supposedly superior "visual impressions".

CJ, would you not be better served by responding to your detractors regarding speed figures than picking a bone with one of your defenders who argues that speed figures are not that arbitrary?

I didn't see this until now while searching for something else, sorry about that. It must have been down the page out of sight when I responded to the other posts.

I wasn't picking a bone with you at all. I have no idea how you got that idea. I was pointing out that American Pharoah, who had become the topic of the discussion I was responding to in my post, was not a horse that was boosted by pace. Pace wasn't the difference in the figures in his specific case.

I rarely even mention Beyer figures. I've made it a point to try not to do so since TimeformUS came to be. I almost never even see his figures unless it is a high profile race or horse and people are talking about them. Why you think I was making it a "commercial" I'm not sure. I'm proud to say I think I had that horse spot on while a person I respect immensely did not. And, he was a pretty historic horse---not some 10k claimer running on a Tuesday. That is the end of that story for me.

[classhandicapper]

I was pointing out that American Pharoah, who had become the topic of the discussion I was responding to in my post, was not a horse that was boosted by pace. Pace wasn't the difference in the figures in his specific case.

I'm proud to say I think I had that horse spot on while a person I respect immensely did not. And, he was a pretty historic horse---not some 10k claimer running on a Tuesday. That is the end of that story for me.

This is exactly what I was saying (and I agree that you got him right).

I've been whining for a long time that the process of making figures is sufficiently complex that even highly competent figure makers sometimes disagree on very high profile and consistent horses, let alone the more complex situations. And on top of that, even if you have the figure right, there are aspects of race development, surface, and jockey adjustments to that surface that also have difficult to measure impacts.

Once you recognize this, the next logical question for a handicapper to ask is whether there are any non time based techniques for evaluating performances that are either better or that can enhance the accuracy of figures.

That's where I've always brought in the classic ideas about class where if you know the typical pecking order on your circuit (where younger horse fit with older at various times of the year, where statebreds fit with open, where claimers fit vs. ALW etc..), if you know where the top horses in the country fit with each other, if you can tell the difference between weak and strong fields for a class etc... you can build a scale by looking at who is beating who by how much, which what trips, and how consistently and also evaluate horses really well. Building that scale and all the adjustments is no easier than building it for figures, but you can do it.

Then the question becomes how do these two pieces of information compliment each other.

[burnsy]

This is exactly what I was saying (and I agree that you got him right).

I've been whining for a long time that the process of making figures is sufficiently complex that even highly competent figure makers sometimes disagree on very high profile and consistent horses, let alone the more complex situations. And on top of that, even if you have the figure right, there are aspects of race development, surface, and jockey adjustments to that surface that also have difficult to measure impacts.

Once one recognizes this, the next logical question for a handicapper to ask is whether there are any non time based techniques for evaluating performances that are either better or that can enhance the accuracy of figures.

That's where I've always brought in the classic ideas about class where if you know the typical pecking order on your circuit (where younger horse fit with older at various times of the year, where statebreds fit with open, where claimers fit vs. ALW etc..), if you know where the top horses in the country fit with each other, if you can tell the difference between weak and strong fields for a class etc... you can build a scale by looking at who is beating who by how much, which what trips, and how consistently and also evaluate horses really well. Building that scale and all the adjustments is no easier than building it for figures, but you can do it.

Then the question becomes how do these two pieces of information compliment each other.

Great post! This is the question of handicapping in this era. One can't just spit out a figure and base the next race on that. It will work from time to time but there most likely won't be a price attached to that anyway. The other factor is when a horse "freaks" a huge number because the competition is weak or its just that horses day. Frosted ran this huge Met this year and people were ready to name him HOY, yet he can't keep up with the likes of CC, its been proven when they face off. He had the day of his life vs. lesser but he's no Chrome or Arrogate, I could care less what the "fig" says for one race. One has to determine "all of the above" as you stated.

I'm a NY guy, one of my favorite moves is a competitive NY Bred going from open company back to NY Breds. I've made a lot of money off of this move over the years.......sometimes they are bombs away. The opens are just harder even at lower classes its usually not even close, even out of the hard knocking open claiming ranks.

The figures are fine and useful but when I read the people that solely blurt them out as "gospel"......well, that's when I laugh or chuckle. This game will never be that easy.

[cj]

One can't just spit out a figure and base the next race on that. It will work from time to time but there most likely won't be a price attached to that anyway.

...

The figures are fine and useful but when I read the people that solely blurt them out as "gospel"......well, that's when I laugh or chuckle. This game will never be that easy.

I've seen this sort of post countless times, so let me ask a question. Who are the people that blurt them out as gospel and handicap using nothing but speed figures? What people assume a speed figure means that will be what is run next time out too?

I don't know any of these people and I'm obviously a strong believer in the value of good ratings. I deal with serious bettors that use numbers all the time, but none of them handicap like you seem to believe. Enlighten me. I want to get in the pools with them.

[the little guy]

I've seen this sort of post countless times, so let me ask a question. Who are the people that blurt them out as gospel and handicap using nothing but speed figures? What people assume a speed figure means that will be what is run next time out too?

I don't know any of these people and I'm obviously a strong believer in the value of good ratings. I deal with serious bettors that use numbers all the time, but none of them handicap like you seem to believe. Enlighten me. I want to get in the pools with them.


They exist slightly more often than horses that only run as fast as they have to in order to win ( ya know....like....never ).

But people love to reference both of them on message boards as they actually do exist.

[thaskalos]

I must say that I have, in fact, met a couple of horseplayers who kept saying that a horse was a "70", or an "85"...but those players didn't stay in the game long enough for me to get to know them by name.

[thespaah]

Great post! This is the question of handicapping in this era. One can't just spit out a figure and base the next race on that. It will work from time to time but there most likely won't be a price attached to that anyway. The other factor is when a horse "freaks" a huge number because the competition is weak or its just that horses day. Frosted ran this huge Met this year and people were ready to name him HOY, yet he can't keep up with the likes of CC, its been proven when they face off. He had the day of his life vs. lesser but he's no Chrome or Arrogate, I could care less what the "fig" says for one race. One has to determine "all of the above" as you stated.

I'm a NY guy, one of my favorite moves is a competitive NY Bred going from open company back to NY Breds. I've made a lot of money off of this move over the years.......sometimes they are bombs away. The opens are just harder even at lower classes its usually not even close, even out of the hard knocking open claiming ranks.

The figures are fine and useful but when I read the people that solely blurt them out as "gospel"......well, that's when I laugh or chuckle. This game will never be that easy.
I must say, this is one of my favorite angles in state bred races. I look for those which have been reasonably competitive vs open company. If there is value there, I bet them. I have made money this way.
There are times, though when these are bet pretty heavily. I tend to steer clear of low odds on these. Call it my cynic alarm.
Back on topic. I never really understood speed handicapping.
I guess I'm a rock head because to me speed is an indicator of how an object or an animal covers a distance in the shortest time.
And, with animals, it is never consistent. A horse could run a fast time one race then the following start not come close to that performance.
In my mind pace is the better indicator. A speed horse that controls the pace( runs at the front of the field and makes that last to the wire) of a race is more to my understanding.

[ReplayRandall]

I must say that I have, in fact, met a couple of horseplayers who kept saying that a horse was a "70", or an "85"...but those players didn't stay in the game long enough for me to get to know them by name.

Nah.....Those guys aren't talking about horses, 70 or 85 was their ages or IQ's, take your pick.

[thaskalos]

This is exactly what I was saying (and I agree that you got him right).

I've been whining for a long time that the process of making figures is sufficiently complex that even highly competent figure makers sometimes disagree on very high profile and consistent horses, let alone the more complex situations. And on top of that, even if you have the figure right, there are aspects of race development, surface, and jockey adjustments to that surface that also have difficult to measure impacts.

Once you recognize this, the next logical question for a handicapper to ask is whether there are any non time based techniques for evaluating performances that are either better or that can enhance the accuracy of figures.

That's where I've always brought in the classic ideas about class where if you know the typical pecking order on your circuit (where younger horse fit with older at various times of the year, where statebreds fit with open, where claimers fit vs. ALW etc..), if you know where the top horses in the country fit with each other, if you can tell the difference between weak and strong fields for a class etc... you can build a scale by looking at who is beating who by how much, which what trips, and how consistently and also evaluate horses really well. Building that scale and all the adjustments is no easier than building it for figures, but you can do it.

Then the question becomes how do these two pieces of information compliment each other.

Would I be out of line if I asked for a brief demonstration of this? Nothing complicated or revealing...mind you. Just the real-life handicapping of a race where this "pecking order" played the instrumental role in the selection process.

[classhandicapper]

Would I be out of line if I asked for a brief demonstration of this? Nothing complicated or revealing...mind you. Just the real-life handicapping of a race where this "pecking order" played the instrumental role in the selection process.

My class figures play a role in every race I bet.

If you want, I can give you the ratings I had for a specific race, but it's more about process than the ratings alone. The ratings are more or less like a Beyer figure, but not based on time.

I produce a bunch of automated reports to supplement my handicapping.

One is a class rating for each horse's last few races based on where he finished in the race in question (position and lengths), the class level, field size, and a few other details. One could consider that rating the equivalent of a Beyer figure but based on class instead of time.

One is a race strength rating. This one is derived by looking at the recent race record of the horses that ran in the top 4 positions of a race. It rates a race as above average, average, or below average compared to what is typically seen at that level (typical has been calculated by looking at 1000s of races). This report flashes horses that are coming out of especially strong or weak races relative to the official class designation. It supplements the previous rating.

Once I have those ratings, I go to the charts via Formulator and take a better look at the fields these horses are coming out of, especially the ones that were flashed as coming out of especially strong or weak fields.

It's at that point that I start looking at previous trips from personal notes to supplement the class data. This is no different than what someone who uses Beyer figures might do.

Then I start looking at today's projected pace and trip from a combination of reports and analysis.

If my conclusion in a non time based way is very similar to a time based conclusion, there not much else to think about other than prices and if I want to bet.

If they differ significantly, I try to figure out which is more likely to be correct. In some race types I have more confidence in time based ratings and in some I have more confidence in class based ratings. Same with some specific situations.

The point being that time based figures are sometimes WRONG and at other times not representative of the ability of the horses because of very subtle issues related to the surface and race development that are close to impossible to quantify.

When I have tried to combine both into a single rating using a formula, the combination picked more winners than either could on its own, but the ROI dropped.

The automated aspect of this (including testing) is ongoing. I am always trying to improve the ratings to better match the way I think and to correct my thinking when I find out I was wrong based on test results. I don't have theories anymore. I only have data. I am glad many people reject this line of thinking or think it's outdated. It makes my life easier.

[classhandicapper]

I've seen this sort of post countless times, so let me ask a question. Who are the people that blurt them out as gospel and handicap using nothing but speed figures? What people assume a speed figure means that will be what is run next time out too?

I don't know any of these people and I'm obviously a strong believer in the value of good ratings. I deal with serious bettors that use numbers all the time, but none of them handicap like you seem to believe. Enlighten me. I want to get in the pools with them.

I don't think it's so much that experienced players bet blindly on figures (though you can argue that Sheets guys come very close to that other than looking for patterns in their figures). It's that "time" makes up most of the thinking about how to measure performances. They may add mental or actual adjustments for trips, but if the figure itself was wrong or misleading to start with you will still be wrong no matter how good you are at adjusting for trips.

Back to your original comment.

Some people thought Paharoah was a mediocre Triple Crown winner because his figures were mediocre even after adjusted for trips (in some cases like the Belmont maybe even more so).

On your figures he was a spectacular Triple Crown winner.

On another set he was somewhere in between.

Anyone that uses figures that had a definitive opinion was basing it partly on the figures they were using. That means a ton of people were wrong.

Leaving aside everything else that we agree goes into handicapping, if there's that wide a disagreement on the figures for a horse like that where everyone is paying close attention and double checking everything, imagine the typical claimer.

[classhandicapper]

Anyone that uses figures that had a definitive opinion was basing it partly on the figures they were using. That means a ton of people were wrong.

Just to add one last thing.

I'm not even proclaiming with 100% certainty that I know whose figures were right. I am saying that my subjective class based analysis agreed with you. All year long I thought the best members of the crop were very good and it soon became apparent he was WAY better than them.

[thaskalos]

My class figures play a role in every race I bet.

If you want, I can give you the ratings I had for a specific race, but it's more about process than the ratings alone. The ratings are more or less like a Beyer figure, but not based on time.

I produce a bunch of automated reports to supplement my handicapping.

One is a class rating for each horse's last few races based on where he finished in the race in question (position and lengths), the class level, field size, and a few other details. One could consider that rating the equivalent of a Beyer figure but based on class instead of time.

One is a race strength rating. This one is derived by looking at the recent race record of the horses that ran in the top 4 positions of a race. It rates a race as above average, average, or below average compared to what is typically seen at that level (typical has been calculated by looking at 1000s of races). This report flashes horses that are coming out of especially strong or weak races relative to the official class designation. It supplements the previous rating.

Once I have those ratings, I go to the charts via Formulator and take a better look at the fields these horses are coming out of, especially the ones that were flashed as coming out of especially strong or weak fields.

It's at that point that I start looking at previous trips from personal notes to supplement the class data. This is no different than what someone who uses Beyer figures might do.

Then I start looking at today's projected pace and trip from a combination of reports and analysis.

If my conclusion in a non time based way is very similar to a time based conclusion, there not much else to think about other than prices and if I want to bet.

If they differ significantly, I try to figure out which is more likely to be correct. In some race types I have more confidence in time based ratings and in some I have more confidence in class based ratings. Same with some specific situations.

The point being that time based figures are sometimes WRONG and at other times not representative of the ability of the horses because of very subtle issues related to the surface and race development that are close to impossible to quantify.

When I have tried to combine both into a single rating using a formula, the combination picked more winners than either could on its own, but the ROI dropped.

The automated aspect of this (including testing) is ongoing. I am always trying to improve the ratings to better match the way I think and to correct my thinking when I find out I was wrong based on test results. I don't have theories anymore. I only have data. I am glad many people reject this line of thinking or think it's outdated. It makes my life easier.

When you say that the figures "sometimes are wrong and at other times not representative of the ability of the horses"...aren't you expecting a bit too much from something that can only be called a PIECE of the handicapping puzzle? If a readily available piece of printed material was always a true representation of the ability of the horses...then, what sort of game would we have?

Yes...any given figure could be wrong at any given time...because of irregularities which are beyond anyone's control. But the same could be said of "class figures", "form assessments", "replay reviews", "paddock inspections"...etc. ALL these handicapping aspects could mislead us at any given time...but to flatly call them "wrong" trivializes the task that these handicapping "tools" are asked to perform. Is a speed or pace figure "wrong"...simply because a horse fails to repeat it? Is a class-figure "wrong"...because the "class horse" was trounced by its seemingly cheaper counterpart? Is our form-figure "wrong"...because a seemingly razor-sharp horse unexpectedly finished up the track, without the slightest excuse?

IMO...things are seldom what they appear to be in this game...and chaos dictates the results more often than any of us would like. The problem isn't that our handicapping tools are "wrong", or "not representative of the horses' ability". The real problem is that we expect a degree of "predictability " from our chosen methods which they can't possibly deliver. A chaotic game does not lend itself to be neatly defined or perfectly understood by pre-determined rules or neat measuring sticks. That's why they call it "gambling".

[cj]

If you want, I can give you the ratings I had for a specific race, but it's more about process than the ratings alone. The ratings are more or less like a Beyer figure, but not based on time.



I want.

How about the Hollywood Derby?

[rsetup]

When you say that the figures "sometimes are wrong and at other times not representative of the ability of the horses"...aren't you expecting a bit too much from something that can only be called a PIECE of the handicapping puzzle? If a readily available piece of printed material was always a true representation of the ability of the horses...then, what sort of game would we have?

Yes...any given figure could be wrong at any given time...because of irregularities which are beyond anyone's control. But the same could be said of "class figures", "form assessments", "replay reviews", "paddock inspections"...etc. ALL these handicapping aspects could mislead us at any given time...but to flatly call them "wrong" trivializes the task that these handicapping "tools" are asked to perform. Is a speed or pace figure "wrong"...simply because a horse fails to repeat it? Is a class-figure "wrong"...because the "class horse" was trounced by its seemingly cheaper counterpart? Is our form-figure "wrong"...because a seemingly razor-sharp horse unexpectedly finished up the track, without the slightest excuse?

IMO...things are seldom what they appear to be in this game...and chaos dictates the results more often than any of us would like. The problem isn't that our handicapping tools are "wrong", or "not representative of the horses' ability". The real problem is that we expect a degree of "predictability " from our chosen methods which they can't possibly deliver. A chaotic game does not lend itself to be neatly defined or perfectly understood by pre-determined rules or neat measuring sticks. That's why they call it "gambling".

They're WRONG for 2 reasons, IMO.

1- as best as I can determine, none are developed using a remotely 'rigorous' statistical method, as quite a bit is left to the figure maker in the process. If time is the determining factor, then why not build a model based on the actual time, with appropriate statistical adjustments, and produce a figure for that race rather than a projected figure based on figures that the horses in that race (and others in the card) have run? If the race is slow for the class, it's slow. Note it as a slow race and use other methods to determine why.

2- Time is not the best way to capture what happens in a race -- these are not match races. How a horse runs is determined by how the other horses in the race run. This is a bit difficult to classify; a bit more difficult than copying numbers (time). You can build the best model but if your data isn't representative then your results won't be a predictive as you'd want. And then you'd have to rely on the chaos excuse you seem to be fixated on. The more representative the variables, the more predictive the model. Surely there are more complicated events than horse races that have be captured to a significantly greater degree by models. Which takes us back to 1.

And then we have the case of the in denial figurecentric handicapper who understands enough to notice the flaws in figures yet follows a similar path by creating class figures. :bang:

Just my $.02.

[thaskalos]

They're WRONG for 2 reasons, IMO.

1- as best as I can determine, none are developed using a remotely 'rigorous' statistical method, as quite a bit is left to the figure maker in the process. If time is the determining factor, then why not build a model based on the actual time, with appropriate statistical adjustments, and produce a figure for that race rather than a projected figure based on figures that the horses in that race (and others in the card) have run? If the race is slow for the class, it's slow. Note it as a slow race and use other methods to determine why.

2- Time is not the best way to capture what happens in a race -- these are not match races. How a horse runs is determined by how the other horses in the race run. This is a bit difficult to classify; a bit more difficult than copying numbers (time). You can build the best model but if your data isn't representative then your results won't be a predictive as you'd want. And then you'd have to rely on the chaos excuse you seem to be fixated on. The more representative the variables, the more predictive the model. Surely there are more complicated events than horse races that have be captured to a significantly greater degree by models. Which takes us back to 1.

And then we have the case of the in denial figurecentric handicapper who understands enough to notice the flaws in figures yet follows a similar path by creating class figures. :bang:

Just my $.02.

I agree with your first point. The figures should be calculated without the "projection" methods of the figure-maker...which attempt to turn these speed figures into "ability times". It shouldn't matter what prior figures a particular horse has run; if its last race was "slow", then list it as SLOW...and let the individual handicapper sort things out...by assessing the horse's true ability by consulting the horse's overall record.

But this same observation applies to your second point as well. SO WHAT if these aren't "match races"...and the horse's individual performance depends on how the OTHER horses in the race run? The figure-maker should supply the figures for each individual horse...and it should be left up to the individual HANDICAPPER to determine how each horse was affected by the "flow" of the race. If the figure-maker cannot be trusted to make accurate "projected" figures...then he shouldn't be trusted to make "race flow" adjustments either. He should just supply the "raw speed figures" of each horse to the customer...and leave the "adjustments" to HIM.

[cj]

People making figures without considering past performance of the horses will make way, way, way more bad figures than those that do. If you don't believe that, you've never really made speed figures.

[classhandicapper]

I want.

How about the Hollywood Derby?

The Hollywood Derby wouldn't be very instructive because so many of the horses are coming out of the same races. My handicapping of that race will be way more dependent on my analysis of prior trips, projected trips, and what direction the horses are heading than numbers. My numbers would basically be saying the same thing as any set of speed Beyers but on another scale.

[classhandicapper]

1. When you say that the figures "sometimes are wrong and at other times not representative of the ability of the horses"...aren't you expecting a bit too much from something that can only be called a PIECE of the handicapping puzzle?

2. But the same could be said of "class figures", "form assessments", "replay reviews", "paddock inspections"...etc. ALL these handicapping aspects could mislead us at any given time...but to flatly call them "wrong" trivializes the task that these handicapping "tools" are asked to perform.

3. Is a speed or pace figure "wrong"...simply because a horse fails to repeat it? Is a class-figure "wrong"...because the "class horse" was trounced by its seemingly cheaper counterpart? Is our form-figure "wrong"...because a seemingly razor-sharp horse unexpectedly finished up the track, without the slightest excuse?


1. I am simply describing a reality about the tools we have to work with.

2. Absolutely agree and never said anything else. My class analysis is simply another way of looking at reality with a different set of strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes the automated figures are ridiculously wrong. My more detailed analysis of the quality of the field and what happened overrides them.

3. I consider something wrong when the preponderance of evidence from future results suggests a race was better/worse than the figure assigned. In many cases I know beforehand and bet against a speed figure because I'm pretty sure it's bogus or I look at my automated class rating and laugh at it because it's so obviously wrong.

Imaging you were looking at 2 sets of speed figures that disagreed about a few horses in a race. Not only would you go through your entire handicapping process, you might also feel compelled to dig a little deeper to try to figure out what happened in that race and which figure is right. That's what I used to do. Now substitute a class analysis for one set of speed figures and that's what I am doing.

[classhandicapper]

And then we have the case of the in denial figurecentric handicapper who understands enough to notice the flaws in figures yet follows a similar path by creating class figures. :bang:

Just my $.02.

I am well aware of the flaws in both methods.

IMO you need some measurement of the quality of the participants in prior races (and today's race) BEFORE you start analyzing what actually happened within those races or what is likely to happen today .

What good is knowing that some horse dueled hard 3 wide first turn, put away the other speeds, repulsed a bid on the 2nd turn, and then held off the closers on a day where speed was not particularly good if today he is running against a horse that had an easier trip last time in another race but is simply better than him anyway?

What class and speed measurements are doing is determining the generalized abilities of the horses from different races.

What trip handicapping is doing is adding the required color that allows you to get more specific about why they may have run fast/slow in a particular race or why horse A beat horse B last time but horse B was actually better.

In that debate about "general" measurements I am suggesting that a class analysis adds a different view of reality than speed figures that is sometimes more accurate than the speed figures (but sometimes not). I am suggesting that since almost everyone is using similar prepackaged numbers, a class analysis combined with trip put you in an area where imo there is more value.

[cj]

They're WRONG for 2 reasons, IMO.

1- as best as I can determine, none are developed using a remotely 'rigorous' statistical method, as quite a bit is left to the figure maker in the process. If time is the determining factor, then why not build a model based on the actual time, with appropriate statistical adjustments, and produce a figure for that race rather than a projected figure based on figures that the horses in that race (and others in the card) have run? If the race is slow for the class, it's slow. Note it as a slow race and use other methods to determine why.

2- Time is not the best way to capture what happens in a race -- these are not match races. How a horse runs is determined by how the other horses in the race run. This is a bit difficult to classify; a bit more difficult than copying numbers (time). You can build the best model but if your data isn't representative then your results won't be a predictive as you'd want. And then you'd have to rely on the chaos excuse you seem to be fixated on. The more representative the variables, the more predictive the model. Surely there are more complicated events than horse races that have be captured to a significantly greater degree by models. Which takes us back to 1.

And then we have the case of the in denial figurecentric handicapper who understands enough to notice the flaws in figures yet follows a similar path by creating class figures. :bang:

Just my $.02.

I'd love to hear an example of how you are going to use rigorous statistical methods to make a speed figure for a race without using the history of the horse. I'm all ears.

[classhandicapper]

I agree with your first point. The figures should be calculated without the "projection" methods of the figure-maker...which attempt to turn these speed figures into "ability times". It shouldn't matter what prior figures a particular horse has run; if its last race was "slow", then list it as SLOW...and let the individual handicapper sort things out...by assessing the horse's true ability by consulting the horse's overall record.
.

The problem is that tracks change speed during the course of the day, the wind changes, sometimes longer races are different than short races etc.. So how the speed figure maker interprets these things will alter the figures he produces (and that doesn't even count the pace and trip issues rsetup is talking about)

This is the crux of the reason why I am suggesting looking at things from another reality also.

I don't care which way the wind was blowing, whether the track changed speeds, whether sprints were faster than routes etc... or how any figure maker might have interpreted the day.

I care that A beat B by 2 1/2 Lengths in a race where B was used hard early and A sat in the pocket and cut the corner. Now I have to compare the quality of that field to another one and the trips in that race.

I have removed all the complications of making figures from the equation. Of course, I have added a new set. I actually have to determine the quality of both fields without looking at the times. That's another tough task, but it gives me a view of reality that is sometimes more correct at a bigger price because there are fewer people occupying my space.

[cj]

The Hollywood Derby wouldn't be very instructive because so many of the horses are coming out of the same races. My handicapping of that race will be way more dependent on my analysis of prior trips, projected trips, and what direction the horses are heading than numbers. My numbers would basically be saying the same thing as any set of speed Beyers but on another scale.

So what is a good one?

[classhandicapper]

So what is a good one?

Here's a better idea.

Rather than give you the ratings for individual horses within a race, how about I give you the rating I gave to a particular race and whether I had it as strong/average/weak for the class. That's actually more instructive because a lot of the time I bet against the highest rated horse in a race anyway due to trips, setups etc...

For example.

The Hill Prince was a Grade 3 turf race for 3yos in October.

Someone just looking at the class of the race in the DRF would only have that information.

I had the race rated as 103.12/+5.5 and 104.78/+7.1

The bigger part of that is the +5.5 and the +7.1.

What that is saying is to me is that the Hill Price was stronger than the average 500K Grade 3 turf race for 3yos at that time of year.

That would immediately flag me to take a better look at who else was in that race to see if my subjective analysis agrees with the automated analysis. I just did that and I agree it was better than a Grade 3 race.

I would then use that info in evaluating their finishes, trips, etc... relative to horses coming out of different fields that would also be rated.

[cj]

There are horses from that race in the Hollywood Derby, so would be good to see how they shape up against the others in the field. But you already nixed that idea. :)

[LottaKash]

I'd love to hear an example of how you are going to use rigorous statistical methods to make a speed figure for a race without using the history of the horse. I'm all ears.

Me too Please !.... :jump:

[classhandicapper]

There are horses from that race in the Hollywood Derby, so would be good to see how they shape up against the others in the field. But you already nixed that idea. :)

That's why I picked it.

The Twilight Derby was rated as 104.95/+6.3 and 105.41/+6.7.

It was also strong for a 200K Grade 2 race on turf for 3yos at this time of year. On automated ratings it's hair above the Hill Prince, but subjectively I think the Hill Prince may have been a hair better. Too close to quibble.

Monster Bea ran in both.

My conclusion is that this is a damn solid field and a damn tough race to handicap, but you didn't need me for that. :lol: I'll be looking at replays later.

[thaskalos]

People making figures without considering past performance of the horses will make way, way, way more bad figures than those that do. If you don't believe that, you've never really made speed figures.

I am well-aware of the well-documented advantage of the projected figures over the "computerized" ones...but the "projection" method brings forth the uneasiness of not knowing if the "fault" with a particular figure lies with the horses in the particular race...or with the figure-maker. The "figure-maker effect" is most noticeable when the handicapper compares two sets of commercially available speed figures from two different figure-makers, and he notices wide areas of disagreement between these two sets of figures. Or...when the figure of a particular race is much different than the figure assigned -- by the same figure-maker -- to a race which was run in similar time one hour prior, or hence.

IMO...there is enough uncertainty in the game already. The player doesn't need to be burdened by the added uncertainty of not knowing how "competent" the different figure-makers are in the art of "projection". I, personally, would welcome a "purely speed-based number"...without the projections of someone else. In that case, I would be aware of the figure's deficiencies...and I would deal with the situation by making my OWN "projections". As it stands right now...no one knows what the figure-maker's projections are based on...or how to verify their "accuracy".

And another question, which I've been puzzled by for years:

Both the Brisnet and the Equibase figures claim to be "computer-generated, pure-speed figures, without any human projections added"...and yet...these two sets of numbers disagree GREATLY with one another, when they are compared to each other in the course of handicapping a race. I just don't understand how that is possible.

[cj]

I am well-aware of the well-documented advantage of the projected figures over the "computerized" ones...but the "projection" method brings forth the uneasiness of not knowing if the "fault" with a particular figure lies with the horses in the particular race...or with the figure-maker. The "figure-maker effect" is most noticeable when the handicapper compares two sets of commercially available speed figures from two different figure-makers, and he notices wide areas of disagreement between these two sets of figures. Or...when the figure of a particular race is much different than the figure assigned -- by the same figure-maker -- to a race which was run in similar time one hour prior, or hence.

IMO...there is enough uncertainty in the game already. The player doesn't need to be burdened by the added uncertainty of not knowing how "competent" the different figure-makers are in the art of "projection". I, personally, would welcome a "purely speed-based number"...without the projections of someone else. In that case, I would be aware of the figure's deficiencies...and I would deal with the situation by making my OWN "projections". As it stands right now...no one knows what the figure-maker's projections are based on...or how to verify their "accuracy".

And another question, which I've been puzzled by for years:

Both the Brisnet and the Equibase figures claim to be "computer-generated, pure-speed figures, without any human projections added"...and yet...these two sets of numbers disagree GREATLY with one another, when they are compared to each other in the course of handicapping a race. I just don't understand how that is possible.

What if the figure maker is using a set of strict rules to make his decisions?

I can't answer you about Brisnet and Equibase. Obviously something gives. I'm just saying that is no way to just take race times and nothing else and make figures. The results will be garbage. It isn't far off the old DRF Speed Rating and/or Track Variant.

[classhandicapper]

If anyone is interested in seeing Hayabusa One's last race in Europe before coming to the US here it is. He's the horse in the maroon on the outside 1st turn .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lECRuWP71Hk

I'm not saying it's necessarily very relevant to today's race but I think it's worth watching given that we were taking about the Hollywood Derby and he's also in the race.

[Tom]

Both the Brisnet and the Equibase figures claim to be "computer-generated, pure-speed figures, without any human projections added"...and yet...these two sets of numbers disagree GREATLY with one another, when they are compared to each other in the course of handicapping a race. I just don't understand how that is possible.

Different scales, different speed charts, different par charts......

[cj]

If anyone is interested in seeing Hayabusa One's last race in Europe before coming to the US here it is. He's the horse in the maroon on the outside 1st turn .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lECRuWP71Hk

I'm not saying it's necessarily very relevant to today's race but I think it's worth watching given that we were taking about the Hollywood Derby and he's also in the race.

Did your class ratings point to Annals of Time?

[Cratos]

Me too Please !.... :jump:
I didn’t read the poster, “rsetup’,” post the same as you and I think that anyone who say: “………how you are going to use rigorous statistical methods to make a speed figure for a race without using the history of the horse” didn’t get or didn’t understand his first assertion.

From what I understood from his post in his questioning of the apparent none use of a “rigorous' statistical method” in figure making is that statistical techniques like exponential smoothing and multiple linear regression appear not to be used in figure making.

This claim might not be true, but it can be easily proven right or wrong by the figure maker if he/she would publish the accuracy of their projections.

All projections are based on underlying assumptions; and these assumptions determine projection results to a large extent.

It is important that horseplayers’ who are users of those projections understand the assumptions to determine the acceptability of the projections for their waging decisions.

The accuracy measurement of the figure makers’ projection should be expressed as an average absolute value of errors over past projections in percentage terms to be seen by the wagering horseplayer.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Did your class ratings point to Annals of Time?

Mine did.

I also had the Exacta.

I even posted my selections prior to the race. :ThmbUp:

[cj]

Mine did.

I also had the Exacta.

I even posted my selections prior to the race. :ThmbUp:

Great, I'm happy for you. But posting nothing but numbers with no explanation doesn't really invite any discussion, sorry. I'm sure you were complimented in the Selections forum, no need to shop for them here.

[cj]

I didn’t read the poster, “rsetup’,” post the same as you and I think that anyone who say: “………how you are going to use rigorous statistical methods to make a speed figure for a race without using the history of the horse” didn’t get or didn’t understand his first assertion.

From what I understood from his post in his questioning of the apparent none use of a “rigorous' statistical method” in figure making is that statistical techniques like exponential smoothing and multiple linear regression appear not to be used in figure making.

This claim might not be true, but it can be easily proven right or wrong by the figure maker if he/she would publish the accuracy of their projections.

All projections are based on underlying assumptions; and these assumptions determine projection results to a large extent.

It is important that horseplayers’ who are users of those projections understand the assumptions to determine the acceptability of the projections for their waging decisions.

The accuracy measurement of the figure makers’ projection should be expressed as an average absolute value of errors over past projections in percentage terms to be seen by the wagering horseplayer.

Where and how, exactly, would that be displayed in past performances?

I'm pretty sure I understood what rsetup was saying. I just don't agree. How do you know a race is "slow" if you have no frame of reference of what the horses should be expected to run? He says slow for the class, which in my opinion, is much more error prone than projections.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Great, I'm happy for you. But posting nothing but numbers with no explanation doesn't really invite any discussion, sorry. I'm sure you were complimented in the Selections forum, no need to shop for them here.

Oh...., I can give you my reasoning, but you are WAY smarter than I am and I'm not nearly as good at reading into a race such as the Hollywood Derby after having actually done work to get it done.

Amirite? You smarter than me, right?

[cj]

Oh...., I can give you my reasoning, but you are WAY smarter than I am and I'm not nearly as good at reading into a race such as the Hollywood Derby after having actually done work to get it done.

Amirite? You smarter than me, right?

I don't know you at all, how can I possibly answer that question?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

I don't know you at all, how can I possibly answer that question?

Who cares?

You gave this BS answer.

Great, I'm happy for you. But posting nothing but numbers with no explanation doesn't really invite any discussion, sorry. I'm sure you were complimented in the Selections forum, no need to shop for them here.

Obviously I'm not at your level and am below you.

[cj]

Who cares?

You gave this BS answer.

Great, I'm happy for you. But posting nothing but numbers with no explanation doesn't really invite any discussion, sorry. I'm sure you were complimented in the Selections forum, no need to shop for them here.

Obviously I'm not at your level and am below you.

I'll give you a straight question, hoping for a straight answer. What exactly was the point of your post? You're being a tool in my opinion, but maybe I'm missing something. It wouldn't be the first time.

[steveb]

People making figures without considering past performance of the horses will make way, way, way more bad figures than those that do. If you don't believe that, you've never really made speed figures.

i have the utmost respect for you, but disagree with what you are saying.
i take NO notice of what happened in the past, when making numbers.
and i most certainly have made speed figures....and i know they are better than most(or maybe all, but i would leave others to be the judge of that) because of how it is done, and the fact there is NO subjectivity.
the subjectivity can come later.

i have not seen this thread previously, and have only read this page(13), and thought rsetup at post 181 was very good, although i would ignore his last sentence, as i think he would be ignorant of some things there.

[cj]

i have the utmost respect for you, but disagree with what you are saying.
i take NO notice of what happened in the past, when making numbers.
and i most certainly have made speed figures....and i know they are better than most(or maybe all, but i would leave others to be the judge of that) because of how it is done, and the fact there is NO subjectivity.
the subjectivity can come later.

i have not seen this thread previously, and have only read this page(13), and thought rsetup at post 181 was very good, although i would ignore his last sentence, as i think he would be ignorant of some things there.

To be fair, I'm guessing you haven't dealt with many dirt tracks. It is a different ballgame when it comes to assessing track speed---and that is even before the numerous timing errors we have in this country.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he wrote, but you have to have some sort of baseline. Using race designations (class, as he says) is particularly tough to do these days. It could take years to get even remotely close to representative sample sizes the way races are written at the current time in this country at all the different tracks.

[steveb]

To be fair, I'm guessing you haven't dealt with many dirt tracks. It is a different ballgame when it comes to assessing track speed---and that is even before the numerous timing errors we have in this country.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he wrote, but you have to have some sort of baseline. Using race designations (class, as he says) is particularly tough to do these days. It could take years to get even remotely close to representative sample sizes the way races are written at the current time in this country at all the different tracks.

well i have actually.

awt in hong kong
the 10 jra tracks in japan all have dirt racing for usually half the card.
korea races on dirt.
hell, we even have one track in australia that is dirt, that becomes turf in the straight!!....how weird is that?

the difference between turf and dirt are in the relativities, as far as i can see.
but essentially it is still horses trying to go from 'a' to 'b' in the most efficient manner.
there are significant differences certainly, but the data will find them for you.


anyway, on reflection, it is probably not quite right to say there is no subjectivity.
insofar as i might use the official ratings of the horses to figure the 'expected' class(speed) of the race, via regression.
so, yes there is baselines, the above being just one of them

but it is true that i don't even need to know who is running, to figure the numbers.

for the timing errors, we would have had people timing everything ourselves. so it was not an issue.
hong kong is the ONLY place i would trust, but even that would get checked.

[cj]

well i have actually.

awt in hong kong
the 10 jra tracks in japan all have dirt racing for usually half the card.
korea races on dirt.
hell, we even have one track in australia that is dirt, that becomes turf in the straight!!....how weird is that?

the difference between turf and dirt are in the relativities, as far as i can see.
but essentially it is still horses trying to go from 'a' to 'b' in the most efficient manner.
there are significant differences certainly, but the data will find them for you.


anyway, on reflection, it is probably not quite right to say there is no subjectivity.
insofar as i might use the official ratings of the horses to figure the 'expected' class(speed) of the race, via regression.
so, yes there is baselines, the above being just one of them

but it is true that i don't even need to know who is running, to figure the numbers.

for the timing errors, we would have had people timing everything ourselves. so it was not an issue.
hong kong is the ONLY place i would trust, but even that would get checked.

I think we agree mostly. The guys here seem to champion just looking at the time, assigning the value some chart or program or spreadsheet dictates, and use it as gospel. That is essentially what the DRF Speed Rating does and it is simply a very poor rating that nobody takes seriously, or at least should take seriously.

[steveb]

yes, i can buy that.

[Cratos]

Where and how, exactly, would that be displayed in past performances?

I'm pretty sure I understood what rsetup was saying. I just don't agree. How do you know a race is "slow" if you have no frame of reference of what the horses should be expected to run? He says slow for the class, which in my opinion, is much more error prone than projections.
I don’t know what you know or don’t know, but from your response you appear not to understand what the poster “rsetup” was addressing and it wasn’t data acquisition, but lack of rigorous analytics in the speed figure process.

It is not whether a horse is “fast” or “slow”, but why is it “fast” or “slow” and that comes from the postulations for the projections.

Incidentally, no one is championing “time”; just better analytics.

[cj]

I don’t know what you know or don’t know, but from your response you appear not to understand what the poster “rsetup” was addressing and it wasn’t data acquisition, but lack of rigorous analytics in the speed figure process.

It is not whether a horse is “fast” or “slow”, but why is it “fast” or “slow” and that comes from the postulations for the projections.

Incidentally, no one is championing “time”; just better analytics.

OK Cratos have a good evening.

[CincyHorseplayer]

CJ is and has been championing accuracy. That it is not seen is laughable.

[classhandicapper]

Did your class ratings point to Annals of Time?

Like I said earlier, I had the Hill Prince and Twilight Derby similar, but after subjectively analyzing the two races I thought Hill Prince was a hair the better race. After watching the replays, I thought Beach Patrol was the best of the group out of the Hill Prince (ground loss used early) and likely to get a decent trip from the rail. I had some negative stats on the rail at 9F at DMR recently, but I disregarded them.

I played Beach Patrol at 7-2.

Annals of Time was coming out of the same race and had finished right there, but imo he was not as good as Beach Patrol that day. The positive he had going for him was that he was very lightly raced and more eligible to improve. If he was a bigger price I may have used him from way outside. If I had played exactas he would have been one of the horses I used.

I have the watch the replay, but live it looked to me like Annals of Time actually wound up with the better trip than Beach Patrol. I thought BP could get a nice pocket trip from the rail and AOT was going to loose a lot of ground. It Didn't work out that way. I'm satisfied with my play. If had I gotten into exactas I would have had to use the winner of the Twilight Derby and maybe even a couple of other horses. I saw no point to that. I didn't hate any of them. I just liked BP best off his last and his likely trip.

[classhandicapper]

To be fair, I'm guessing you haven't dealt with many dirt tracks. It is a different ballgame when it comes to assessing track speed---and that is even before the numerous timing errors we have in this country.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he wrote, but you have to have some sort of baseline. Using race designations (class, as he says) is particularly tough to do these days. It could take years to get even remotely close to representative sample sizes the way races are written at the current time in this country at all the different tracks.

I agree with all of this.

In the US, if you didn't use some subjectivity you'd wind up with a lot of really bad figures.

The tough part is determining when a race that came up fast/slow for that class did so because of the ability of the horses, a change in the speed of the track, an extreme pace, some subtle aspect of race development that impacted the time, or a combination of several of those things.

That's the basic reason I am advocating an alternative view to supplement the analysis (also with flaws, but different ones).

[thaskalos]

I think we agree mostly. The guys here seem to champion just looking at the time, assigning the value some chart or program or spreadsheet dictates, and use it as gospel. That is essentially what the DRF Speed Rating does and it is simply a very poor rating that nobody takes seriously, or at least should take seriously.

I suspect that I might be one the "guys here" that you are referring to...and I wonder where I stated that I take ANYTHING as "gospel" in this game.

Here is the point that I am trying to make:

I have been handicapping with figures for a very long time...and I don't particularly like the path down which figure-making has been traveling as of late. It's as if the figure-maker today has a particular speed figure in mind BEFORE the race in question is run...and when the race registers a figure OUTSIDE the range that the figure-maker projects, the figure-maker immediately suspects that something of an "irregular" nature has occurred in the race, for which a figure "adjustment" is warranted. The prevailing thought in the figure-maker's mind seems to be that every single speed rating that the horse registers must be a "true representation" of the horse's overall ability...as if "inconsistency" isn't the staple of a racehorse's nature.

A 6 furlong $7,500 claiming race is run at the Fairgrounds, in perfect weather...in the time of 1:11 flat. The winner of the race receives a Beyer figure of 80. Two races later, with the weather still remaining perfect, a 6 furlong Allowance race is run in the identical time of 1:11 flat...but the Allowance winner receives a Beyer figure of 89. Now...9 points at the 6 furlong distance equates to almost 4 lengths...an ETERNITY in a game where the winner is often decided by necks and noses. Did something happen to the track prior to the running of the Allowance race...or is the figure-maker simply trying to "make sense" of something that isn't readily explainable?

I have seen this scenario play itself out many times...and have even posted about it here several times. Invariably...someone "in the know" (Classhandicapper, for instance) will attempt to explain to me that "the track may have changed in the last hour"...or "the wind currents may have shifted"...or "the pace and race-flow may have conspired against the Allowance race's final clocking"...etc.

I listen to Classhandicapper...but I remain unconvinced of the argument that he is proposing. As I said...I have seen this scenario many times through the years, and in every single instance...it is always the supposedly "classier" race that gets the suspicious increase in the speed figure. If this increase was indeed due to some shifting atmospheric condition...then I would have to think that the "cheaper" race would have been hampered by this atmospheric change at least ONCE.

When a speed figure advertises itself as a "pure-speed" figure, with no pace or class entaglements...then the figure should remain a "pure-speed figure". If the figure is more "comprehensive" than just "pure-speed"...then it should be called a PERFORMANCE RATING, to avoid confusing the consumer. When the handicapper KNOWS that a published figure is a "pure-speed" figure...then the handicapper proceeds to make his OWN pace and class adjustments to this figure. But when the figure-maker makes undisclosed speed and class adjustments to these supposed "pure-speed figures"...he brings added confusion to a game where enough confusion exists already.

Twice now you have brought up the DRF speed figure in this thread...calling it "essentially the same" as the other computerized figures. You do know that the DRF uses a 3-year track record to calculate those figures...right? When the DRF lists the track variant as a 25...there is no way of telling if the track, or the HORSES, were slow that day. And you say that this shameful procedure is "essentially the same" as a computerized speed figure based on a par-time chart?

[Cratos]

I agree with all of this.

In the US, if you didn't use some subjectivity you'd wind up with a lot of really bad figures.

The tough part is determining when a race that came up fast/slow for that class did so because of the ability of the horses, a change in the speed of the track, an extreme pace, some subtle aspect of race development that impacted the time, or a combination of several of those things.

That's the basic reason I am advocating an alternative view to supplement the analysis (also with flaws, but different ones).
The highlighted text of your post is incorrect because the “speed” of a racetrack surface doesn’t change because there is not any "speed" to a racetrack surface.

What changes is the “surface resistance force”; that is the MSF *COKF, which is the maximum stopping force times the coefficient of kinetic friction; and this is science which might be unbelievable to you.

[cj]

I suspect that I might be one the "guys here" that you are referring to...and I wonder where I stated that I take ANYTHING as "gospel" in this game.

Here is the point that I am trying to make:

I have been handicapping with figures for a very long time...and I don't particularly like the path down which figure-making has been traveling as of late. It's as if the figure-maker today has a particular speed figure in mind BEFORE the race in question is run...and when the race registers a figure OUTSIDE the range that the figure-maker projects, the figure-maker immediately suspects that something of an "irregular" nature has occurred in the race, for which a figure "adjustment" is warranted. The prevailing thought in the figure-maker's mind seems to be that every single speed rating that the horse registers must be a "true representation" of the horse's overall ability...as if "inconsistency" isn't the staple of a racehorse's nature.

A 6 furlong $7,500 claiming race is run at the Fairgrounds, in perfect weather...in the time of 1:11 flat. The winner of the race receives a Beyer figure of 80. Two races later, with the weather still remaining perfect, a 6 furlong Allowance race is run in the identical time of 1:11 flat...but the Allowance winner receives a Beyer figure of 89. Now...9 points at the 6 furlong distance equates to almost 4 lengths...an ETERNITY in a game where the winner is often decided by necks and noses. Did something happen to the track prior to the running of the Allowance race...or is the figure-maker simply trying to "make sense" of something that isn't readily explainable?

I have seen this scenario play itself out many times...and have even posted about it here several times. Invariably...someone "in the know" (Classhandicapper, for instance) will attempt to explain to me that "the track may have changed in the last hour"...or "the wind currents may have shifted"...or "the pace and race-flow may have conspired against the Allowance race's final clocking"...etc.

I listen to Classhandicapper...but I remain unconvinced of the argument that he is proposing. As I said...I have seen this scenario many times through the years, and in every single instance...it is always the supposedly "classier" race that gets the suspicious increase in the speed figure. If this increase was indeed due to some shifting atmospheric condition...then I would have to think that the "cheaper" race would have been hampered by this atmospheric change at least ONCE.

When a speed figure advertises itself as a "pure-speed" figure, with no pace or class entaglements...then the figure should remain a "pure-speed figure". If the figure is more "comprehensive" than just "pure-speed"...then it should be called a PERFORMANCE RATING, to avoid confusing the consumer. When the handicapper KNOWS that a published figure is a "pure-speed" figure...then the handicapper proceeds to make his OWN pace and class adjustments to this figure. But when the figure-maker makes undisclosed speed and class adjustments to these supposed "pure-speed figures"...he brings added confusion to a game where enough confusion exists already.

Twice now you have brought up the DRF speed figure in this thread...calling it "essentially the same" as the other computerized figures. You do know that the DRF uses a 3-year track record to calculate those figures...right? When the DRF lists the track variant as a 25...there is no way of telling if the track, or the HORSES, were slow that day. And you say that this shameful procedure is "essentially the same" as a computerized speed figure based on a par-time chart?

I know exactly what you were talking about. I just think you are overstating how often this actually happens. I can't really speak much about Beyers because I haven't seen them other than for top races in about five years. I did hear he didn't use the same "track variant" for the 9f races on Cigar Mile Day, the Remsen, the Demoiselle, and the Comely. I don't know why and I haven't looked at his figures. I used the same variant for all the races. I know personally when I investigate a race that the time doesn't seem to make sense it is with good reason. If I don't find anything, I leave the race as is.

Here is an example recently from the Fair Grounds. The 6f races this week suddenly seemed faster than they should compared to the 5.5f races. If you just used your basic speed charts like most speed handicappers use, you'd overrate the 6f races and underrate the 5.5f races. Why did this happen? It is because the run for 6f races changed from 30 feet to 85 feet while the 5.5f races remained at 30 feet. So is not using the standard speed charts just making something up to fit preconceived notions or is that doing the job right to give more accurate ratings? When Guflstream runs mile races on the turf with run ups of 5 feet, 140 feet, and 320 feet on the same day am I supposed to accept the final times as comparable?

My point is, and of course I can only speak for myself and TimeformUS Pace and Speed Figures, that when a race is rated that looks different than it should compared to the others, there is a reason behind it. It isn't to make everything fit. I have no problem assigning ratings that look "too high" or "too low" based on past history. We've had many discussions internally about these kinds of figures. I almost always "win" the discussion because I have facts to back up my decisions.

I have no problem with calling ratings by what they are. Our ratings at TimeformUS are a mix of pace and speed. If people want to call them Performance Ratings, that is fine by me. I always differentiate between "final time" figures and what we call "speed figures". I didn't make that decision. I don't really see it as a big deal either way. People that use our product know what the ratings entail. But again, I personally like Performance Figures better. That is what I called them at PaceFigures.com and they are essentially the same now.

As for the DRF thing, of course I know exactly what they are and how they are made. I know all the pitfalls. I personally don't think "par" charts are much better to be honest. Pars based on what, three or four races at a particular distance per year, if that, for most of the "classes"? Par charts these days are every bit the work of fiction you claim many speed figures and projections to be.

[cj]

The highlighted text of your post is incorrect because the “speed” of a racetrack surface doesn’t change because there is not any "speed" to a racetrack surface.

What changes is the “surface resistance force”; that is the MSF *COKF, which is the maximum stopping force times the coefficient of kinetic friction; and this is science which might be unbelievable to you.

Seriously man, who gives a crap what it is called? You've made this same post at least 100 times by now. Those that might find it useful have made note of it I'm sure. Enough.

[cj]

I don’t know what you know or don’t know, but from your response you appear not to understand what the poster “rsetup” was addressing and it wasn’t data acquisition, but lack of rigorous analytics in the speed figure process.

It is not whether a horse is “fast” or “slow”, but why is it “fast” or “slow” and that comes from the postulations for the projections.

Incidentally, no one is championing “time”; just better analytics.

I'd like to know how you are going to do rigorous analytics on the data we are supplied for one race card. For example, at Saratoga we might get nine races---three on dirt, three on turf, and three on the inner turf. All of those sets of three might have a maiden race or two mixed in littered with first time and second time starters. There can be small fields of 5 or 6 in at least a few of the races. It might rain after the 4th race, on and off of course, and the rain effects all of the courses at different times.

The above is a bit exaggerated of course, but it does happen, and variations of that happen every day around the country. There just isn't a lot of data to analyze. How are you going to run rigorous statistical analysis on that day?

[steveb]

I suspect that I might be one the "guys here" that you are referring to...and I wonder where I stated that I take ANYTHING as "gospel" in this game.

Here is the point that I am trying to make:

I have been handicapping with figures for a very long time...and I don't particularly like the path down which figure-making has been traveling as of late. It's as if the figure-maker today has a particular speed figure in mind BEFORE the race in question is run...and when the race registers a figure OUTSIDE the range that the figure-maker projects, the figure-maker immediately suspects that something of an "irregular" nature has occurred in the race, for which a figure "adjustment" is warranted. The prevailing thought in the figure-maker's mind seems to be that every single speed rating that the horse registers must be a "true representation" of the horse's overall ability...as if "inconsistency" isn't the staple of a racehorse's nature.



why would you care about the path the other figure makers are going?

i rather like that paragraph of yours above, apart from that little bit.

although i have an 'expectation' of how fast ANY race should be run, i certainly don't adjust anything after the race to fit that 'expectation'.
generally, the code will have figured the reason it did not fit expectation. and that is enough for me.

out of the same race, you may have pretenders going higher than they normally would, and good ones with poor numbers.
what does one do then?

i think people try to make their 'number' encompass all, which is a mistake in my humble opinion.
times are just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle.

in fact i am not sure if it's even the major piece, notwithstanding its the thing i understand the most.

[cj]

Here is the point that I am trying to make:



I gave this a second read, and to my eye I think now you are talking at least 99% about Beyer figures, not figures in general. I can't really speak much to those any longer so I'll stay out of that part of the discussion.

[steveb]

I agree with all of this.

In the US, if you didn't use some subjectivity you'd wind up with a lot of really bad figures.



serious question.....

why do you think the US is different??

i think you are confusing country with your own mind.
it's your mind that says that, i would think, and has nothing to do with the country as such.
it's just your perception.

i have studied times in more countries than i can remember(just not your fine country), and essentially, what works for one, works for the rest.

[thaskalos]

I know exactly what you were talking about. I just think you are overstating how often this actually happens. I can't really speak much about Beyers because I haven't seen them other than for top races in about five years. I did hear he didn't use the same "track variant" for the 9f races on Cigar Mile Day, the Remsen, the Demoiselle, and the Comely. I don't know why and I haven't looked at his figures. I used the same variant for all the races. I know personally when I investigate a race that the time doesn't seem to make sense it is with good reason. If I don't find anything, I leave the race as is.

Here is an example recently from the Fair Grounds. The 6f races this week suddenly seemed faster than they should compared to the 5.5f races. If you just used your basic speed charts like most speed handicappers use, you'd overrate the 6f races and underrate the 5.5f races. Why did this happen? It is because the run for 6f races changed from 30 feet to 85 feet while the 5.5f races remained at 30 feet. So is not using the standard speed charts just making something up to fit preconceived notions or is that doing the job right to give more accurate ratings? When Guflstream runs mile races on the turf with run ups of 5 feet, 140 feet, and 320 feet on the same day am I supposed to accept the final times as comparable?

My point is, and of course I can only speak for myself and TimeformUS Pace and Speed Figures, that when a race is rated that looks different than it should compared to the others, there is a reason behind it. It isn't to make everything fit. I have no problem assigning ratings that look "too high" or "too low" based on past history. We've had many discussions internally about these kinds of figures. I almost always "win" the discussion because I have facts to back up my decisions.

I have no problem with calling ratings by what they are. Our ratings at TimeformUS are a mix of pace and speed. If people want to call them Performance Ratings, that is fine by me. I always differentiate between "final time" figures and what we call "speed figures". I didn't make that decision. I don't really see it as a big deal either way. People that use our product know what the ratings entail. But again, I personally like Performance Figures better. That is what I called them at PaceFigures.com and they are essentially the same now.

As for the DRF thing, of course I know exactly what they are and how they are made. I know all the pitfalls. I personally don't think "par" charts are much better to be honest. Pars based on what, three or four races at a particular distance per year, if that, for most of the "classes"? Par charts these days are every bit the work of fiction you claim many speed figures and projections to be.

When you say that for the last five years you've only followed the Beyer figures of the top races...then, how sure can you be that I am "overstating" how often the Beyer-figure adjustments take place?

I am not commenting about YOUR figures here, Cj...and I don't want you to take what I say here personally. My experience with your figures is limited...whereas my experience with the Beyer figures is extensive. I have seen MANY examples of unexplained "adjustments" made in the Beyer figures, which cannot be explained away by the run-up examples that you provided above. I KNOW that your figures include pace as a major consideration...but Andy Beyer insists to this day that the figures bearing his name are strictly "pure-speed figures"...without any pace or class considerations at all. And...to me at least...that just doesn't seem to be the case.

And...I disagree with you about the DRF speed figures and variants. They are completely and totally worthless...and the DRF should be ASHAMED to still be publishing them.

[cj]

And...I disagree with you about the DRF speed figures and variants. They are completely and totally worthless...

Perhaps biggest flaw is making 1/5 = 1 point regardless of distance. I'm not advocating them by any means, didn't mean it that way at all.

[thaskalos]

why would you care about the path the other figure makers are going?



I am a 55 year-old guy...without the time or the vigor that I once had to dedicate to this game. I would like to create my own speed and pace figures for every track that I like to wager on...but such an endeavor is beyond my capabilities at the current time. But...since I consider myself a fully-capable PACE handicapper, I'd like to make my OWN pace adjustments, so...I am looking for some "pure-speed figures" that I could trust.

But the Beyer figures are a mystery to me, for the reasons that I've already stated...while the Brisnet and the Equibase figures are simply LAUGHABLE...IMO. Brisnet and Equibase both claim to be "pure-speed figures"...but they seldom agree with each other when they are placed side-by-side. One set of figures shows that a horse's LAST race was the best of its record...whereas the OTHER set of figures shows that the horse's SECOND-last race was easily the most "impressive". Who knew that creating a bunch of "computerized" figures was such a complicated affair? :confused:

[Cratos]

Seriously man, who gives a crap what it is called? You've made this same post at least 100 times by now. Those that might find it useful have made note of it I'm sure. Enough.
Why are you so resistance to science?

Is it because through my reading of your posts you have neither the quantitative or scientific background to support the "crap" you are offering.

This is a public forum (at least I think it is) and opinions vary with respect to education and experience.

Now you can do what you normally do; and that is delete due to your failure to comprehend.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Why are you so resistance to science?

Is it because through my reading of your posts you have neither the quantitative or scientific background to support the "crap" you are offering.

This is a public forum (at least I think it is) and opinions vary with respect to education and experience.

Now you can do what you normally do; and that is delete due to your failure to comprehend.

Cratos I haven't seen you give a figure adjustment for a horse or colt whose balls are swinging in the air with a 25 mph headwind vs a gelding right next to him. You are not doing your due diligence.

Til then we can't take you seriously!

[steveb]

Why are you so resistance to science?

Is it because through my reading of your posts you have neither the quantitative or scientific background to support the "crap" you are offering.

This is a public forum (at least I think it is) and opinions vary with respect to education and experience.

Now you can do what you normally do; and that is delete due to your failure to comprehend.

it's not my fight, but even as dumb as i am, i know the answer to your first question.:lol:

it's NOT science he is resistant to, it's YOUR never ending need to correct others needlessly.
i am as guilty as anybody else, in that i may use the wrong term for something, but it matters not.
all that matters, is that it works, whether the name used for it is wrong or right.

anyway, how are your odds and probs going???:lol:

[cj]

it's not my fight, but even as dumb as i am, i know the answer to your first question.:lol:

it's NOT science he is resistant to, it's YOUR never ending need to correct others needlessly.
i am as guilty as anybody else, in that i may use the wrong term for something, but it matters not.
all that matters, is that it works, whether the name used for it is wrong or right.

anyway, how are your odds and probs going???:lol:

Ding ding ding we have a winner. I also suspect as a horseplayer he is as phony as they come. My experience tells me most of the crap he posts is straight from Fantasy Island. Whenever one of his tall tales is exposed he vanishes for a month or two and hopes we all forget when he returns.

[thaskalos]

Ding ding ding we have a winner. I also suspect as a horseplayer he is as phony as they come. My experience tells me most of the crap he posts is straight from Fantasy Island. Whenever one of his tall tales is exposed he vanishes for a month or two and hopes we all forget when he returns.

How can you call "phony" the horseplayer who, with his "associates"...wagers $200,000 to win on a single horse?

[Cratos]

it's not my fight, but even as dumb as i am, i know the answer to your first question.:lol:

it's NOT science he is resistant to, it's YOUR never ending need to correct others needlessly.
i am as guilty as anybody else, in that i may use the wrong term for something, but it matters not.
all that matters, is that it works, whether the name used for it is wrong or right.

anyway, how are your odds and probs going???:lol:
I don’t post much on this forum, about one post per day over 12+ years, but when something is glaringly incorrect, I feel the truth should be told.

This is not my truth, it is the truth of math and science; horseracing handicapping historically was built on on conjecture and falsehoods; and continues today in the face of modern technology proving otherwise.

My “odds and probs” are just fine and I have the mathematical background to support that assertion, but why do so? It would go off in a direction that few on this forum would care about.

[cj]

How can you call "phony" the horseplayer who, with his "associates"...wagers $200,000 to win on a single horse?

Exactly.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Ding ding ding we have a winner. I also suspect as a horseplayer he is as phony as they come. My experience tells me most of the crap he posts is straight from Fantasy Island. Whenever one of his tall tales is exposed he vanishes for a month or two and hopes we all forget when he returns.

With this particular individual do we ever talk about actual races? I don't follow him so I don't know! On a horseplaying website you'd think the occasional race might be mentioned! :D

[steveb]

I don’t post much on this forum, about one post per day over 12+ years, but when something is glaringly incorrect, I feel the truth should be told.

This is not my truth, it is the truth of math and science; horseracing handicapping historically was built on on conjecture and falsehoods; and continues today in the face of modern technology proving otherwise.

My “odds and probs” are just fine and I have the mathematical background to support that assertion, but why do so? It would go off in a direction that few on this forum would care about.

your odds and probs are the same as your other half baked complications.
i note you ignored delta, because it was irrefutable truth he stated, even if a little too forceful, and there was nothing you could say, so you didn't....smartest thing you have done for yonks

what is wrong with .5 being 1/1 or 3/1 being .25 or 4/1 being .2.......nothing of course, just you going off on a needless tangent somewhere in your mind, and thinking they are something other than what they are. maybe an example of YOU not understanding terminology...join the club! :lol:

as far as science goes, i would know diddly squat about it, but i am 100% sure that i have got you covered where racing is concerned, especially time and speed(i hope i used the right terminology there!).
insofar as racing and dollars in pockets is concerned, despite your famed 200k bets, and the fact that i no longer bet more than peanuts and very infrequently.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I don’t post much on this forum, about one post per day over 12+ years, but when something is glaringly incorrect, I feel the truth should be told.

This is not my truth, it is the truth of math and science; horseracing handicapping historically was built on on conjecture and falsehoods; and continues today in the face of modern technology proving otherwise.

My “odds and probs” are just fine and I have the mathematical background to support that assertion, but why do so? It would go off in a direction that few on this forum would care about.

The beauty of this sport is we can be accounted by wins and losses. You admitting to dropping in to course correct actual players is BS. If you play stop in a while and hang with the crowd. Unless you feel you are soaring above it!

[thaskalos]

The beauty of this sport is we can be accounted by wins and losses. You admitting to dropping in to course correct actual players is BS. If you play stop in a while and hang with the crowd. Unless you feel you are soaring above it!

Some people feel that their "academic credentials" qualify them to talk down to those whom they perceive as "less educated". These "academicians" fail to understand that this game is EQUALITY, in its highest form. In this game...the astrophysicist has the same right to go broke as the bricklayer.

[Tom]

How can you call "phony" the horseplayer who, with his "associates"...wagers $200,000 to win on a single horse?

Yes, the Easter Bunny makes the actual wager and then puts the winnings in a basket and hides it at his house.

[Cratos]

your odds and probs are the same as your other half baked complications.
i note you ignored delta, because it was irrefutable truth he stated, even if a little too forceful, and there was nothing you could say, so you didn't....smartest thing you have done for yonks

what is wrong with .5 being 1/1 or 3/1 being .25 or 4/1 being .2.......nothing of course, just you going off on a needless tangent somewhere in your mind, and thinking they are something other than what they are. maybe an example of YOU not understanding terminology...join the club! :lol:

as far as science goes, i would know diddly squat about it, but i am 100% sure that i have got you covered where racing is concerned, especially time and speed(i hope i used the right terminology there!).
insofar as racing and dollars in pockets is concerned, despite your famed 200k bets, and the fact that i no longer bet more than peanuts and very infrequently.
I didn't continue because it would have become argumentative and probably not useful, but I would guess (and I could be wrong) that posters like "BCourtney", "Magister Ludi", and former poster, "TrifectaMike" would probably agree with me.

I don’t know where the $200K bet came from (and don’t care), but what I have said is that me and my associates make about 60 bets per year (May-November) of $20k/bet.

The largest bet we ever made was something greater than that on Dortmund in last year’s Ky Derby.

I never personally take the criticisms because if I became upset or angry in the anonymity of an Internet forum I probably never would’ve made it as a decision-maker at any level in corporate America.

[steveb]

I didn't continue because it would have become argumentative and probably not useful, but I would guess (and I could be wrong) that posters like "BCourtney", "Magister Ludi", and former poster, "TrifectaMike" would probably agree with me.

I don’t know where the $200K bet came from (and don’t care), but what I have said is that me and my associates make about 60 bets per year (May-November) of $20k/bet.

The largest bet we ever made was something greater than that on Dortmund in last year’s Ky Derby.

I never personally take the criticisms because if I became upset or angry in the anonymity of an Internet forum I probably never would’ve made it as a decision-maker at any level in corporate America.

well then, they would be.......WRONG TOO.
as for your bernoulli and other distributions, then i use them too, but it still does not change the fact that .5 is 1/1 does it?


the 200k bets was an actual statement from YOU, so you need to brush up your memory.
and if you have actually had it or not, matters not one iota to me, i just think it wishful thinking to get those numbers on via pari mutuel.
the amount is no big deal, the big deal is that you could do it on one race in one pool.

and i have NEVER critcised you as such, that is simply your usual way of misreading.
last time you said i was insulting you, and that was a nonsense too.
if you want to be insulted, ask me politely and i'll give it a go!!

[Tom]

Why are you so resistance to science?

Why are you so resistant to reality?

[CincyHorseplayer]

Some people feel that their "academic credentials" qualify them to talk down to those whom they perceive as "less educated". These "academicians" fail to understand that this game is EQUALITY, in its highest form. In this game...the astrophysicist has the same right to go broke as the bricklayer.

Glad you chimed in because I know you will get the baseball reference. Plus the ROI reason. We all play and will fail even if we Ted Williams a season. I think we all at early points have been through the stage of jacking up our win % by the lower odds spectrum. But who cares? We don't want to be singles hitter, we want to up our slugging percentage. Cash rate plus ROI=horseplayer slugging percentage. Longstory short we have these conversations where the big concern is the accuracy of the information. People chime in with the best of academics and science but they never talk about actual races. Self admitted they are here to course correct. No matter the accuracy we all play and spend a significant time and money in the pools. Like real men. It's tough sledding and it's about money won no theory and ROI. You taught me that. Which is why I eliminated ROI from my New Year post. We are here to talk turkey as players. It's fun! Heaven forbid. We play and theory always teaches us but it's unacceptable if it tries to scold us. We play. That's the heavy lifting.

[EMD4ME]

Cratos I haven't seen you give a figure adjustment for a horse or colt whose balls are swinging in the air with a 25 mph headwind vs a gelding right next to him. You are not doing your due diligence.

Til then we can't take you seriously!

Witty and well deserved :lol: :ThmbUp:

[EMD4ME]

When you say that for the last five years you've only followed the Beyer figures of the top races...then, how sure can you be that I am "overstating" how often the Beyer-figure adjustments take place?

I am not commenting about YOUR figures here, Cj...and I don't want you to take what I say here personally. My experience with your figures is limited...whereas my experience with the Beyer figures is extensive. I have seen MANY examples of unexplained "adjustments" made in the Beyer figures, which cannot be explained away by the run-up examples that you provided above. I KNOW that your figures include pace as a major consideration...but Andy Beyer insists to this day that the figures bearing his name are strictly "pure-speed figures"...without any pace or class considerations at all. And...to me at least...that just doesn't seem to be the case.

And...I disagree with you about the DRF speed figures and variants. They are completely and totally worthless...and the DRF should be ASHAMED to still be publishing them.


1) I absolutely adore the thoughts and points you and Cj have made back and forth in this thread.

2) I agree, there are many BSF that are adjusted and totally off. I mean totally off.

3) I love #2. Creates value. I'll see an 89, mark it as a 79 in my records. And after all horses run poorly to expectations of the beyer team, they reduce the number a month later :lol: I love that stuff.

4) BSF are no longer speed figures. Those clowns adjust all day and everyday, like you said, to what it should be (in their dense eyes). They also adjust for pace. That is why I mark what the true/raw number is in my notes (that I calculate) and I THEN (for each horse) adjust for ground loss, energy distribution etc from my number. NOT THEIRS.

5) We should thank them for being so stupid, it creates value.

CJ and Thaskalos, awesome contributions in this thread :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[EMD4ME]

Ding ding ding we have a winner. I also suspect as a horseplayer he is as phony as they come. My experience tells me most of the crap he posts is straight from Fantasy Island. Whenever one of his tall tales is exposed he vanishes for a month or two and hopes we all forget when he returns.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :ThmbUp:

[rsetup]

Academic credentials are not required to recognize a fraud as a fraud. And it's even simpler in the case of an unaccomplished comprehensive fraud.

The light FINALLY and, apparently, COLLECTIVELY went off in here.

Better late than never.

[rsetup]

1) I absolutely adore the thoughts and points you and Cj have made back and forth in this thread.

2) I agree, there are many BSF that are adjusted and totally off. I mean totally off.

3) I love #2. Creates value. I'll see an 89, mark it as a 79 in my records. And after all horses run poorly to expectations of the beyer team, they reduce the number a month later :lol: I love that stuff.

4) BSF are no longer speed figures. Those clowns adjust all day and everyday, like you said, to what it should be (in their dense eyes). They also adjust for pace. That is why I mark what the true/raw number is in my notes (that I calculate) and I THEN (for each horse) adjust for ground loss, energy distribution etc from my number. NOT THEIRS.

5) We should thank them for being so stupid, it creates value.

CJ and Thaskalos, awesome contributions in this thread :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Where've you been, Bro? What contributions? Certainly, not presently when EVERYONE is on the bandwagon. Do a search 5 to 10 years ago and see what any negative comments about BEYERS got you on this forum. Or on DerbyTrail. They'd come out in hordes to defend their product. And it was always the argument that anyone criticizing the numbers didn't understand how they were made. But they did their job well: Most horseplayers can't proceed in the game without figures.

Which is ultimately a good thing.

[EMD4ME]

Where've you been, Bro? What contributions? Certainly, not presently when EVERYONE is on the bandwagon. Do a search 5 to 10 years ago and see what any negative comments about BEYERS got you on this forum. Or on DerbyTrail. They'd come out in hordes to defend their product. And it was always the argument that anyone criticizing the numbers didn't understand how they were made. But they did their job well. Most horseplayers can proceed in the game without figures.

Which is ultimately a good thing.

I detest all social media. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. So, I didn't know about PA till 2013 when Delta Lover introduced me to this.

I totally understand how beyers were made. I spent my teenage life reading his books, charts etc. and questioned all his numbers. It's a huge edge, knowing which Beyer is a mistake, which one is questionable and which one is real, for sure.

From your last statement, I hope you aren't insinuating that I am a figure guy.

I pride myself on being the most well rounded player in the game. I look at everything available and TAKE ZERO AND I MEAN ZERO shortcuts. I work harder than humanly possible.

I see people everywhere, looking for the easy train to winning. They are LAZY. Winning in this game, means ZERO chinks in gathering information, gaining information and executing the information.

I may sometimes be imperfect at the last (as many people annoy me all day at the track and cost me valuable concentration time) but I excel in uncovering all NUGGETS (you'll get that if you're a beyer guy) :ThmbUp:

[EMD4ME]

Cratos, before you reply, I have a solution for you.

Seems to me you're credibility is in question.

Here's an EASY solution.

1 MTP, just simply post 1 of you're $200,000 win bets in a big race.

I understand that you don't want to post 10 MTP or a day before as it might, in your mind kill the price. I feel the same way.

So do it, 1 MTP, when no one will really see it and have time to react.

Show us how intellectually superior you are to the unwashed masses who don't know how to properly name such innovative and complex items, like you can :ThmbUp: