Andy Beyer Retires From Writing

[pandy]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/andrew-beyer-rebel-cause/

[EMD4ME]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/andrew-beyer-rebel-cause/

A pioneer in the sport. His words, agree or disagree with him, will be missed.

I hope he has a long and healthy retirement and enjoys himself.

I also hope, :lol: , that his retirement from writing does not improve the Beyer figures. I love their rare but important mistakes!

People still follow the beyer, not as often as before but enough to create value!

[aaron]

I think all horseplayers owe Beyer a debt of gratitude. He made the game fun and interesting. He kept us all engaged. I wish mainstream media had used him more.He had great stories and wasn't shy about sharing is opinions.My favorite was a cold exacta of Swale and I believe Pine Circle in the 1984 Belmont Stakes.I loved the way ,he was so definitive with his opinions.
Good luck Andy.

[pandy]

I was surprised that, according to this article, Beyer received so much criticism. He's a smart guy and a great writer. I'll miss his columns.

[pandy]

I think all horseplayers owe Beyer a debt of gratitude. He made the game fun and interesting. He kept us all engaged. I wish mainstream media had used him more.He had great stories and wasn't shy about sharing is opinions.My favorite was a cold exacta of Swale and I believe Pine Circle in the 1984 Belmont Stakes.I loved the way ,he was so definitive with his opinions.
Good luck Andy.


Very well put, agree wholeheartedly.

[Inner Dirt]

He will be missed.

[mountainman]

Much envy his writing skills. Jealous, in fact.

[thespaah]

A pioneer in the sport. His words, agree or disagree with him, will be missed.

I hope he has a long and healthy retirement and enjoys himself.

I also hope, :lol: , that his retirement from writing does not improve the Beyer figures. I love their rare but important mistakes!

People still follow the beyer, not as often as before but enough to create value!
Beyer as a scribe has a unique approach not likely to be tolerated in this new millennium of political correctness and "gotcha" type scrutiny.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I literally just read the article and jumped on here to post the link. You guys beat me to it.

I have always been a huge fan of him and Crist, and am lucky enough to have talked to them in person on several occasions. The fact they are both gone leaves a gaping hole in racing coverage. I, like most people on here, have read all their books. Can't say enough about how much I enjoyed them.

:ThmbUp:

[PhantomOnTour]

I was surprised that, according to this article, Beyer received so much criticism. He's a smart guy and a great writer. I'll miss his columns.
Half the comments below the article are critical of Andy also, unbelievable.

[FrankieFigs]

I, too, will miss his writing. I hope he pops in every now and again on big racing days.

[DeltaLover]

Beyer is among the most most influential figures of the American racing and some of his books are still worth reading although his overall approach is simplistic or even naive based on today's standards.

When it comes to his figures, the best thing about them lies in the fact that although they are terribly outdated and antiquated, they still have a large following and are responsible for a lot of the crowd's mistakes.

[Robert Fischer]

He's a legend who has really paved the way. Much respect.

[EMD4ME]

Beyer as a scribe has a unique approach not likely to be tolerated in this new millennium of political correctness and "gotcha" type scrutiny.

All the more reason to like him!!!! :lol:

[LottaKash]

Andy Beyer is the "Household Name"...

Thanks for all the good stuff Andy... :jump: :jump: :jump:

[jahura2]

A pioneer in the sport. His words, agree or disagree with him, will be missed.

I hope he has a long and healthy retirement and enjoys himself.

I also hope, :lol: , that his retirement from writing does not improve the Beyer figures. I love their rare but important mistakes!

People still follow the beyer, not as often as before but enough to create value!

Just a note of thanks to Andy Beyer. His figures I first encountered in the Racing Times dragged me out of the stone ages where I was completely clueless, to a point now where I am slightly less clueless. Have a great retirement Andrew!

[thaskalos]

He single-handedly rescued the game from the system-selling shysters whose treachery defamed it almost beyond repair...and he presented the game as the serious intellectual pursuit that it became for a lot of us. And his honesty and integrity lent the horseplayer a "legitimacy" which was unknown to him until Beyer burst onto the scene. While other handicapping authors regaled us with stories of their betting triumphs, designed to show how "brilliant" they were, Beyer wrote with equal aplomb about his LOSSES...and was the only one who gave a realistic look of what the serious horseplayer's life was like. "My Saratoga betting results that year were so horrific, that I fled from my beloved track under the dark cover of night...without even saying goodbye to my friends", he once wrote...and every serious player who read it nodded his head in total understanding.

"I never wanted to become 'respectable', choosing instead to live the life of a renegade gambler...who earned his living by his wits"...he declared early on. And now...the "renegade gambler", who had no need for the "respectable life", hangs up his typewriter and exits the stage...as the most well-known and respected horseplayer/writer in the game...and the game's greatest ambassador. And the game is greatly diminished by his departure.

With Beyer's retirement, horseracing "journalism" officially comes to an end...and that's a shame.

[EMD4ME]

He single-handedly rescued the game from the system-selling shysters whose treachery defamed it almost beyond repair...and he presented the game as the serious intellectual pursuit that it became for a lot of us. And his honesty and integrity lent the horseplayer a "legitimacy" which was unknown to him until Beyer burst onto the scene. While other handicapping authors regaled us with stories of their betting triumphs, designed to show how "brilliant" they were, Beyer wrote with equal aplomb about his LOSSES...and was the only one who gave a realistic look of what the serious horseplayer's life was like. "My Saratoga betting results that year were so horrific, that I fled from my beloved track under the dark cover of night...without even saying goodbye to my friends", he once wrote...and every serious player who read it nodded his head in total understanding.

"I never wanted to become 'respectable', choosing instead to live the life of a renegade gambler...who earned his living by his wits"...he declared early on. And now...the "renegade gambler", who had no need for the "respectable life", hangs up his typewriter and exits the stage...as the most well-known and respected horseplayer/writer in the game...and the game's greatest ambassador. And the game is greatly diminished by his departure.

With Beyer's retirement, horseracing "journalism" officially comes to an end...and that's a shame.

That Sir, was Andy Beyeresque! Well said :)

[VigorsTheGrey]

"I never wanted to become 'respectable', choosing instead to live the life of a renegade gambler...who earned his living by his wits"...he declared early on. And now...the "renegade gambler", who had no need for the "respectable life", hangs up his typewriter and exits the stage...as the most well-known and respected horseplayer/writer in the game...and the game's greatest ambassador. And the game is greatly diminished by his departure.

With Beyer's retirement, horseracing "journalism" officially comes to an end...and that's a shame.

Very well written blog, Gus....There is a lot of that "renegade" in me as well...

With Andy's retirement, I wonder which horseplayer/writer is the next best thing to him now...Which lights are still glowing, however dimly, in the dusk of our journalistic demise...?

[1st time lasix]

I met him on three separate occasions years apart. In all three instances he was engaging, gracious.... and friendly. Just another one of "guys" trying to put together a winning ticket. All horseplayers are not degenerates...some are bright, witty, and fun to be around. He could join my little simulcast group gathered around our corner watching the races anytime. :ThmbUp: What a rich life!

[AndyC]

I met him on three separate occasions years apart. In all three instances he was engaging, gracious.... and friendly. Just another one of "guys" trying to put together a winning ticket. All horseplayers are not degenerates...some are bright, witty, and fun to be around. He could join my little simulcast group gathered around our corner watching the races anytime. :ThmbUp: What a rich life!

I think skipping his final at Harvard to go place a bet at the track might place him in the degenerate Hall of Fame.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I met him on three separate occasions years apart. In all three instances he was engaging, gracious.... and friendly. Just another one of "guys" trying to put together a winning ticket. All horseplayers are not degenerates...some are bright, witty, and fun to be around. He could join my little simulcast group gathered around our corner watching the races anytime. :ThmbUp: What a rich life!

It would be interesting to hear from Andy and read a "reflections story" that told his take on his life in racing from a neutral point of view...you know, the good and the bad, highs and lows, the realities....would he do it all again, what he would do different, etc....

[mikekk]

I "met" him once, back in the mid-80's

Summer Saturdays. Hastings Park (Exhibition Park back then) would host a special guest in the paddock area, before the races began. The special guest would give a speech/seminar on the topic they were promoting; then go thru the card and let those listening in on how they were going to bet. They always, ALWAYS picked the morning line favorite in the feature as their Bet-of-the-Day.

The horse I'd come for was in the 5th, an 8.5f MCL...the horse I like was 0-4 lifetime, all in sprints, cheap failed speed, routing for the first time. I figured if he made the lead (and he should) he was gone. Morning line was 8-1 if I remember correctly.

Beyer went thru his spiel (he was very entertaining!) and when he got to his Best Bet he picked...MY HORSE. I remember him starting off with "This is the kind of horse I'm prepared to bet with both hands!", and then giving the same reasons I had for loving the horse.

After he finished, I went up to him and said "You bastard! You just killed the odds on the horse I'm here for!"

He grinned and shook my hand, said "Sorry".

Yeah. He killed my odds. The horse went off at 12-1, and won for fun.

I'll miss the guy. Before the Racing Form made them so popular, his figures were both pretty accurate and produced some juicy overlays.

Have a great retirement, Andy!

[Elliott Sidewater]

He single-handedly rescued the game from the system-selling shysters whose treachery defamed it almost beyond repair...and he presented the game as the serious intellectual pursuit that it became for a lot of us. And his honesty and integrity lent the horseplayer a "legitimacy" which was unknown to him until Beyer burst onto the scene. While other handicapping authors regaled us with stories of their betting triumphs, designed to show how "brilliant" they were, Beyer wrote with equal aplomb about his LOSSES...and was the only one who gave a realistic look of what the serious horseplayer's life was like. "My Saratoga betting results that year were so horrific, that I fled from my beloved track under the dark cover of night...without even saying goodbye to my friends", he once wrote...and every serious player who read it nodded his head in total understanding.

"I never wanted to become 'respectable', choosing instead to live the life of a renegade gambler...who earned his living by his wits"...he declared early on. And now...the "renegade gambler", who had no need for the "respectable life", hangs up his typewriter and exits the stage...as the most well-known and respected horseplayer/writer in the game...and the game's greatest ambassador. And the game is greatly diminished by his departure.

With Beyer's retirement, horseracing "journalism" officially comes to an end...and that's a shame.
Racing journalism over? Over? it's not over until we say it's over, and it's up to you to publish that book so there will be something of worth for us to read and enjoy. Andy Beyer didn't pass the torch, so to speak, to anyone in particular. The door is wide open... your move, friend.

[Cratos]

Although we never met, you started the intellectual revolution in horserace handicapping which many have “copied”, but never duplicated.

Have a great retirement and return to the Spa someday?

[dilanesp]

I was surprised that, according to this article, Beyer received so much criticism. He's a smart guy and a great writer. I'll miss his columns.

When they had comments threads at the Washington Post, it got really bad. Basically any time Beyer picked a loser, they were vicious. Most of these people knew very little about handicapping. (Obviously, anyone who is serious would judge Beyer, or any other newspaper handicapper, much more based on the quality of the analysis and not whether the particular horse came in.)

[dilanesp]

At the 1987 Breeders' Cup at Hollywood Park, he conducted a seminar and announced confidently that "I can't wait to get to the windows and bet everything in my pocket on Afleet in the Breeders' Cup Classic, Ferdinand or no Ferdinand".

Of course, Ferdinand won. :) But it didn't matter to me. I just loved that a handicapper would say something like that and put himself out there.

BTW, it was obvious that this was coming. He had stopped writing his regular triple crown and breeders' cup columns after American Pharoah last year.

[VigorsTheGrey]

At the 1987 Breeders' Cup at Hollywood Park, he conducted a seminar and announced confidently that "I can't wait to get to the windows and bet everything in my pocket on Afleet in the Breeders' Cup Classic, Ferdinand or no Ferdinand".

Of course, Ferdinand won. :) But it didn't matter to me. I just loved that a handicapper would say something like that and put himself out there.

BTW, it was obvious that this was coming. He had stopped writing his regular triple crown and breeders' cup columns after American Pharoah last year.

Interesting that Andy goes out on a high note in horse racing with Triple Crown winner American Pharoah....it is a somehow fitting place to pause or retire...good luck Andy, and I hope you post here on PA in the future...would love that!

[EMD4ME]

Very well written blog, Gus....There is a lot of that "renegade" in me as well...

With Andy's retirement, I wonder which horseplayer/writer is the next best thing to him now...Which lights are still glowing, however dimly, in the dusk of our journalistic demise...?

For pontification/theorizing, story telling, humor,capturing a moment and sheer wit, I nominate Thaskalos and Replay Randall.

[EMD4ME]

I think skipping his final at Harvard to go place a bet at the track might place him in the degenerate Hall of Fame.

Does it count that I spent 4 years in the NYCOTB while in college? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[bobphilo]

I think skipping his final at Harvard to go place a bet at the track might place him in the degenerate Hall of Fame.

I don't remember the exact numbers but the way he he opened his first book with the statement that he offset a $28,000 education loss at Harvard with a $17 win at Belmont, thereby cutting his losses for the day to $16,983, is a classic.

Beyer woke the handicapping world to the reality of quantitative analysis of horses' performances. His was an important step to the Holy Grail. His books are what launched my on the idea of rational handicapping.

Sorry to see you you go, Andy

[AndyC]

Does it count that I spent 4 years in the NYCOTB while in college? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Making it out of college in 4 years disqualifies you as a degenerate. Now if they still called you a freshman after those 4 years your bust will be commissioned for the HOF.

[AltonKelsey]

A pioneer in the sport. His words, agree or disagree with him, will be missed.

I hope he has a long and healthy retirement and enjoys himself.

I also hope, :lol: , that his retirement from writing does not improve the Beyer figures. I love their rare but important mistakes!

People still follow the beyer, not as often as before but enough to create value!

No doubt they make lots of mistakes, but there are so many other sources of figs, how much impact can it have? They are not ALL going to get it wrong at the same time, unless the timer is wrong and no one notices.


Beyer no doubt changed the game for many, taking the dark art of figure making from the shadows to something 'easily' implemented by anyone of reasonable intellect.

[proximity]

my favorite beyer story was an article in the drf by i believe marty mcgee?

during the glory days of maryland racing they were standing outside when suddenly a big bet came in on a horse and and marty mcgee (?) kept going on and on about how they were really pounding this horse.... eventually beyer turns to him and and says, "it wasn't they." ;)

a true legend and his insight will be greatly missed.

[Cratos]

To me, Andy Beyer’s major achievement was not just the development of his speed figure methodology, but his informing the general betting public that a horse’s performance should be assessed at its class level.

Beyer ushered in this entirely new concept of handicapping a horse’s performance with his class stratification of performance by the “numbers” which he called “speed figures.”

Prior to Beyer, most horseplayers were using the “Speed Rating” method based on the track record from the DRF and the Morning Telegraph (no longer in existence) for their handicapping needs.

[EMD4ME]

my favorite beyer story was an article in the drf by i believe marty mcgee?

during the glory days of maryland racing they were standing outside when suddenly a big bet came in on a horse and and marty mcgee (?) kept going on and on about how they were really pounding this horse.... eventually beyer turns to him and and says, "it wasn't they." ;)

a true legend and his insight will be greatly missed.


I never heard this one! I loved that quick story! Ya have more ? :)

[dnlgfnk]

I've documented Andy arranging events to fit the desired narrative in "MY $50k Year"...and most recently I discovered that the filly that " loves the grass", according to trip expert "Charlie"-- Miss Prism in "The Winning Horseplayer"-- never won another race. That knowledge could have saved me years of approaching trip handicapping as "the" way instead of what it is...a significant piece of the comprehensive whole.

Having said that, I am indebted to Andy for fanning the fires of a fledgling interest in racing as a high school senior when "Picking Winners" was published.
Along with that, I achieved some initial success with speed figures, following Andy's methods slavishly at modest Fairmount Park/Cahokia Downs briefly before speed figures became a factor widely considered by the public, thanks to Beyer.

I have all his books and subscribed to the WaPo in the eighties solely to read his column. Thank you, Andy.

[menifee]

I really respect Andy Beyer. His writing is tremendous and I've always thought he was great for the game.

My guess as to why there is animosity towards Beyer from some horse players is that the dawn of the speed figures coincided with a greater emphasis in the breeding game on speed versus stamina. As a result, the great American classic distances are not run as there are fewer horses that can do it. Further, because there is more of emphasis on running younger horses at shorter distances and at faster speeds, the American thoroughbred seems far more fragile than his predecessor. Finally, speed figures and their ilk (Beyer, t-graph, ragozin, timeform) have lead to trainers backing off their horses and not running as often on the theory that trainers can produce a horse that can run his or her best figure on a certain day.

All of the above leads to bad races and a bad gambling product. Unfairly, Beyer takes some of the blame for the game's obsession with speed.

[JustRalph]

All the other bullshit and accolades (deserving btw) aside. The end of a high profile advocate for the player is the sad part of this info.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Beyer wrote and talked like a handicapper - taking a stand, and justifying it with both positive and negative comments. That rubs against the grain of those who view reality only in rosy terms.

I can't help but think there's a little boy inside of Beyer, who when he sees a hornet's nest, can't resist poking it with a stick. His comments about Zenyetta falls in the category of taking down a popular horse a couple of pegs, and the backlash was most likely expected by him - and enjoyed.

Personally, I'd love to see Beyer write an autobiography, filling us in on more of his betting antics. His writing focused on the technical side of handicapping, but his story telling talent also contributes to a great read.

[pandy]

Racing journalism over? Over? it's not over until we say it's over, and it's up to you to publish that book so there will be something of worth for us to read and enjoy. Andy Beyer didn't pass the torch, so to speak, to anyone in particular. The door is wide open... your move, friend.


Good point. I'd enjoy reading something besides my own writing. I read all the Beyer books at least twice.

Steve Crist and Beyer had the best editorials on racing. Not sure who can fill that void. Hopefully Bill Finley won't stop writing anytime soon.

[classhandicapper]

I can't think of anyone that had a bigger impact on the way people handicap races and think about horses than Beyer. And he did it while being extremely entertaining.

[rastajenk]

I've always thought he should be in racing's Hall of Fame.

[rsetup]

He's the Aristotle of handicapping. His influence is not as strong as it once was but it will take a conceptual revolution to break it totally.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I hope he writes one more book. As with many Beyer hugely influenced me and in more ways than one. His approach, methodology, enthusiasm, the whole infected you with the same desires. Before I found this place I shared my own horseplayer dream with myself alone and a stack of books. Whenever I would get down I'd read Beyer. It kept me going. Anyway I am still interested in everything he has to say. Andy enjoy brother!

[cj]

Beyer's writing is what drew me to the game more than the numbers. Yes, I'm a figure guy and learned a lot from him in that regard, but it was the style of the presentation that won me over.

[Inner Dirt]

I remember I think it was around 1993 when he published his figures in the DRF. As someone who had made my own Beyer figures for years I was pissed that I lost by edge. I burned all my own Racing Forms, my trip notes and my book of track variant, stomping all over the house cussing. I was fresh off a divorce and was back to being a bachelor, my two male roommates thought I had went insane. I actually was angry at a man I looked up to. Not until realizing years later that I found good plays betting against people blindly betting the top figs did I forgive him.

[DeltaLover]

Not until realizing years later that I found good plays betting against people blindly betting the top figs did I forgive him.

Still, the more sophisticated and informed the crowd becomes the less profitability is to be expected.

[dilanesp]

I think there's one other aspect that makes Beyer a polarizing figure.

The idea that the insiders of the sport hate handicappers and bettors can sometimes be overstated. (For instance, there are plenty of racetracks on the edge of demise whose management would love to do more for the people who bet on their races, but really aren't in a position to be able to do it.)

But it definitely exists. And before Beyer, the only really famous writer who wrote about the gambling side of horse racing for a long while had been Damon Runyan, and while I love his stuff, he portrayed bettors as rogues, connected them to the underworld and organized crime, made clear they were compulsive gamblers, etc.

Beyer, in contrast, wrote in the voice of a REPUTABLE handicapper. A person who treated it like any other job, who just wanted the races to be fair and not rigged, and who wrote about racing in the way that most fans experienced it (as a gambler, rather than as a romantic lover of horses or someone who worshipped the upper crusty set who owned the horses and patronized the turf club).

At the same time, though, Beyer was also literate, highly educated, and brilliant at the technical craft of writing.

Because of this, Beyer was very much a shock to the horse racing establishment. For years, horse racing was written about by people like William Nack and Joe Hirsch and Whitney Tower, people who wrote fawning profiles of horses and rich people and who stayed away from writing about the underbelly of drugs, fixed races, betting coups, etc. And, importantly, people who rarely, if ever, handicapped a race in any of their writings. Horse racing insiders LOVED writers like that, because they gave insiders the type of softball coverage that allowed them to continue fleecing the gamblers and running the sport for their own benefit.

Beyer changed everything-- not only through his own writing, but by creating a market for writing from a handicapper's point of view that others have come around and filled as well. And the folks who benefitted from the old way of doing things don't like that, not at all.

[thaskalos]

Beyer was the first to promote, by example, the idea that this game is a worthwhile pursuit for the literate, sophisticated gambler. Whether this was a blessing or a curse remains to be seen, of course...but we are in his debt, nonetheless. :)

[VeryOldMan]

Beyer was the first to promote, by example, the idea that this game is a worthwhile pursuit for the literate, sophisticated gambler. Whether this was a blessing or a curse remains to be seen, of course...but we are in his debt, nonetheless. :)
Amen!

My beloved parents gave me Picking Winners as a birthday gift. Back when it was first published and I was a young fan of this sport.

I've read Beyer's columns in the Washington Post for decades - his writing skills have crushed so many of his sports page colleagues.

Any somewhat serious fans of this sport - even if they aren't betting huge $$$ and/or have moved on from his speed figures - owe him a debt IMO.

[EMD4ME]

Beyer was the first to promote, by example, the idea that this game is a worthwhile pursuit for the literate, sophisticated gambler. Whether this was a blessing or a curse remains to be seen, of course...but we are in his debt, nonetheless. :)

I think he was the first and maybe the last.......Am I missing someone?

[EMD4ME]

I remember I think it was around 1993 when he published his figures in the DRF. As someone who had made my own Beyer figures for years I was pissed that I lost by edge. I burned all my own Racing Forms, my trip notes and my book of track variant, stomping all over the house cussing. I was fresh off a divorce and was back to being a bachelor, my two male roommates thought I had went insane. I actually was angry at a man I looked up to. Not until realizing years later that I found good plays betting against people blindly betting the top figs did I forgive him.

Awesome stuff Innner Dirt! Awesome stuff.

[AltonKelsey]

Still, the more sophisticated and informed the crowd becomes the less profitability is to be expected.

Yeah , but what's really cool is no matter how good the public gets they always lose the takeout! :eek:

[AltonKelsey]

Tom Ainslee was really the first modern author to present handicapping as an intellectual exercise.

But Beyer added the nuance of the 'wise' guy , looking for edges, trying to dope out the scams, define the mysterious.

That's what really attracted people. I speak firsthand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/sports/othersports/08carter.html

[DeltaLover]

Tom Ainslee was really the first modern author to present handicapping as an intellectual exercise.

I am not sure if was really the first modern handicapping authors but I am sure that he was one of the worst of them!

[cj]

I am not sure if was really the first modern handicapping authors but I am sure that he was one of the worst of them!

Maybe if you compare what he wrote to 2016, sure, but certainly not at the time he wrote his book.

[thaskalos]

Tom Ainslee was really the first modern author to present handicapping as an intellectual exercise.

But Beyer added the nuance of the 'wise' guy , looking for edges, trying to dope out the scams, define the mysterious.

That's what really attracted people. I speak firsthand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/sports/othersports/08carter.html
This is true...that's why I said that Beyer proposed his ideas "by example". Beyer was visible, whereas Ainslie remained a mystery throughout.

You say that you speak "firsthand". What does that mean? I ask...because you misspelled his name.

[aaron]

Prior to Beyer,the only figures available were the Sheets and Thorograph. At one point you actually had to be recommended by someone if you wanted to buy The Sheets.

[cj]

Prior to Beyer,the only figures available were the Sheets and Thorograph. At one point you actually had to be recommended by someone if you wanted to buy The Sheets.

There were quality figures well before then, though maybe not available for sale. I have a book from (I believe, I'll have to look) the 1930s that describes a method very similar to what many use today, including even weight and ground loss adjustments. I imagine the people that had those made a pretty penny for a long time, but you never really know.

[DeltaLover]

Maybe if you compare what he wrote to 2016, sure, but certainly not at the time he wrote his book.

What you say here is correct but I also feel that Beyer's books passed the test of time while Ainslee's did not. I do not mean that Beyer is not outdated of course but his approach is still valid (although mutated)!

[AltonKelsey]

Sheets back in the 70's were $35 a day.

Do the math .

[cj]

What you say here is correct but I also feel that Beyer's books passed the test of time while Ainslee's did not. I do not mean that Beyer is not outdated of course but his approach is still valid (although mutated)!

Agreed, Beyer was the next logical step after Ainslie. He is probably just as outdated just in a different way. Ainslie's ideas were hammered at the window and the game changed. You could say the same about a lot of Beyer's old works. In another decade his work may be as outdated as Ainslie's is now.

None of that is a knock at all. I love the guy and what he has done for racing. It is just the way the world works.

[aaron]

There were quality figures well before then, though maybe not available for sale. I have a book from (I believe, I'll have to look) the 1930s that describes a method very similar to what many use today, including even weight and ground loss adjustments. I imagine the people that had those made a pretty penny for a long time, but you never really know.
I remember Jerry Brown talking about a book from the 30's. It might the book you have. It was supposed to be very difficult to find.

[AltonKelsey]

This is true...that's why I said that Beyer proposed his ideas "by example". Beyer was visible, whereas Ainslie remained a mystery throughout.

You say that you speak "firsthand". What does that mean? I ask...because you misspelled his name.

Indeed I did. Can I get you to proofread my Taxes next year?:D

Firsthand , as in realtime, not some millennial who thinks superfecta's on every race is a god given right.

Now, as to Ainslie being a 'mystery'. Not really. Anyone interested could have gotten the real name, and he was at the NY tracks often. I now regret 'busting chops', unintentionally, because he was betting $200 on a horse and I was thinking, why not $1000 or more for the great man.

Little did I know.

[the little guy]

Sheets back in the 70's were $35 a day.

Do the math .


Not exactly.

[aaron]

Not exactly.
I remember Sheet players paying a % of their handle at some point. At least that was what I was told by a player who was using the sheets before, they were sold to the public.

[DeltaLover]

None of that is a knock at all. I love the guy and what he has done for racing.

Absolutely! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[the little guy]

I remember Sheet players paying a % of their handle at some point. At least that was what I was told by a player who was using the sheets before, they were sold to the public.


Bigger players definitely paid more though I am not sure of the math. You may well be correct. It was an honor system.

[aaron]

Bigger players definitely paid more though I am not sure of the math. You may well be correct. It was an honor system.
I remember that, but I am not so sure that all the players were honorable.I knew a few of them and I used to hear stories of how some tried to make their handle less than it actually was.The amazing thing about the Sheets and Thorograph,is that they haven't raised their prices in about 20-30 years.

[dilanesp]

One big difference between Beyer and Ainsle is that Beyer actually covered racing in the newspaper. He wrote about it all the time. Ainsle educated a generation of handicappers, but he didn't take on any sacred cows on a regular basis. Beyer did.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Tom Ainslee was really the first modern author to present handicapping as an intellectual exercise.

But Beyer added the nuance of the 'wise' guy , looking for edges, trying to dope out the scams, define the mysterious.

That's what really attracted people. I speak firsthand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/sports/othersports/08carter.html
Even Andy Beyer acknowledged the contribution of Ainslie when he said, “literature on handicapping can be divided into two eras. Before Tom Ainslie and after Tom Ainslie.”

[ReplayRandall]

I remember Jerry Brown talking about a book from the 30's. It might the book you have. It was supposed to be very difficult to find.
The name of the book is:
"Consistent Handicapping Profits"
by E.W. Donaldson- 1936

Barry Meadow writes:
"I first heard of this book at Handicapping Expo 2004, where Jerry Brown, the originator of the Thoro-Graph sheets, claimed that Consistent Handicapping Profits was an important, uncredited source for much of what both Thoro-Graph and rival Ragozin Sheets do today. Among the features covered in Donaldson’s book:

o A parallel time chart from 5 furlongs to 1 1/8 miles
o Explanation of a method to graph each horse’s race, by race segments,
then using the graphs to measure a horse’s loss of speed throughout a race
o A discussion of track-to-track adjustments for shippers
o A ground-loss chart with adjustments for number of paths wide per turn
o A detailed discussion about how weight affects final time, emphasizing
its greater importance in route races
o Some mention about how wind, atmospheric pressure, and track
moisture affect final times
o A thorough discussion of how figure patterns can signal improvement
o Using analysis of each running line to account for variations in
performance (e.g., helped by a rail trip or hurt by a fast pace)
o Use of feet-per-second calculations
o A theory that a lighter horse will be more affected by weight than a
heavy horse (although in the U.S., horses are not weighed before post)

In this book, and in a second volume published a year later (How To Select
Winning Horses), Donaldson reinforces several important points of handicapping that serve players just as well today as they might have in the 1930’s—or earlier. Some of today’s handicappers may be surprised to learn that many of the same principles they thought were original were in fact being used by players from a much earlier day."

Full article:
http://www.trpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ATM_04_15.pdf

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is true...that's why I said that Beyer proposed his ideas "by example". Beyer was visible, whereas Ainslie remained a mystery throughout.

You say that you speak "firsthand". What does that mean? I ask...because you misspelled his name.
From one of my articles.

Tom Ainslie was the pen name of Richard Carter. While he will be forever remembered for his talents as a turf writer, he had success as a writer beyond horse racing, writing biographies of Curt Flood and Dr. Jonas Salk.

Later in his career he made regular appearances at racetracks.

[Cratos]

It is very odd to me that posters who claim to have an in-depth historical knowledge of figure making, but none of them have mentioned the name of one the best figure makers ever in Phil Bull, a mathematician and one of the founders of TimeForm; and the creator of “timefigures” back in the 1930s.

Timefigures are usually transcribed into their equivalent ‘time-ratings’ in pounds.

[ReplayRandall]

It is very odd to me that posters who claim to have an in-depth historical knowledge of figure making, but none of them have mentioned the name of one the best figure makers ever in Phil Bull, a mathematician and one of the founders of TimeForm; and the creator of “timefigures” back in the 1930s.

Timefigures are usually transcribed into their equivalent ‘time-ratings’ in pounds.

Timeform was established in 1948....If you mentioned Phil Bull, why didn't you also mention his talented associate, Dick Whitford?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Great stuff everyone.

Beyer is a legend. A game changer in the horse racing business.

When your figure is THE figure in the biggest racing publication for well over 2 decades, I think you can claim you have changed the industry. An industry that is now all about figures, and numbers, and the crunching of those numbers to find winners and/or winning plays.

Toss in his incredible contributions from a penning standpoint, and he is truly one of the giants.

Godspeed Mr. Beyer.

[Broad Brush]

That was a great article on Andy. I think is truly a one-of-a-kind.

My mother gave my father a copy of Picking Winners in the late 1970s
as a gift. My father never understood the figures side of the book but I
soaked it up like a sponge. I was making speed figures when I was
in High School. Years later in the mid 1990s I created my own pace
figures using some of his calculations. I needed par times for some
distances not listed in any of his books. I wrote a letter to him, telling him
what I needed and why. He was kind enough to take the time to type
a detailed letter including the info I had requested and sent it to me.
I still have that original copy of Picking Winners on my book shelf.
I have a copy of all of his books. "My $50,000 Year"---I still use a lot.
If I have made a series of bad decisions and get in a slump--I always read a few of the stories in that book and it seems to snap me out of it.

I hope to meet him someday. I wish him nothing but winners....

[AltonKelsey]

Not exactly.

Well, memory fades. Was it $25, $30, Percent of Handle, Percent of Profit, or how many times Marty 'Mr Dirt" accosted you on the day, divided by 1.376?

After all we're going for accuracy here! :D

[Tom]

I hope to meet him someday. I wish him nothing but winners....

The first time I met Andy was at Laurel in the 90s.
We were in a small room off the main sports book, and I will never forget what he said to me that day: "How did you get in here?" :cool:

Great guy! He even arranged for a security guard to carry my laptop out to my car for me!

[Lemon Drop Husker]

The first time I met Andy was at Laurel in the 90s.
We were in a small room off the main sports book, and I will never forget what he said to me that day: "How did you get in here?" :cool:

Great guy! He even arranged for a security guard to carry my laptop out to my car for me!

You drug a laptop to the races with you in the 90s?

Must be a time traveler. How do you ever lose?

[Tom]

Toshiba - 3.5 inch floppy drive.

[AskinHaskin]

there are plenty of racetracks on the edge of demise whose management would love to do more for the people who bet on their races, but really aren't in a position to be able to do it


That is absurd.


They are all in a completely advantageous and enviable (from the standpoints of other competition for the gambling dollar) position where it concerns "doing more" for their bettors, but they are collectively too stupid to lift more than the one figure to the racing fans as a group.


It is more that track management has known only a long tradition of doing zero for their patrons, and so continuing that pointless and senseless tradition is the only path they know.

[cj]

You drug a laptop to the races with you in the 90s?

Must be a time traveler. How do you ever lose?

They were slow back then but definitely around.

[the little guy]

Well, memory fades. Was it $25, $30, Percent of Handle, Percent of Profit, or how many times Marty 'Mr Dirt" accosted you on the day, divided by 1.376?

After all we're going for accuracy here! :D

That made me laugh.....thanks.

Dirt actually still comes to Belmont sometimes with Rocco. He screams at me every time I see him so I try to keep our "visits" to a minimum:-)

As we said later, bigger bettors paid more back then, on an honor system.

[Elliott Sidewater]

I remember Andy describing his life changing win on Sun In Action at the old Liberty Bell track just outside of Philadelphia. That was around the time my own interest in racing switched from harness to thoroughbreds, and in the early 70's his teachings on speed handicapping made me a winner. Later in the decade I started making my own speed figures, and that gave me an edge that lasted for almost another decade. His explanation and examples of track biases in "My $50,000 Year at the Races" is the best information ever to appear in any racing book, ever, in my opinion. I owe Andy Beyer a great debt of gratitude, and I hope he reads how and I and others here respect his work, his great writing style, and his generosity as a teacher. And you know what, the "change of pace" angle still works in maiden races :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[cj]

It is very odd to me that posters who claim to have an in-depth historical knowledge of figure making, but none of them have mentioned the name of one the best figure makers ever in Phil Bull, a mathematician and one of the founders of TimeForm; and the creator of “timefigures” back in the 1930s.

Timefigures are usually transcribed into their equivalent ‘time-ratings’ in pounds.

Time is only a small part of Timeform ratings. They do have a speed rating also but few take it seriously...with pretty good reason.

[JBmadera]

Picking Winners got me hooked on this great sport in 1976. Every now and then I pull it out and re-read some of my fav parts. A true gift to horse racing.

Thanks Andy!

[cj]

The name of the book is:
"Consistent Handicapping Profits"
by E.W. Donaldson- 1936

Barry Meadow writes:
"I first heard of this book at Handicapping Expo 2004, where Jerry Brown, the originator of the Thoro-Graph sheets, claimed that Consistent Handicapping Profits was an important, uncredited source for much of what both Thoro-Graph and rival Ragozin Sheets do today. Among the features covered in Donaldson’s book:

o A parallel time chart from 5 furlongs to 1 1/8 miles
o Explanation of a method to graph each horse’s race, by race segments,
then using the graphs to measure a horse’s loss of speed throughout a race
o A discussion of track-to-track adjustments for shippers
o A ground-loss chart with adjustments for number of paths wide per turn
o A detailed discussion about how weight affects final time, emphasizing
its greater importance in route races
o Some mention about how wind, atmospheric pressure, and track
moisture affect final times
o A thorough discussion of how figure patterns can signal improvement
o Using analysis of each running line to account for variations in
performance (e.g., helped by a rail trip or hurt by a fast pace)
o Use of feet-per-second calculations
o A theory that a lighter horse will be more affected by weight than a
heavy horse (although in the U.S., horses are not weighed before post)

In this book, and in a second volume published a year later (How To Select
Winning Horses), Donaldson reinforces several important points of handicapping that serve players just as well today as they might have in the 1930’s—or earlier. Some of today’s handicappers may be surprised to learn that many of the same principles they thought were original were in fact being used by players from a much earlier day."

Full article:
http://www.trpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ATM_04_15.pdf

Yep, that is the book I was referencing. If it was published in 1936, the figure making had to have started much sooner. He didnt whip that up in a few weeks. :)

I'll take some pictures and post tomorrow.

[AltonKelsey]

That made me laugh.....thanks.

Dirt actually still comes to Belmont sometimes with Rocco. He screams at me every time I see him so I try to keep our "visits" to a minimum:-)

As we said later, bigger bettors paid more back then, on an honor system.

I have to say I'm pleased to hear he's still around, not a bet I would have made unless I was given Trump odds or better.

Knew him pretty well back in the day, but I , like most , couldn't take the 'heat', which was , even for the racetrack , in asbestos territory. He was an early adopter of sheet play, have to give him props for that.

[Cratos]

Timeform was established in 1948....If you mentioned Phil Bull, why didn't you also mention his talented associate, Dick Whitford?
You are correct on both accounts and that is why I said “one of the founders” of Timeform.

However, per history, Phil Bull was legendary as a gambler before Timeform.

[JustRalph]

They were slow back then but definitely around.

In the early 90's I carried a laptop in the police car with me. I was the only cop I knew with one. It was expensive as hell. I kept records on dirtbags and general/tech orders on floppies in a small plastic box.

It was thick enough to stop a bullet too :lol:

[dilanesp]

That is absurd.


They are all in a completely advantageous and enviable (from the standpoints of other competition for the gambling dollar) position where it concerns "doing more" for their bettors, but they are collectively too stupid to lift more than the one figure to the racing fans as a group.


It is more that track management has known only a long tradition of doing zero for their patrons, and so continuing that pointless and senseless tradition is the only path they know.

In case you missed it, lots of tracks have gone out of business. That suggests that they were not, in fact, in a position to give horseplayers a break.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

They were slow back then but definitely around.

Slow?

Al Gore hadn't even invented the internet yet and Microsoft Excel wasn't even around.

Lotus123 for spreadsheets? :p

What possible good could a laptop have done for a guy in the 90s at the track?

[Tom]

They ran programs.

[cj]

Slow?

Al Gore hadn't even invented the internet yet and Microsoft Excel wasn't even around.

Lotus123 for spreadsheets? :p

What possible good could a laptop have done for a guy in the 90s at the track?
Your timeline is off a bit. Office was around in the very early 90s. I remember using Excel to do post position analysis back then, moved on from the TI-81 programmable calculator. I also used it to help make speed figures by storing my baseline data for each track and having the math all automated.

I didn't carry a laptop to the track, but I'm sure it could have been helpful if I had. I, at the least, would have had bigger muscles. :)

[Tom]

My right arm is 2 inches longer than my left one.

[JustRalph]

My right arm is 2 inches longer than my left one.

Don't blame the laptop! :lol: ;)

[Lemon Drop Husker]

My right arm is 2 inches longer than my left one.

Maybe you should have carried it around with your your 5th appendage? :cool:

[overthehill]

I met him once at Saratoga, and unlike some other prominent racing personalities, who would barely give me the time of day , he was friendly and receptive. Impressed me as a decent guys. BTW do horseplayers ever retire?

[ultracapper]

Don't blame the laptop! :lol: ;)

SMOKE!!!!

What goes on in the bathroom, stays in the bathroom.

[AskinHaskin]

In case you missed it, lots of tracks have gone out of business. That suggests that they were not, in fact, in a position to give horseplayers a break.

Uh, wrong answer.


Just because they opted not to optimize their huge edge over traditional casino/gaming competition, does not mean they weren't in (the same, simple) position (known to all larger parimutuel tracks in North America) to do so.


It is numbers and common sense - thus, a 'constant', and not a variable.

[DeoVolente]

I could never understand how such an instrumental and significant person to the horse player as Beyer has always been can get so much criticism on a racing board.

[EMD4ME]

I could never understand how such an instrumental and significant person to the horse player as Beyer has always been can get so much criticism on a racing board.

It's the character of a horse player. Most think they are the smartest horseplayer ever and act like it. They look for any reason to knock someone else down, as internally, their jealously eats at their fiber.

Not saying people on PA did that. I'm saying overall, quite often, that's my opinion of why many players have knocked him over the years.

Was/Is Beyer perfect? Absolutely NOT. His figures are not perfect and are flawed and I've heard he doesn't even know how to watch a race properly. Not sure how true that is.

However, one can not dispute his testicular fortitude at the windows and his ability to speak his mind, despite it being contrary to what the snowflakes want to hear.

The latter, can not be disputed by his enemies.

[Saratoga_Mike]

It's the character of a horse player. Most think they are the smartest horseplayer ever and act like it. They look for any reason to knock someone else down, as internally, their jealously eats at their fiber.

Not saying people on PA did that.

Nah, never.

[EMD4ME]

Nah, never.

If you have someone to call out, please go ahead.

I don't. I was thinking of people I've come across in person/ on track the last 20 years.

[ultracapper]

They aren't in a position to help the horse player if they are owned or operated by a casino friendly operator that has no interest in the horse player. You can say yes they are, it's the same game at all tracks, but when the track operator is the puppet of the casino operator, the track operator is tied and gagged.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If you have someone to call out, please go ahead.

I don't. I was thinking of people I've come across in person/ on track the last 20 years.

I certainly was not referencing you. I hope it didn't come across that way. We have a few Beyer-bashers on here. I'm sure you know who they are.

[EMD4ME]

I certainly was not referencing you. I hope it didn't come across that way. We have a few Beyer-bashers on here. I'm sure you know who they are.

I didn't think you were Saratoga Mike and I was being sincere in my words. No hidden agenda.

To each his/her/it's own. I don't really care enough to argue with them. I was just answering the poster with and about my life experience.

[AskinHaskin]

They aren't in a position to help the horse player if they are owned or operated by a casino friendly operator that has no interest in the horse player. You can say yes they are, it's the same game at all tracks, but when the track operator is the puppet of the casino operator, the track operator is tied and gagged.


Nearly every horse-race-wager-taking entity is indisputably in position to (help the horse player and) take advantage of its huge edge over the competition for the wagering dollar. That they have no interest in so doing, does not alter the clear and objective equation at all.

[EMD4ME]

So, who if anyone, will take Andy's role in saying like it is?

[dilanesp]

Uh, wrong answer.


Just because they opted not to optimize their huge edge over traditional casino/gaming competition, does not mean they weren't in (the same, simple) position (known to all larger parimutuel tracks in North America) to do so.


It is numbers and common sense - thus, a 'constant', and not a variable.

For an industry with such a "huge edge", it sure looks like we are closing a lot of tracks while other forms of gambling are thriving.

[thaskalos]

So, who if anyone, will take Andy's role in saying like it is?

No one. The game is no longer "significant" enough to attract anyone of the talent level of an Andy Beyer. The smart horseplayers usually can't captivate anyone with their prose...while the talented writers don't have the required horseracing knowledge to address the game in a meaningful way. And when they try to "pretend" their way through...they come across as fake as the $3-dollar bill.

The Andy Beyers of the world are very rare...and they usually don't get attracted to sinking ships. Even Beyer himself admitted that his "retirement" was hastened by the Washington Post's current disinterest in our game.

[Nitro]

No one. The game is no longer "significant" enough to attract anyone of the talent level of an Andy Beyer. The smart horseplayers usually can't captivate anyone with their prose...while the talented writers don't have the required horseracing knowledge to address the game in a meaningful way. And when they try to "pretend" their way through...they come across as fake as the $3-dollar bill.

The Andy Beyers of the world are very rare...and they usually don't get attracted to sinking ships. Even Beyer himself admitted that his "retirement" was hastened by the Washington Post's current disinterest in our game. Great insight! And thanks for coming back on topic.

All good sports writers who were actual participants in their game including Andy B have always appealed to me. They always seem to offer some very interesting insights to their specialty be it Baseball or Horse racing. I thought of Andy as a very colorful author who could articulate his ideas and experiences very well. Unfortunately, he sometimes fell into that same trap that many players do by not following his own advice. You know that old saying “Do what I say, but Don’t do what I Do”.

As I mentioned on PA many years ago after reading his first book “Picking Winners” I had the opportunity to meet him at a special pre-race Belmont Stakes seminar. To be honest, I was later shocked that day when he announced to the crowd “that Seattle Slew was a one-dimensional speed horse, and would never win the Triple Crown”. It surprised me only because it contradicted some of his written material. Well, as a young player I later realized that there are some things about this game that can certainly defy logic.

I for one would certainly enjoy reading any future publication covering his memoirs. :ThmbUp:

[Cratos]

So, who if anyone, will take Andy's role in saying like it is?
It is not that Andy Beyer be replaced; it is whether there will ever be another news organization that will support a horserace columnist like the way Washington Post appeared to have supported Beyer for an extended period.

Back to your question; the “greats" are not replaced, just succeeded.

In science, there were Aristotle, Newton, and 200 years later came Einstein. In boxing, we had Louis, Marciano, Ali, and Tyson as greats of the sport.

I am sure that a list can be made from many other segments of society showing how the “torch” was successfully passed.

[cj]

There are plenty of avenues available other than newspapers. The world has changed and will continue to do so. As Thaskalos says though, little interest these days outside hardcore fans.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

A couple of offhanded opinions. There are excellent turf writers out there, but the only way to make a living as a turf writer is to publish for one of the print sources still alive, DRF for example. For good reason the people who write for DRF have to be very careful about who they criticize and how they criticize them. For the most part they focus on news and factual stories. Definitely the same with Paulick - he strikes me as a racing commission guy. The Finley's over at TDN will occasionally pop a decent editorial, but again, all those people have advertisers and that inevitably constrains them. If you see something about the high take killing racing, it will be done in the context of a news story covering someone's talk at a symposium or something. Can't piss off the advertisers for the most part.

Beyer was in a slightly different position. His paper wasn't going to lose much in advertising if he popped off about something controversial. There is a market for uncensored opinion but it strikes me there really isn't an obvious place where Beyer types can have a widely read forum. Beyer was in the right place at the time when he got picked up by the Washington Post, and I expect he was never a big expense for the paper at any time. He was also the first guy in the rolodex you called if you needed a horse racing expert. Anyone with a peripheral involvement with horse racing knew his name.

The other thing that strikes me is that the potential outlets either can't make it financially - Horseplayer Magazine comes to mind - or they don't have wide circulation in all sectors of the industry. I'm not sure how widely read the HANA monthly magazine is, but I have a feeling only a subset of horseplayers are reading it. There really isn't an independent source that tells it like it is, like Beyer did.

John Donne was right. Although when he said no man is an island entire of itself, he may not have been thinking about horseplayers.Given how much power our betting dollar should carry, we don't really have commensurate influence.

[cj]

Agree with Rich---anyone willing to tackle tough issues won't be doing it for profit. It would be simple love of the game and wanting it to get better.

That said, if done right, it will gain traction and make the rounds.

[AndyC]

As I mentioned on PA many years ago after reading his first book “Picking Winners” I had the opportunity to meet him at a special pre-race Belmont Stakes seminar. To be honest, I was later shocked that day when he announced to the crowd “that Seattle Slew was a one-dimensional speed horse, and would never win the Triple Crown”. It surprised me only because it contradicted some of his written material. Well, as a young player I later realized that there are some things about this game that can certainly defy logic.:


Why would such a statement about SS shock you? What did he write that you thought was a contradiction?

[Cratos]

A couple of offhanded opinions. There are excellent turf writers out there, but the only way to make a living as a turf writer is to publish for one of the print sources still alive, DRF for example. For good reason the people who write for DRF have to be very careful about who they criticize and how they criticize them. For the most part they focus on news and factual stories. Definitely the same with Paulick - he strikes me as a racing commission guy. The Finley's over at TDN will occasionally pop a decent editorial, but again, all those people have advertisers and that inevitably constrains them. If you see something about the high take killing racing, it will be done in the context of a news story covering someone's talk at a symposium or something. Can't piss off the advertisers for the most part.

Beyer was in a slightly different position. His paper wasn't going to lose much in advertising if he popped off about something controversial. There is a market for uncensored opinion but it strikes me there really isn't an obvious place where Beyer types can have a widely read forum. Beyer was in the right place at the time when he got picked up by the Washington Post, and I expect he was never a big expense for the paper at any time. He was also the first guy in the rolodex you called if you needed a horse racing expert. Anyone with a peripheral involvement with horse racing knew his name.

The other thing that strikes me is that the potential outlets either can't make it financially - Horseplayer Magazine comes to mind - or they don't have wide circulation in all sectors of the industry. I'm not sure how widely read the HANA monthly magazine is, but I have a feeling only a subset of horseplayers are reading it. There really isn't an independent source that tells it like it is, like Beyer did.

John Donne was right. Although when he said no man is an island entire of itself, he may not have been thinking about horseplayers.Given how much power our betting dollar should carry, we don't really have commensurate influence.
Correct, Beyer was in the “right place” and anyone who believes otherwise and that there are other existing avenues today for promoting horseracing is wrong.

During the heyday of Beyer’s popularity in the seventies, the NFL wasn’t the juggernaut with popularity as it is today and horseracing had some stars of its own in Secretariat, Ruffian, Forego, and others.

Also in the seventies, horses like American Pharoah, Beholder, Arrogate, and Found would have been popular enough to get much recognition from turf writers other than Beyer like Jim Murray on the West Coast or Red Smith of New York; both of whom are deceased.

The millennials of today are very “tech savvy” and the horseracing industry is still in the era of “pencil and paper.”

[dnlgfnk]

Perhaps the contradiction is in Beyer's admitting that "I do not often let emotions affect my handicapping judgement, but I passionately wanted to cash a big bet against Seattle Slew and thumb my nose at the world."

No Triple Crown for Andy, despite Slew having figures all over Run Dusty Run and Sanhedrin.

[AskinHaskin]

For an industry with such a "huge edge", it sure looks like we are closing a lot of tracks while other forms of gambling are thriving.


As previously pointed out, the huge edge is the constant.


What an industry does or doesn't do with that edge is a variable.


Keep in mind that you are dealing with track managers who are keen on doing the same things over and over again while expecting different results. Which, as most know, is the mark of idiots.


The constant remains theirs for the utilizing, if only...

[Parkview_Pirate]

No one. The game is no longer "significant" enough to attract anyone of the talent level of an Andy Beyer. The smart horseplayers usually can't captivate anyone with their prose...while the talented writers don't have the required horseracing knowledge to address the game in a meaningful way. And when they try to "pretend" their way through...they come across as fake as the $3-dollar bill.

The Andy Beyers of the world are very rare...and they usually don't get attracted to sinking ships. Even Beyer himself admitted that his "retirement" was hastened by the Washington Post's current disinterest in our game.

No argument that Beyer is rare, talented and authentic to horseplayers, and he leaves behind mighty big shoes to fill. And even though the sport is down, it's not quite out - and history shows that someone, or a small group of people, will probably fill the vacuum shortly.

And I could be wrong, but I believe there's been some anticipation by quite a few at PA for a book written by a frequent and well-respected poster here. ;) If and when that becomes available, or another book from a similar source, then we'll have a better idea who's picking up Mr. Beyer's baton....

[pandy]

Things have changed a lot of the horse racing publishing world the last year or so. The only two magazines that focused on horse players, American Turf Monthly and Horseplayer, are no longer published in print. Beyer and Crist, the two best at writing editorials, are retired.

Imagine if there wasn't an internet? No one would know that horse racing existed.

[burnsy]

Things have changed a lot of the horse racing publishing world the last year or so. The only two magazines that focused on horse players, American Turf Monthly and Horseplayer, are no longer published in print. Beyer and Crist, the two best at writing editorials, are retired.

Imagine if there wasn't an internet? No one would know that horse racing existed.



Isn't that the plan or idea? Its going that way and its short sighted IMO.

[pandy]

[/B]


Isn't that the plan or idea? Its going that way and its short sighted IMO.


I don't think it's a plan, it's economics. Publishing a paper or magazine for a dwindling audience is not financially feasible. It's unfortunate because there are probably many horseplayers who don't have access to the internet.

[the little guy]

Perhaps the contradiction is in Beyer's admitting that "I do not often let emotions affect my handicapping judgement, but I passionately wanted to cash a big bet against Seattle Slew and thumb my nose at the world."

No Triple Crown for Andy, despite Slew having figures all over Run Dusty Run and Sanhedrin.


You conveniently left out that Slew lost the next two Stakes he ran in.

[Nitro]

Why would such a statement about SS shock you? What did he write that you thought was a contradiction?
Well, if you recall the majority of that book concerned itself with speed and speed figures. Those who recognized what Slew had already accomplished as a 2 year old and the races leading up to the Belmont knew from referencing Andy’s own speed numbers that this was a special horse. At the time, I felt the contradiction was an obvious disregard for Slew’s superlative speed numbers. But as many are aware Andy also did the same thing after War Emblem had won the Illinois Derby with an extremely credible Beyer’s number. But you can’t fault someone for second guessing themselves on occasion. More often then not, there are many other factors to consider besides just raw speed.

[Inner Dirt]

I remember watching a handicapping show about the 1986 Breeder's Cup a day in advance of the big day. Not sure where I watched it maybe on Southern California channel 56 that showed the race replays. I lived in Southern California and was a Santa Anita regular I could haul ass when the quitting bell rang and make the late double after work and sometimes the last 3 races. California was way behind the rest of the USA as far a simulcasting and OTB were concerned. In 1986 you either bet the live racing at the track or drove to Tijuana Mexico or Nevada to bet another track. It wasn't till a couple years later the OTBs opened up and a few years after that where you could bet full cards at out of state tracks.

Even though I started betting Thoroughbreds in 1979 at the age of 18. I felt 1986 was the year I was coming of age. I was making larger wagers and becoming more bold and had my first ever $1,000+ profit day at the track. Anyway I already had the races handicapped when I watched local handicapper Jeff Siegel clash with Andrew Beyer on almost every race.
Beyer was talking down to Siegel like he was the dumbest guy on the planet. Looking at my picks I pretty much agreed 100% with Andy. I was pumped I had reached the level of genius as my mentor at only the age of 25. I went out the next day and "bet with confidence" (a Beyerism)

I managed to set a new record for money lost (-$500.00). The only winner I had (Lady's Secret) was 1-2, and I just used her in a pair of cold exactas that didn't hit. I didn't recall all of Siegel's picks but I seem to remember him mentioning Skywalker and a few others that won that day. I think if I blindly bet the horses Siegel liked I would have cleaned up. Thing is I was laughing at what I thought were his stupid picks and all on board with who Andy liked.

[Grits]

This is a loss, and a truly great one. Thask, you've stated it so well.

Well wishes to Mr. Beyer, and a tremendous thank you!!

[ribjig]

Brilliant writer, check. :ThmbUp:
Cutting edge innovator, check. :ThmbUp:
Made living as author, teacher, check. :ThmbUp:
Devoted to a passion, check :ThmbUp:

>"...to live the life of a renegade gambler...who earned his living by his wits"

But is his degree of long-term success at this known???
Generous second income...or hobby???!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

ONE WINNER, NO DEAD HEATS...WHO BEAT WHO??!!
DID HE BEAT TRACK OR DID TRACK BEAT HIM... :confused: :confused: :confused:

[the little guy]

Anyway I already had the races handicapped when I watched local handicapper Jeff Siegel clash with Andrew Beyer on almost every race.
Beyer was talking down to Siegel like he was the dumbest guy on the planet.




I know for a fact that Andy has a VERY high regard for Jeff.

Funny how people misinterpret two handicappers disagreeing about a race. At least we only have civil debates around here.

[PaceAdvantage]

Great article about a bona fide legend of the game. Beyer's writings were a major influence on me early on when I started to play this game almost 30 years ago...

I have nothing more to add, it's basically all been said here already. :ThmbUp:

[Inner Dirt]

I know for a fact that Andy has a VERY high regard for Jeff.

Funny how people misinterpret two handicappers disagreeing about a race. At least we only have civil debates around here.

I can't remember the horse's name but it was an argument over a horse that faltered as a lone F with a big lead cutting slow fractions. Siegel excused the poor effort saying he should have been going faster which in this case made no sense. Pretty sure Beyer thought Siegel's take was complete nonsense. I can understand disagreeing respectfully, but Beyer's mannerisms would be taken as condescending by most people. I used to see guys on TVG respectfully disagree all the time, this wasn't the case that day 30 years ago. Maybe that is just how Andy Beyer talks. Since I lived on the other side of the country till a half dozen years ago I was mostly exposed to Beyer in the printed form.

[ultracapper]

I remember when he said Best Pal was a "mortal lock" in the Pacific Classic. I think he ran 4th. I had been handicapping at Longacres for a couple years by then but I had really no exposure to the national scene yet. I thought what a shill, what a fake, after hearing all the hype about who he was.

Of course I couldn't pick my nose at that time, never mind a winner. I learned who Andy Beyer was pretty quickly after shooting my mouth off for a couple weeks at the track. He had endless respect from the railbirds in the Pacific Northwest. As the old-timers saw the writing on the wall for Longacres' future, they grew to appreciate more and more the impact, and importance, of the few like Beyer out there.

[AskinHaskin]

The only two magazines that focused on horse players, American Turf Monthly and Horseplayer, are no longer published in print....

Imagine if there wasn't an internet? No one would know that horse racing existed.



Yeah, and nobody would know that Ray Taulbot died... in December of 1969.



The man was born on May 11, 1895, and despite there remaining just one person alive today born in that same century, Ray Taulbot was selling "systems" in American Turf Monthly up until its final print issue of a year or two ago.

Does society really NEED those pathetic excuses for racing publications?

[dilanesp]

I can't remember the horse's name but it was an argument over a horse that faltered as a lone F with a big lead cutting slow fractions. Siegel excused the poor effort saying he should have been going faster which in this case made no sense. Pretty sure Beyer thought Siegel's take was complete nonsense. I can understand disagreeing respectfully, but Beyer's mannerisms would be taken as condescending by most people. I used to see guys on TVG respectfully disagree all the time, this wasn't the case that day 30 years ago. Maybe that is just how Andy Beyer talks. Since I lived on the other side of the country till a half dozen years ago I was mostly exposed to Beyer in the printed form.

That was Beyer's style. Siegel got along fine with him amd when Siegel had a handicapping show on local TV in the 1980's, Beyer used to cone on as a guest sometimes.

[dilanesp]

Perhaps the contradiction is in Beyer's admitting that "I do not often let emotions affect my handicapping judgement, but I passionately wanted to cash a big bet against Seattle Slew and thumb my nose at the world."

No Triple Crown for Andy, despite Slew having figures all over Run Dusty Run and Sanhedrin.

I don't have a problem with that. Hasn't every horseplayer, at least once, taken a big stand against a big favorite in a big race and really wanted to be right?

[dilanesp]

Brilliant writer, check. :ThmbUp:
Cutting edge innovator, check. :ThmbUp:
Made living as author, teacher, check. :ThmbUp:
Devoted to a passion, check :ThmbUp:

>"...to live the life of a renegade gambler...who earned his living by his wits"

But is his degree of long-term success at this known???
Generous second income...or hobby???!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

ONE WINNER, NO DEAD HEATS...WHO BEAT WHO??!!
DID HE BEAT TRACK OR DID TRACK BEAT HIM... :confused: :confused: :confused:

This is a whole 'nother subject, but the reality is that very few gamblers achieve their stated or implied winrates....

[Grits]

Yeah, and nobody would know that Ray Taulbot died... in December of 1969.



The man was born on May 11, 1895, and despite there remaining just one person alive today born in that same century, Ray Taulbot was selling "systems" in American Turf Monthly up until its final print issue of a year or two ago.

Does society really NEED those pathetic excuses for racing publications?

I'm not sure it's up to me (or you) as to what should be deemed worthy of readership by the masses when it comes to handicapping/racing materials, etc. That is putting us pretty far out on a limb.

I'll say this. At BC time, there was a thread here that had a link to a bunch of current (as in today--real time) handicappers top choices for each race. Many of these young folks are on twitter, facebook, their own sites, or sites they work for that give out selections. If you saw this, did you realize how many of these handicappers landed on the same horses? If I recall, correctly, one of the best performances of the bunch was Rich Halvey, who, like myself, here, ain't the youngest of the bunch.

The point I'm trying to make is I wouldn't solidly dismiss someone else's knowledge, particularly if, at a time, however long ago, that person was successful regardless of the format they presented in. Nuggets can still be found--far and wide. And sometime, reading, unfettered, is simply interesting and fun.

[ribjig]

This is a whole 'nother subject, but the reality is that very few gamblers achieve their stated or implied winrates....

My guess:
1 in 1000 full timers show profit annually after expenses.
1 in 10000 full timers scratch out living annually after expenses.
1 in 100000 full timers average $100K profit annually after expenses.

[dilanesp]

My guess:
1 in 1000 full timers show profit annually after expenses.
1 in 10000 full timers scratch out living annually after expenses.
1 in 100000 full timers average $100K profit annually after expenses.

Not sure about the specific numbers, but you have the general idea. :)

And also, there's a ton of variance. Just like in any gambling game. Someone has a good year and assumes that's their winrate.

[AndyC]

I remember watching a handicapping show about the 1986 Breeder's Cup a day in advance of the big day. Not sure where I watched it maybe on Southern California channel 56 that showed the race replays. I lived in Southern California and was a Santa Anita regular I could haul ass when the quitting bell rang and make the late double after work and sometimes the last 3 races. California was way behind the rest of the USA as far a simulcasting and OTB were concerned. In 1986 you either bet the live racing at the track or drove to Tijuana Mexico or Nevada to bet another track. It wasn't till a couple years later the OTBs opened up and a few years after that where you could bet full cards at out of state tracks.

Even though I started betting Thoroughbreds in 1979 at the age of 18. I felt 1986 was the year I was coming of age. I was making larger wagers and becoming more bold and had my first ever $1,000+ profit day at the track. Anyway I already had the races handicapped when I watched local handicapper Jeff Siegel clash with Andrew Beyer on almost every race.
Beyer was talking down to Siegel like he was the dumbest guy on the planet. Looking at my picks I pretty much agreed 100% with Andy. I was pumped I had reached the level of genius as my mentor at only the age of 25. I went out the next day and "bet with confidence" (a Beyerism)

I managed to set a new record for money lost (-$500.00). The only winner I had (Lady's Secret) was 1-2, and I just used her in a pair of cold exactas that didn't hit. I didn't recall all of Siegel's picks but I seem to remember him mentioning Skywalker and a few others that won that day. I think if I blindly bet the horses Siegel liked I would have cleaned up. Thing is I was laughing at what I thought were his stupid picks and all on board with who Andy liked.

Andy has always regarded Siegel as an excellent handicapper so any talking down done was probably done for theatrical purposes.

[AndyC]

Perhaps the contradiction is in Beyer's admitting that "I do not often let emotions affect my handicapping judgement, but I passionately wanted to cash a big bet against Seattle Slew and thumb my nose at the world."

No Triple Crown for Andy, despite Slew having figures all over Run Dusty Run and Sanhedrin.

Andy realizes that horses that run loose on the lead tend to have inflated figures and he probably thought that a challenged Slew would mean significantly lower figs.

[AndyC]

Well, if you recall the majority of that book concerned itself with speed and speed figures. Those who recognized what Slew had already accomplished as a 2 year old and the races leading up to the Belmont knew from referencing Andy’s own speed numbers that this was a special horse. At the time, I felt the contradiction was an obvious disregard for Slew’s superlative speed numbers. But as many are aware Andy also did the same thing after War Emblem had won the Illinois Derby with an extremely credible Beyer’s number. But you can’t fault someone for second guessing themselves on occasion. More often then not, there are many other factors to consider besides just raw speed.

Both Slew and War Emblem were frontrunners which meant that when left alone on the lead they would produce high figs, as any frontrunner would. Beyer has never been a one-trick pony just blindly betting horses with the top fig.

[Inner Dirt]

I seem to only think of negative Beyer stories the last few days. Anyway here goes another. Somewhere around the late 80's I am at the local OTB in San Bernardino at that time the OTB pretty much only covered the Southern California circuit. So the race had to be at one of those, anyway I do remember it to be two turns for something around $20k claimers. I believe the horse's name was Extrannix and he was climbing the claiming ladder with recent Beyer's (my own using his methods) in the high 90's to low 100's facing opposition that never broke out of the 80's with no reason to improve (older claimers)

I think he bounced between 9-2 and 5-1 and this appeared to be a gift, he was even a front runner in a race full of stalkers and closers. I plunked down the max bet of $250 at the time and was just wondering how bad he would blow them away. Race starts and he doesn't get away well racing wide mid pack on the clubhouse turn. Down the backstretch he does not improve position, on the far turn he fades from mid pack and finished dead last in a field of 10 or so.

After gathering myself as usually never does a horse with such a high fig advantage not run a lick I went over to a group of older guys (my age now I was in my mid 20's then) who obviously were happy with the result. I asked them how they picked the winner and why they thought my horse never picked up it's feet. My problem was my horse was claimed after his last race "By a trainer that runs a torture chamber for thoroughbreds." (Their exact words) and their nice price winner was a horse claimed away from the bad trainer and was now in the hands of a good one.

Moral of the story, a high fig advantage blinded me to how useful handicapping 101 can be.

[thaskalos]

I seem to only think of negative Beyer stories the last few days. Anyway here goes another. Somewhere around the late 80's I am at the local OTB in San Bernardino at that time the OTB pretty much only covered the Southern California circuit. So the race had to be at one of those, anyway I do remember it to be two turns for something around $20k claimers. I believe the horse's name was Extrannix and he was climbing the claiming ladder with recent Beyer's (my own using his methods) in the high 90's to low 100's facing opposition that never broke out of the 80's with no reason to improve (older claimers)

I think he bounced between 9-2 and 5-1 and this appeared to be a gift, he was even a front runner in a race full of stalkers and closers. I plunked down the max bet of $250 at the time and was just wondering how bad he would blow them away. Race starts and he doesn't get away well racing wide mid pack on the clubhouse turn. Down the backstretch he does not improve position, on the far turn he fades from mid pack and finished dead last in a field of 10 or so.

After gathering myself as usually never does a horse with such a high fig advantage not run a lick I went over to a group of older guys (my age now I was in my mid 20's then) who obviously were happy with the result. I asked them how they picked the winner and why they thought my horse never picked up it's feet. My problem was my horse was claimed after his last race "By a trainer that runs a torture chamber for thoroughbreds." (Their exact words) and their nice price winner was a horse claimed away from the bad trainer and was now in the hands of a good one.

Moral of the story, a high fig advantage blinded me to how useful handicapping 101 can be.

This is hardly the "negative Beyer story" that you initially labeled it. From the very beginning, Beyer has been advocating that we become acutely aware of the operating methods of the different trainers...and he even wrote about how he, early on, laboriously compiled detailed trainer information...by hand.

His READERS might have mindlessly bet on the speed figures alone, but Beyer himself has always been a lot more "comprehensive" than that in his own play...and he never kept that a secret.

[Tom]

Some people have the idea that anyone who uses speed figures just bets the highest last out number period. You can't convince them otherwise.

I have no clue why some people get all riled up when someone mentions a figure....

[cj]

Both Slew and War Emblem were frontrunners which meant that when left alone on the lead they would produce high figs, as any frontrunner would. Beyer has never been a one-trick pony just blindly betting horses with the top fig.

Mostly true, though his early works he readily admits he was a slave to the figures, blatantly ignoring pace and class designations. He evolved.

[Inner Dirt]

This is hardly the "negative Beyer story" that you initially labeled it. From the very beginning, Beyer has been advocating that we become acutely aware of the operating methods of the different trainers...and he even wrote about how he, early on, laboriously compiled detailed trainer information...by hand.

His READERS might have mindlessly bet on the speed figures alone, but Beyer himself has always been a lot more "comprehensive" than that in his own play...and he never kept that a secret.

I just labeled it NEGATIVE because of the financial outcome. I screwed up, but learned a lesson. If I told the story of using my Beyer like pace figures to be the sole winning ticket of a pick six at Aqueduct (No carryover dammit, paid $36k) I would have referred to it as POSITIVE. My negative and positive labels do nothing more than differentiate between a losing day and a winning day.

[Inner Dirt]

Some people have the idea that anyone who uses speed figures just bets the highest last out number period. You can't convince them otherwise.

I have no clue why some people get all riled up when someone mentions a figure....

As long as the scenario of today's race probably would unfold close to how the number was earned I did that quite often back in the day. (Before the figures were published) . If a closer had my top fig in a race full of plodders no way I was betting him, like wise I was not betting a top fig speed horse in a race full of early zip. I was that way even when I was first using figs.

[rsetup]

Some people have the idea that anyone who uses speed figures just bets the highest last out number period. You can't convince them otherwise.

I have no clue why some people get all riled up when someone mentions a figure....
No one gets riled up. It makes sense that the one dependant on something would take it more seriously. And, I'll believe the first part just as soon as people stop considering race results in terms of Beyers. I'd venture that 90% of the people here' at the very least, couldn't approach a race without a number. Beyer put all these Bozos in the game. They'd be clueless without him and really need to erect a shrine in his honor. Seriously

[Nitro]

Both Slew and War Emblem were frontrunners which meant that when left alone on the lead they would produce high figs, as any frontrunner would. Beyer has never been a one-trick pony just blindly betting horses with the top fig.Yes I realize that, but I suggest that if you think for one minute that Slew ran uncontested on the lead you should perhaps take a look and review some of his races.

As far as War Emblem goes if I'm not mistaken it had recorded one of the highest Beyer figures of any 3-year old going into the Derby. If I recall there really wasn't much in that race that was going to go with him.

When it comes to "one-trick ponies" there's a HUGE difference when comparing front running horses at different Class levels.

I personally believe that the Classiest horses are those that go out on the front-end and can carry their speed no matter what the distance, competition, or track conditions. (2 others come to mind: Ghostzapper and of course Secretariat in the Belmont.)

[dilanesp]

Mostly true, though his early works he readily admits he was a slave to the figures, blatantly ignoring pace and class designations. He evolved.

Well, methods got less profitable as they are widely disseminated. In 1973, you probably made a fairly big profit based on a slavish devotion to speed figures because you caught your share of horses over the course of the year who were 8 to 1 when they should have been 9 to 5.

I bet you probably also made a fairly big profit based on slavish devotion to trip handicapping, because handicappers got to see the race (live, with no big screen and whatever obstructions were present at the track), and one replay on the televisions downstairs. So there were tons of times a horse was 8 to 1 because of a bad trip or two when he should have been 9 to 5.

Same thing with track bias, trainer statistics, and probably several other handicapping factors.

Beyer evolved because he saw his methods become less profitable because they found wider dissemination.

[Tom]

No one gets riled up. It makes sense that the one dependant on something would take it more seriously. And, I'll believe the first part just as soon as people stop considering race results in terms of Beyers. I'd venture that 90% of the people here' at the very least, couldn't approach a race without a number. Beyer put all these Bozos in the game. They'd be clueless without him and really need to erect a shrine in his honor. Seriously

You are exactly who I am talking about.
You are clueless.

[dilanesp]

Yes I realize that, but I suggest that if you think for one minute that Slew ran uncontested on the lead you should perhaps take a look and review some of his races.

As far as War Emblem goes if I'm not mistaken it had recorded one of the highest Beyer figures of any 3-year old going into the Derby. If I recall there really wasn't much in that race that was going to go with him.

When it comes to "one-trick ponies" there's a HUGE difference when comparing front running horses at different Class levels.

I personally believe that the Classiest horses are those that go out on the front-end and can carry their speed no matter what the distance, competition, or track conditions. (2 others come to mind: Ghostzapper and of course Secretariat in the Belmont.)

This is unfair to closers, I think. I didn't get to see Whirlaway, obviously, but looking at his race record and the films of some of his races, he was clearly one classy animal.

One from more recent times was Forego. He didn't have a ton of early speed, generally made one big run, and won top stakes races sprinting, marathoning, and at every distance in between, beating good horses. He was the very definition of a classy animal.

Zenyatta, I realize, is more controversial. But if you think she was a classy racehorse, she clearly did what she did with no early speed whatsoever.

I think there's more than one way to be a classy horse. It always impresses me when horses can survive contested speed duels and fast paces to win, but it's not a ding on other horses with different styles.

[cj]

No one gets riled up. It makes sense that the one dependant on something would take it more seriously. And, I'll believe the first part just as soon as people stop considering race results in terms of Beyers. I'd venture that 90% of the people here' at the very least, couldn't approach a race without a number. Beyer put all these Bozos in the game. They'd be clueless without him and really need to erect a shrine in his honor. Seriously


Plenty of people get riled up, trust me.

[cj]

Well, methods got less profitable as they are widely disseminated. In 1973, you probably made a fairly big profit based on a slavish devotion to speed figures because you caught your share of horses over the course of the year who were 8 to 1 when they should have been 9 to 5.

I bet you probably also made a fairly big profit based on slavish devotion to trip handicapping, because handicappers got to see the race (live, with no big screen and whatever obstructions were present at the track), and one replay on the televisions downstairs. So there were tons of times a horse was 8 to 1 because of a bad trip or two when he should have been 9 to 5.

Same thing with track bias, trainer statistics, and probably several other handicapping factors.

Beyer evolved because he saw his methods become less profitable because they found wider dissemination.

Of course, never said any differently. He evolved as the game got tougher, which we all must do if we want to win.

[cj]

Yes I realize that, but I suggest that if you think for one minute that Slew ran uncontested on the lead you should perhaps take a look and review some of his races.

As far as War Emblem goes if I'm not mistaken it had recorded one of the highest Beyer figures of any 3-year old going into the Derby. If I recall there really wasn't much in that race that was going to go with him.

When it comes to "one-trick ponies" there's a HUGE difference when comparing front running horses at different Class levels.

I personally believe that the Classiest horses are those that go out on the front-end and can carry their speed no matter what the distance, competition, or track conditions. (2 others come to mind: Ghostzapper and of course Secretariat in the Belmont.)

As to War Emblem, the prior year was one of the biggest pace meltdowns in Derby history. It was fairly predictable the jockeys would be very cautious the next year.

[AndyC]

Yes I realize that, but I suggest that if you think for one minute that Slew ran uncontested on the lead you should perhaps take a look and review some of his races.

As far as War Emblem goes if I'm not mistaken it had recorded one of the highest Beyer figures of any 3-year old going into the Derby. If I recall there really wasn't much in that race that was going to go with him.

When it comes to "one-trick ponies" there's a HUGE difference when comparing front running horses at different Class levels.

I personally believe that the Classiest horses are those that go out on the front-end and can carry their speed no matter what the distance, competition, or track conditions. (2 others come to mind: Ghostzapper and of course Secretariat in the Belmont.)

Hindsight makes handicapping pretty easy. Didn't War Emblem beat a bunch of non-descript horses in the Illinois Derby before the KD?

Prior to the KD SS never was worse than 1st at any call. Would it have been unrealistic to think that if SS had gotten behind horses that he might not have fared so well?

[cj]

Hindsight makes handicapping pretty easy. Didn't War Emblem beat a bunch of non-descript horses in the Illinois Derby before the KD?

Wasn't Repent considered pretty strong going into the race? I remember the race well, posted about War Emblem before it here on Pace Advantage in the early days.

[Nitro]

This is unfair to closers, I think. I didn't get to see Whirlaway, obviously, but looking at his race record and the films of some of his races, he was clearly one classy animal.

One from more recent times was Forego. He didn't have a ton of early speed, generally made one big run, and won top stakes races sprinting, marathoning, and at every distance in between, beating good horses. He was the very definition of a classy animal.

Zenyatta, I realize, is more controversial. But if you think she was a classy racehorse, she clearly did what she did with no early speed whatsoever.

I think there's more than one way to be a classy horse. It always impresses me when horses can survive contested speed duels and fast paces to win, but it's not a ding on other horses with different styles.
What’s unfair??? I said, those types of horses were my personal preference as the Classiest animals.

Sure, great Closers like Forego and many others were great runners too. But you can’t possibly compare the O.A. energy extended by a Classy winning front runner and a closer of the same caliber, particularly in a distance race! All I’m saying is that when a horse can maintain its speed after cutting some solid early fractions I feel he’s a bit Classier.

The simplest way I think of determining which type would have the Class edge would be to review the many match races to see which type of running style dominates and usually wins.

[AndyC]

Wasn't Repent considered pretty strong going into the race? I remember the race well, posted about War Emblem before it here on Pace Advantage in the early days.

Perhaps but the ILL Derby certainly isn't the path most KD contenders take.

[Nitro]

Hindsight makes handicapping pretty easy. Didn't War Emblem beat a bunch of non-descript horses in the Illinois Derby before the KD?

Prior to the KD SS never was worse than 1st at any call. Would it have been unrealistic to think that if SS had gotten behind horses that he might not have fared so well?Please stop your nonsense! Take a look at SS's Derby where it went to its knees at the start, broke last and later took the lead by the 1/2 mile after an incredible 1/4 mile. Yes, I'd say he fared pretty well having to run from behind after that incident!
I'd say it would have been "unrealistic" to even consider SS intentionally trying to run on or off the pace. You certainly don't need "hindsight" to or a crystal ball to recognize a true front running speed horse.

How many 3-year olds have any REAL description before the Derby rolls around anyway? War Emblem showed what he was made of in the Illinois Derby. Maybe that's why Baffert had so much interest in helping make that purchase happen before the Derby.

[ReplayRandall]

Please stop your nonsense! Take a look at SS's Derby where it went to its knees at the start, broke last and later took the lead by the 1/2 mile after an incredible 1/4 mile. Yes, I'd say he fared pretty well having to run from behind after that incident!
I'd say it would have been "unrealistic" to even consider SS intentionally trying to run on or off the pace. You certainly don't need "hindsight" to or a crystal ball to recognize a true front running speed horse.

How many 3-year olds have any REAL description before the Derby rolls around anyway? War Emblem showed what he was made of in the Illinois Derby. Maybe that's why Baffert had so much interest in helping make that purchase happen before the Derby.

You're spot-on with your post, Nitro...:ThmbUp:

AndyC, as usual, WRONG......But you never seem to tire of it, do ya?...:ThmbDown:

[AndyC]

Please stop your nonsense! Take a look at SS's Derby where it went to its knees at the start, broke last and later took the lead by the 1/2 mile after an incredible 1/4 mile. Yes, I'd say he fared pretty well having to run from behind after that incident!
I'd say it would have been "unrealistic" to even consider SS intentionally trying to run on or off the pace. You certainly don't need "hindsight" to or a crystal ball to recognize a true front running speed horse.

How many 3-year olds have any REAL description before the Derby rolls around anyway? War Emblem showed what he was made of in the Illinois Derby. Maybe that's why Baffert had so much interest in helping make that purchase happen before the Derby.

There was no reason to believe that SS could have done what he did in the Derby BEFORE the Derby was run. Is that nonsense? Is it nonsense to suggest that a speed-laden horse might not be able to carry its speed further than it ever had in the past. Do you believe that Beyer thought or thinks that a 3yo in late spring should be able to duplicate or exceed figs in TC races of those figs earned in shorter prep races? Many fast contenders turn into pretenders when asked to run a mile and a quarter or more.

It's all so obvious after the fact. War Emblem apparently didn't reveal enough of what he was made of to go off at 20-1 in the KD.

[cj]

Perhaps but the ILL Derby certainly isn't the path most KD contenders take.

It was never possible to be a path to the Kentucky Derby until the early 2000s I believe. It was between the Derby and Preakness before that. Sweetnorthernsaint actually was the Derby favorite off his Illinois Derby win. Sadly, it died off almost as fast as it rose as a Derby prep.

[cj]

It's all so obvious after the fact. War Emblem apparently didn't reveal enough of what he was made of to go off at 20-1 in the KD.

20-1 in the Derby isn't 20-1 in a claimer on Wednesday. People were gun shy of speed horses at the time for a variety of reasons, including the 2002 Derby being fresh in everyone's mind. I'm pretty sure there hadn't been a wire to wire winner in quite some time either.

I'm biased when it comes War Emblem. Judging him correctly opened a lot of doors for me that I wasn't even trying to open at the time.

[ReplayRandall]

I'm biased when it comes War Emblem. Judging him correctly opened a lot of doors for me that I wasn't even trying to open at the time.

CJ, it's statements like the one you've just made, makes me realize that you speak the truth....War Emblem was a break-through event for me as well, at 20-1...:ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

I'm biased when it comes War Emblem. Judging him correctly opened a lot of doors for me that I wasn't even trying to open at the time.

Oddly, it worked the same for me but judging him incorrectly opened a lot of doors for me that I wasn't trying to even open at the time. But I sure as hell had enough of banging into wood instead of getting through.

[AndyC]

20-1 in the Derby isn't 20-1 in a claimer on Wednesday. People were gun shy of speed horses at the time for a variety of reasons, including the 2002 Derby being fresh in everyone's mind. I'm pretty sure there hadn't been a wire to wire winner in quite some time either.

I'm biased when it comes War Emblem. Judging him correctly opened a lot of doors for me that I wasn't even trying to open at the time.

I am neither judging War Emblem nor Seattle Slew. I am merely stating that what appears obvious now was not so obvious at the time.

War Emblem and Proud Citizen ran 1-2 all the way around in slow fractions in the 2002 Derby. Given that the track was very front-runner friendly that day it wasn't obvious that WE would enjoy such a trip. At the price I backed him with exacta bets but couldn't find the right place horse.

[dilanesp]

It was never possible to be a path to the Kentucky Derby until the early 2000s I believe. It was between the Derby and Preakness before that. Sweetnorthernsaint actually was the Derby favorite off his Illinois Derby win. Sadly, it died off almost as fast as it rose as a Derby prep.

Didn't the point system hurt the Illinois Derby?

[dilanesp]

20-1 in the Derby isn't 20-1 in a claimer on Wednesday. People were gun shy of speed horses at the time for a variety of reasons, including the 2002 Derby being fresh in everyone's mind. I'm pretty sure there hadn't been a wire to wire winner in quite some time either.

I'm biased when it comes War Emblem. Judging him correctly opened a lot of doors for me that I wasn't even trying to open at the time.

The last wire to wire winner before WE was either Go for Gin (I forget if he went wire to wire) or Winning Colors (she definitely did).

[dnlgfnk]

You conveniently left out that Slew lost the next two Stakes he ran in.

I already established my esteem and gratitude toward Beyer. The reason that Slew's next two races weren't addressed was because in post #119, that wasn't the issue. I shouldn't have attempted to answer for Nitro.

The only misgivings I have about Beyer are the rearrangement of events in "My $50k Year" during Andy's Florida adventures. When I combine that with your statement in the past that you wouldn't describe "Charlie" as a trip handicapper, but rather a physicality expert, then I personally have reason to question whether "Charlie's" trip expertise is marginally embellished. Earlier I cited a case in point where, based on Charlie's being impressed with her impossible previous trip, Miss Prism "loved the grass" to the degree that Charlie and Andy scored on August 26, 1976. She never won another race in 13 tries.

[cj]

I am neither judging War Emblem nor Seattle Slew. I am merely stating that what appears obvious now was not so obvious at the time.

War Emblem and Proud Citizen ran 1-2 all the way around in slow fractions in the 2002 Derby. Given that the track was very front-runner friendly that day it wasn't obvious that WE would enjoy such a trip. At the price I backed him with exacta bets but couldn't find the right place horse.

Well, he did win the Preakness too sitting off fast fractions. I'd disagree with "slow" fractions in the Derby, but it is all relative.

[cj]

Didn't the point system hurt the Illinois Derby?

Yes, Churchill Downs screwed them over because of the constant fights between Hawthorne and Arlington.

[PhantomOnTour]

Well, he did win the Preakness too sitting off fast fractions. I'd disagree with "slow" fractions in the Derby, but it is all relative.
Magic Weisner was about 2 jumps from pulling a massive Preakness upset that would have sent the home crowd into complete bedlam

[cj]

Magic Weisner was about 2 jumps from pulling a massive Preakness upset that would have sent the home crowd into complete bedlam


I doubt many in that crowd bet on Magic Weisner :)

[EMD4ME]

20-1 in the Derby isn't 20-1 in a claimer on Wednesday. People were gun shy of speed horses at the time for a variety of reasons, including the 2002 Derby being fresh in everyone's mind. I'm pretty sure there hadn't been a wire to wire winner in quite some time either.

I'm biased when it comes War Emblem. Judging him correctly opened a lot of doors for me that I wasn't even trying to open at the time.

I love stuff like this, do tell please :)

[dilanesp]

I doubt many in that crowd bet on Magic Weisner :)

I knew someone who sent out a bet with me on Magic Weisner because his best friend's name was "Weisner". I, of course, assured him the horse had no chance before the race. :)

[dilanesp]

The only misgivings I have about Beyer are the rearrangement of events in "My $50k Year" during Andy's Florida adventures.

If the punching of the hole in the Gulfstream press box didn't happen, I don't want to know....

[Tom]

Magic Weisner was about 2 jumps from pulling a massive Preakness upset that would have sent the home crowd into complete bedlam


Doesn't EVERYONE leave Pimlico into complete bedlam?

[the little guy]

I already established my esteem and gratitude toward Beyer. The reason that Slew's next two races weren't addressed was because in post #119, that wasn't the issue. I shouldn't have attempted to answer for Nitro.

The only misgivings I have about Beyer are the rearrangement of events in "My $50k Year" during Andy's Florida adventures. When I combine that with your statement in the past that you wouldn't describe "Charlie" as a trip handicapper, but rather a physicality expert, then I personally have reason to question whether "Charlie's" trip expertise is marginally embellished. Earlier I cited a case in point where, based on Charlie's being impressed with her impossible previous trip, Miss Prism "loved the grass" to the degree that Charlie and Andy scored on August 26, 1976. She never won another race in 13 tries.

Just because he's a physicality expert doesn't preclude him from understanding how to watch a race. I do know "Charlie" fairly well and he's the real deal.

I didn't realize we were playing a game of "Gotcha!" just as I have no reason to disbelieve anything Andy writes. Any story I was around for always came out as it happened. I'm not sure how you would know better, but what do I know. I also know that we have all scored on horses that have never won again. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Bullet Plane]

I have had the pleasure of talking to Andy on the Steve Byk show. Also, thru the years, I have enjoyed his books, as well as, his articles in the Washington Post.

One of the greats!

I will certainly miss his brilliant commentary.

Hopefully, he may use this time to write another book along the lines of "My $50,000 dollar year at the Races."

A classic. Loved that book!

I wish him well and a happy retirement.

[VigorsTheGrey]

What do you think prevents Andy Beyer from posting here at PA?
I don't know, maybe he does under a different pen name...but I wish he would...

[EMD4ME]

What do you think prevents Andy Beyer from posting here at PA?
I don't know, maybe he does under a different pen name...but I wish he would...

EMD4ME ;)





OR




SRU





OR





Replay Randall






OR






Thaskalos


Could be Andy Beyer !


Or it could be VigorsTheGrey!!!!

[proximity]

EMD4ME ;)





OR




SRU





OR





Replay Randall






OR






Thaskalos


Could be Andy Beyer !


Or it could be VigorsTheGrey!!!!

over in the poker forum we call this a polarized range. ;)

[PhantomOnTour]

I doubt many in that crowd bet on Magic Weisner :)
Didn't Linda Albert train Weisner?
She's a local if i recall...place woulda gone bonkers...not quite "Afleet Alex bonkers" but close to it.

[dnlgfnk]

Just because he's a physicality expert doesn't preclude him from understanding how to watch a race. I do know "Charlie" fairly well and he's the real deal.

I didn't realize we were playing a game of "Gotcha!" just as I have no reason to disbelieve anything Andy writes. Any story I was around for always came out as it happened. I'm not sure how you would know better, but what do I know. I also know that we have all scored on horses that have never won again. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

From a previous post of mine awhile back, and to reassure dilanesp that I'm not describing "Beyer's Hole"...
------------------------------------
I noticed another curious replay of events in Beyer's "My 50k Year..". Andy suffers a tough disqualification at Gulfstream on 2/7/77 (pg. 34). "Early the next morning"...(2/8) he commiserates with the trainer of the dq'd horse. "Two days later" (2/10)...Andy makes a self-described bad bet on Winged Brook, yet the horse actually finished 6th on Feb. 12th of that year.

When Andy and The Kid lose on the bet of the meeting (One Moment actually finished 4th on Feb 19th that year ), Andy drives The Kid to the airport "the next day" (20th). Events are subsequently presented as Andy forging ahead on his own, after lecturing a depressed "The Kid" about remaining stoic. Andy struggles "to avoid the same fate", but finally finds "an animal meriting a fairly serious wager". It is Fast Freedom, who survives an inquiry to earn Andy a 2k return for his $400. Trouble is, the race actually occurred on Feb. 17th of that year, according to the official chart printed in the book, i.e., before Andy drove to the airport.

I've mentioned my admiration for the figure of "Charlie" frequently here, as the prototypical, successful, expert "trip handicapper" that Beyer's books describe. It fascinated me as a method the public could not latch onto, and though I couldn't seem to master it with consistency, I devoted roughly 30 years to converting an analytical chart of the race into what the pace and ground loss were probably like, based on the horse's finishes.

When I mentioned "Charlie" to The Little Guy who knows him personally, TLG had never really associated Charlie with trip handicapping, but rather "physicality" handicapping. I'm sure TLG was being honest, and "Charlie" perhaps "romanticized"?
--------------------------

Hey, I'm Ok with it all being rough-edged journal keeping or faulty memory, but I'm not making things up, either.

[AndyC]

What do you think prevents Andy Beyer from posting here at PA?...


Intelligence.

[AskinHaskin]

Didn't Linda Albert train Weisner?
She's a local if i recall...place woulda gone bonkers...not quite "Afleet Alex bonkers" but close to it.


Nancy Alberts...


And perhaps it was among the single worst rider switches of all time that doomed Magic Weisner that day:


Remove Phil Teator, who knew the horse well, and put on Richie Migliore (who didn't...) for the Preakness... and then watch as Magic Weisner doesn't change leads down the stretch, and falls just shy...



It had been a huge speed bias that toppled Magic Weisner in the Tesio, and not anything to do with Teator's ride, but Nancy Alberts was too clueless to understand...



and Phil Teator was never the same after that...

[EMD4ME]

Intelligence.

:ThmbDown:

[thaskalos]

From a previous post of mine awhile back, and to reassure dilanesp that I'm not describing "Beyer's Hole"...
------------------------------------
I noticed another curious replay of events in Beyer's "My 50k Year..". Andy suffers a tough disqualification at Gulfstream on 2/7/77 (pg. 34). "Early the next morning"...(2/8) he commiserates with the trainer of the dq'd horse. "Two days later" (2/10)...Andy makes a self-described bad bet on Winged Brook, yet the horse actually finished 6th on Feb. 12th of that year.

When Andy and The Kid lose on the bet of the meeting (One Moment actually finished 4th on Feb 19th that year ), Andy drives The Kid to the airport "the next day" (20th). Events are subsequently presented as Andy forging ahead on his own, after lecturing a depressed "The Kid" about remaining stoic. Andy struggles "to avoid the same fate", but finally finds "an animal meriting a fairly serious wager". It is Fast Freedom, who survives an inquiry to earn Andy a 2k return for his $400. Trouble is, the race actually occurred on Feb. 17th of that year, according to the official chart printed in the book, i.e., before Andy drove to the airport.

I've mentioned my admiration for the figure of "Charlie" frequently here, as the prototypical, successful, expert "trip handicapper" that Beyer's books describe. It fascinated me as a method the public could not latch onto, and though I couldn't seem to master it with consistency, I devoted roughly 30 years to converting an analytical chart of the race into what the pace and ground loss were probably like, based on the horse's finishes.

When I mentioned "Charlie" to The Little Guy who knows him personally, TLG had never really associated Charlie with trip handicapping, but rather "physicality" handicapping. I'm sure TLG was being honest, and "Charlie" perhaps "romanticized"?
--------------------------

Hey, I'm Ok with it all being rough-edged journal keeping or faulty memory, but I'm not making things up, either.

There is a difference between "writing" and "reporting".

A "reporter" states the facts of a story with a high degree of PRECISION...because "accuracy" is the prime consideration...with "entertainment" being relegated to a position of much lesser importance. But an "author" is trying to sell a book...and even a nonfiction book must tell a compelling story, if it's to appeal to the audience toward whom the book is aimed. The author is an ARTIST...and he often uses his "artistic licence" in a way which makes the story "flow" better, while still making the factual points that he intends to focus on.

Okay..."two days later" ends up being "FOUR days later"...and Andy collected on Fast Freedom BEFORE he drove The Kid to the airport. And "Charlie" winds up being more of a "physicality" handicapper than he was a "trip" handicapper. Is Beyer DECEIVING us here...and do these "inaccuracies" falsify the main points that he was trying to make in the book?

Is ANYONE'S life so interesting, that we would write and expect to sell a book about it...without "dressing it up" a little bit with a few details which might not be able to pass intense scrutiny?

[thaskalos]

Just because he's a physicality expert doesn't preclude him from understanding how to watch a race. I do know "Charlie" fairly well and he's the real deal.

I didn't realize we were playing a game of "Gotcha!" just as I have no reason to disbelieve anything Andy writes. Any story I was around for always came out as it happened. I'm not sure how you would know better, but what do I know. I also know that we have all scored on horses that have never won again. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Not to disagree with you TLG, especially since I could easily be wrong here...but, in the same book, wasn't "Charlie" the guy who talked Beyer into betting serious money on a DOG, because "everything bad that could happen to a dog, happened to this dog in its last start..."? Would a "physicality" handicapper really bet big money on a DOG?

As I said, I read the book many years ago...and I could easily be wrong here. I am just wondering if Charlie may not be more of a "trip handicapper" than you think he is. None of us tell the whole truth about ourselves, you know. :)

[dilanesp]

over in the poker forum we call this a polarized range. ;)

Actually that looks like a merged range, prox.

[dilanesp]

Not to disagree with you TLG, especially since I could easily be wrong here...but, in the same book, wasn't "Charlie" the guy who talked Beyer into betting serious money on a DOG, because "everything bad that could happen to a dog, happened to this dog in its last start..."? Would a "physicality" handicapper really bet big money on a DOG?

But he was a great looking dog!

[WJ47]

There is a difference between "writing" and "reporting".

A "reporter" states the facts of a story with a high degree of PRECISION...because "accuracy" is the prime consideration...with "entertainment" being relegated to a position of much lesser importance. But an "author" is trying to sell a book...and even a nonfiction book must tell a compelling story, if it's to appeal to the audience toward whom the book is aimed. The author is an ARTIST...and he often uses his "artistic licence" in a way which makes the story "flow" better, while still making the factual points that he intends to focus on.



As a writer myself, I agree it might have been artistic license. This happens all the time in memoirs and nonfiction. If I'm writing about something that happened to me as a 4 year old, I don't remember what color dress my mother wore that day, but I write something anyway because people enjoy descriptions like that. I think most authors do this, unless they have an elephant's memory. :)

I don't have the book handy, but I've read all of Andy Beyer's books until the pages fell out. If I remember correctly, the best physicality handicapper Andy ever met was someone named Clem. He told a story about a horse named Gun Bow who Clem noticed was "off" that day. Maybe because Clem was the physicality handicapper, he needed Charlie to be a trip handicapper for a little variety in the book. And like TLG said, maybe Charlie was good at both skills.

[cj]

As a writer myself, I agree it might have been artistic license. This happens all the time in memoirs and nonfiction. If I'm writing about something that happened to me as a 4 year old, I don't remember what color dress my mother wore that day, but I write something anyway because people enjoy descriptions like that. I think most authors do this, unless they have an elephant's memory. :)

I don't have the book handy, but I've read all of Andy Beyer's books until the pages fell out. If I remember correctly, the best physicality handicapper Andy ever met was someone named Clem. He told a story about a horse named Gun Bow who Clem noticed was "off" that day. Maybe because Clem was the physicality handicapper, he needed Charlie to be a trip handicapper for a little variety in the book. And like TLG said, maybe Charlie was good at both skills.

Clem Florio.

[proximity]

i think the dog bounced. now whether his bounce was the same day as the fixed jai-alai game..... :)

[classhandicapper]

Both Slew and War Emblem were frontrunners which meant that when left alone on the lead they would produce high figs, as any frontrunner would.

IMO, "some" horses improve their figures dramatically when they shake loose comfortably.

Some improve mildly.

Some don't seem to benefit much at all.

Some seem to run better when challenged and asked for more (unless it gets very extreme).

I think it's a mistake to use some kind of formula that applies equally to all horses. The trick (which of course is no easy task) is to try to profile the horse so you have a better chance of figuring out which category he belongs in and then adjust your thinking accordingly.

[dilanesp]

IMO, "some" horses improve their figures dramatically when they shake loose comfortably.

Some improve mildly.

Some don't seem to benefit much at all.

Some seem to run better when challenged and asked for more (unless it gets very extreme).

I think it's a mistake to use some kind of formula that applies equally to all horses. The trick (which of course is no easy task) is to try to profile the horse so you have a better chance of figuring out which category he belongs in and then adjust your thinking accordingly.

I honestly think it's extremely difficult to evaluate a single big figure by a young horse. Young horses sometimes improve by leaps and bounds, like Arrogate did this year. On the other hand, young horses can also run big numbers that are one-offs just like anyone else (Beyer bet Janeson N Ginger in the BC Juvenile off a one-off figure in the slop that he did not repeat; earlier this year there was that Pletcher horse with the big figure who ran in the Preakness, etc.).

[cj]

I honestly think it's extremely difficult to evaluate a single big figure by a young horse. Young horses sometimes improve by leaps and bounds, like Arrogate did this year. On the other hand, young horses can also run big numbers that are one-offs just like anyone else (Beyer bet Janeson N Ginger in the BC Juvenile off a one-off figure in the slop that he did not repeat; earlier this year there was that Pletcher horse with the big figure who ran in the Preakness, etc.).

Pretty big difference between Arrogate and Jameson. One was in slop and none of the horses had run back. She hadn't run very well before that effort.

With Arrogate, the Travers was already proven strong with the runbacks, plus in his prior efforts it was very clear he had plenty in the tanks while winning easily.

[classhandicapper]

I honestly think it's extremely difficult to evaluate a single big figure by a young horse. Young horses sometimes improve by leaps and bounds, like Arrogate did this year. On the other hand, young horses can also run big numbers that are one-offs just like anyone else (Beyer bet Janeson N Ginger in the BC Juvenile off a one-off figure in the slop that he did not repeat; earlier this year there was that Pletcher horse with the big figure who ran in the Preakness, etc.).

I agree.

Some of these figures are an accurate representation of how well the horse ran, but many will not be duplicated anyway. The horse will revert back to some "mean" level. Some are the result of a unique set of conditions that favored that specific horse and typically won't be duplicated. Some are just inaccurate figures. When you throw in slop, loose leads and things like that it may sway the probabilities, but you still can't be sure because the horses themselves are unique. There are no magic formulas.

[bobphilo]

I agree.

Some of these figures are an accurate representation of how well the horse ran, but many will not be duplicated anyway. The horse will revert back to some "mean" level. Some are the result of a unique set of conditions that favored that specific horse and typically won't be duplicated. Some are just inaccurate figures. When you throw in slop, loose leads and things like that it may sway the probabilities, but you still can't be sure because the horses themselves are unique. There are no magic formulas.
More figure bashing. As you admit figures can be an measure of how well a horse performed. Only an imbecile would just slavishly bet on figures alone.
You continue to create a "straw man" in your arguments assuming that figure handicappers are so naive as to not consider the many factors that can influence how a figure was earned and go beyond the raw figure. Hey we get it, just betting figures slavishly is not wise.

True, there is no magical formula but you might do well to also consider the faults of your own methodology, which you refuse to disclose so no one can even consider it.

[classhandicapper]

More figure bashing. As you admit figures can be an measure of how well a horse performed. Only an imbecile would just slavishly bet on figures alone.
You continue to create a "straw man" in your arguments assuming that figure handicappers are so naive as to not consider the many factors that can influence how a figure was earned and go beyond the raw figure. Hey we get it, just betting figures slavishly is not wise.

True, there is no magical formula but you might do well to also consider the faults of your own methodology, which you refuse to disclose so no one can even consider it.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. It was discussion on how to adjust figures for things like loose leads, off tracks, when they are an isolated top and stuff like that. I'd hardly consider saying there is no formula for it to be bashing. I was saying the same exact thing as you.

[AndyC]

IMO, "some" horses improve their figures dramatically when they shake loose comfortably.

Some improve mildly.

Some don't seem to benefit much at all.

Some seem to run better when challenged and asked for more (unless it gets very extreme).

I think it's a mistake to use some kind of formula that applies equally to all horses. The trick (which of course is no easy task) is to try to profile the horse so you have a better chance of figuring out which category he belongs in and then adjust your thinking accordingly.

When a horse runs 90, 90, 90, while being challenged on the lead and then pops a 110 when loose on the lead I wouldn't be expecting another 110 next out.

Of course it's foolish to make hard and fast rules. There is no exact science which can place any race or any horse in a certain category. My research, however, has taught me to curb my enthusiasm for figs earned by lone F winners.

[bobphilo]

When a horse runs 90, 90, 90, while being challenged on the lead and then pops a 110 when loose on the lead I wouldn't be expecting another 110 next out.

Of course it's foolish to make hard and fast rules. There is no exact science which can place any race or any horse in a certain category. My research, however, has taught me to curb my enthusiasm for figs earned by lone F winners.

It all depends on whether the lone front runner was able to get away with slow pace figures or whether he was so superior that no one tried to keep up with him. You have to look at what the pace was.

[bobphilo]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. It was discussion on how to adjust figures for things like loose leads, off tracks, when they are an isolated top and stuff like that. I'd hardly consider saying there is no formula for it to be bashing. I was saying the same exact thing as you.
My apologies if I misunderstood your intention. It's just that you always seem to assume that those who use speed figures must be warned of their deficiencies as if anyone on this forum with half a brain just uses them blindly.
I have yet to hear you say anything about the problems one incurs by avoiding them entirely. Just as bad or worse of an error as accepting them blindly. Sorry if I'm straying of the immediate topic.

[thaskalos]

When a horse runs 90, 90, 90, while being challenged on the lead and then pops a 110 when loose on the lead I wouldn't be expecting another 110 next out.

Of course it's foolish to make hard and fast rules. There is no exact science which can place any race or any horse in a certain category. My research, however, has taught me to curb my enthusiasm for figs earned by lone F winners.

What if he figures to run on an uncontested lead again next out?

[thaskalos]

My apologies if I misunderstood your intention. It's just that you always seem to assume that those who use speed figures must be warned of their deficiencies as if anyone on this forum with half a brain just uses them blindly.
I have yet to hear you say anything about the problems one incurs by avoiding them entirely. Just as bad or worse of an error as accepting them blindly. Sorry if I'm straying of the immediate topic.

"Looking at figures" is one thing...but INTERPRETING them is am entirely different matter. Everyone can tell which horse "was fastest" in the past...but determining which horse will run faster in the FUTURE is a much trickier endeavor.

[cj]

My apologies if I misunderstood your intention. It's just that you always seem to assume that those who use speed figures must be warned of their deficiencies as if anyone on this forum with half a brain just uses them blindly.
I have yet to hear you say anything about the problems one incurs by avoiding them entirely. Just as bad or worse of an error as accepting them blindly. Sorry if I'm straying of the immediate topic.

Classhandicapper is a friend of mine and I'm sure he'd be the first to admit he has basically made the same post on this board about 1000 times. He can't help himself! :)

[bobphilo]

IMO, "some" horses improve their figures dramatically when they shake loose comfortably.

Some improve mildly.

Some don't seem to benefit much at all.

Some seem to run better when challenged and asked for more (unless it gets very extreme).

I think it's a mistake to use some kind of formula that applies equally to all horses. The trick (which of course is no easy task) is to try to profile the horse so you have a better chance of figuring out which category he belongs in and then adjust your thinking accordingly.

Yes there are many apparent ways to see how a horse reacts to a loose lead. That's mainly due to pace factors. An even better trick is to simply see how a horse's performance is affected by what their early pace figure is, whether on a loose lead or not. It's surprising how this explains things most of the time unless you're dealing with a quirky horse.

[classhandicapper]

When a horse runs 90, 90, 90, while being challenged on the lead and then pops a 110 when loose on the lead I wouldn't be expecting another 110 next out.

Of course it's foolish to make hard and fast rules. There is no exact science which can place any race or any horse in a certain category. My research, however, has taught me to curb my enthusiasm for figs earned by lone F winners.

Agreed.

What about this?

A horses runs a 90, 90, 90. shakes loose and runs a 90.

Is he a 90 horse or is he a 90 horse that ran below par last time given that he only ran another 90 with a loose lead and many would have expected better?

I'm not saying I get the answer right all the time, but I see people downgrade that last race and then watch the horse run another 90 to beat them.

[AndyC]

Agreed.

What about this?

A horses runs a 90, 90, 90. shakes loose and runs a 90.

Is he a 90 horse or is he a 90 horse that ran below par last time given that he only ran another 90 with a loose lead and many would have expected better?

I'm not saying I get the answer right all the time, but I see people downgrade that last race and then watch the horse run another 90 to beat them.


The art of handicapping is sometimes more important than the science of handicapping. My answer to your question is a very definitive: it depends.

[098poi]

Mr. Beyer good luck and good health to you. Enjoy your retirement. (semi)

[bobphilo]

Classhandicapper is a friend of mine and I'm sure he'd be the first to admit he has basically made the same post on this board about 1000 times. He can't help himself! :)

Class and I go back many years and he's an OK guy. Despite our differences I respect the fact that he knows how to disagree without being offensive or making nasty inappropriate political comments.

[Tom]

"Looking at figures" is one thing...but INTERPRETING them is am entirely different matter. Everyone can tell which horse "was fastest" in the past...but determining which horse will run faster in the FUTURE is a much trickier endeavor.

Key point.
Just because the DRF puts the Beyers out there for everyone doesn't mean everyone lands on the same horse. If all you did was look for the last out best fig and bet it.

Would have made for a terrible book by Andy! :rolleyes:
He could have just tweeted it. :D


Andy's books aren't a how to guide - they are a horseplayer talking to you about betting horses. A :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Is he a 90 horse or is he a 90 horse that ran below par last time given that he only ran another 90 with a loose lead and many would have expected better?

Or the race was at Aqueduct and the jock grabbed him early.

[bobphilo]

One thing I admire about Beyer is that he was big enough to publicly admit he was wrong about the affect of pace. In his first book, Picking Winners, he denied it had any effect on the outcome of races. After experience taught him otherwise he reversed himself in his later books, giving excellent examples like 1981 Derby and even putting forth methods of pace analysis, which I myself use to this day.

[bobphilo]

The art of handicapping is sometimes more important than the science of handicapping. My answer to your question is a very definitive: it depends.

Why must the 2 be in conflict? The science gives you the essential data and the art comes in in interpreting it. That's like arguing which leg of a stool is more important. One is worthless without the other(s) and must be respected in all cases.

[classhandicapper]

Beyer's first book was great because it took speed figures out of the stone age without seeming like a dry textbook. It was wildly entertaining to horseplayers also. Each subsequent book was another step in his own development as a horseplayer. He took us along for the ride with the same level of entertainment value. Either of those contributions would have been enough. But to give us both multiple times is why he's, well, "Andy Beyer".

[Sinner369]

Why must the 2 be in conflict? The science gives you the essential data and the art comes in in interpreting it. That's like arguing which leg of a stool is more important. One is worthless without the other(s) and must be respected in all cases.

Science is defined as doing an experiment and the results are always the same.

Art is doing the exact experiment but reaching a different conclusion......that's why it is an art.

When people handicap a particular race..........they all don't come to the same conclusion as to which horse will win the race.

[AndyC]

Why must the 2 be in conflict? The science gives you the essential data and the art comes in in interpreting it. That's like arguing which leg of a stool is more important. One is worthless without the other(s) and must be respected in all cases.

Who said the 2 are in conflict?

[classhandicapper]

I wonder if we should be thinking of handicapping as art. In real life, a lot of the time I have to try to interpret information in an artful way, but that's only because I don't have stats that describes this exact set of details so I know the most likely outcome. Ideally, I would have stats on everything. Unfortunately there are too many unique questions to have everything.

[Cratos]

Why must the 2 be in conflict? The science gives you the essential data and the art comes in in interpreting it. That's like arguing which leg of a stool is more important. One is worthless without the other(s) and must be respected in all cases.
The art of handicapping is “subjective”; the science of handicapping is “objective” and that is the waging decision conundrum faced by many bettors.

[mountainman]

Agreed.

What about this?

A horses runs a 90, 90, 90. shakes loose and runs a 90.

Is he a 90 horse or is he a 90 horse that ran below par last time given that he only ran another 90 with a loose lead and many would have expected better?

I'm not saying I get the answer right all the time, but I see people downgrade that last race and then watch the horse run another 90 to beat them.

My best success has come from ruthlessly delving into minutia and downgrading hot horses without a second thought. A thoroughbred's condition usually changes, however slightly, from race to race, and there is value in seizing on the slightest indication that a well-bet animal with seeming uniformity of (impressive) performance has tailed off.

A respectful midset toward consistent horses is no way to start the handicapping process.

[bobphilo]

Who said the 2 are in conflict?
When you claim that one is more important than the other you are comparing the 2 as competing ideologies. Both are always equally essential for good handicapping.

[thaskalos]

I wonder if we should be thinking of handicapping as art. In real life, a lot of the time I have to try to interpret information in an artful way, but that's only because I don't have stats that describes this exact set of details so I know the most likely outcome. Ideally, I would have stats on everything. Unfortunately there are too many unique questions to have everything.

IMO...handicapping is much more of an "art" than it is a "science". There may be some established "rules" in handicapping...but to me, the real profits are made when the horseplayer knows when to BREAK those rules.

When the answer to virtually all the handicapping questions is, "it depends"...then, how much of a "science" can handicapping BE?

[AndyC]

When you claim that one is more important than the other you are comparing the 2 as competing ideologies. Both are always equally essential for good handicapping.

I said the following: "The art of handicapping is sometimes more important" which also means that the science of handicapping is sometimes more important. I don't think that is contrary to what you are saying.

[AndyC]

IMO...handicapping is much more of an "art" than it is a "science". There may be some established "rules" in handicapping...but to me, the real profits are made when the horseplayer knows when to BREAK those rules.

When the answer to virtually all the handicapping questions is, "it depends"...then, how much of a "science" can handicapping BE?

The key is to not let emotions get caught up in your artwork.

[thaskalos]

The key is to not let emotions get caught up in your artwork.

True. :ThmbUp:

But controlling our emotions is an "art", as well.

[PaceAdvantage]

Intelligence.Wow! Good one... :faint: :lol:

[thaskalos]

Wow! Good one... :lol:

Hey...we know that Beyer has been to this site at least ONCE. Do you remember when he included some of our comments here, when he wrote an article on that DQ at Gulfsteam...which costed some unlucky bettor a huge rainbow-6 payoff?

So...that alone proves that Beyer ain't THAT "intelligent". :)

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey...we know that Beyer has been to this site at least ONCE. Do you remember when he included some of our comments here, when he wrote an article on that DQ at Gulfsteam...which costed some unlucky bettor a huge rainbow-6 payoff?

So...that alone proves that Beyer ain't THAT "intelligent". :)Yes, he's definitely been here...that I can tell you...

[bobphilo]

I said the following: "The art of handicapping is sometimes more important" which also means that the science of handicapping is sometimes more important. I don't think that is contrary to what you are saying.
Neither one can be more important when both are always essential. Data must be interpreted but without good data the most astute interpretation is doomed.
I bring you back to the analogy of which leg of a stool is most important - they are all essential.

[bobphilo]

IMO...handicapping is much more of an "art" than it is a "science". There may be some established "rules" in handicapping...but to me, the real profits are made when the horseplayer knows when to BREAK those rules.

When the answer to virtually all the handicapping questions is, "it depends"...then, how much of a "science" can handicapping BE?

The problem is that without good scientific data behind you how do you know when it depends and when to break the rules. There is nothing unscientific about "breaking the rules" when the data suggests it.

Handicapping is a lot like medicine which is both art and science. Any good diagnostician has to look at the data like blood pressure and blood tests along with his visual impressions and then keep up with scientific journals to put it all together and decide on a diagnosis.

[classhandicapper]

The idea I am throwing out there is that the reason we often get to the point where we saying "it depends" and find ourselves trying to divine the answer from the details of this race is that we don't have the hard data required to answer the question.

[Tom]

Hey...we know that Beyer has been to this site at least ONCE. Do you remember when he included some of our comments here, when he wrote an article on that DQ at Gulfsteam...which costed some unlucky bettor a huge rainbow-6 payoff?

So...that alone proves that Beyer ain't THAT "intelligent". :)

He used to post here as Stillriledup!

[thaskalos]

The problem is that without good scientific data behind you how do you know when it depends and when to break the rules. There is nothing unscientific about "breaking the rules" when the data suggests it.

Handicapping is a lot like medicine which is both art and science. Any good diagnostician has to look at the data like blood pressure and blood tests along with his visual impressions and then keep up with scientific journals to put it all together and decide on a diagnosis.

On the one hand...we all agree that the game of horseracing is "dynamic", and not "static"...suggesting that the game is prone to continuous change. But on the other hand...we seek to reduce this "dynamic game" to little more than the mere application of "good scientific data".

To me...handicapping "data" is similar to what the paints are to an artist. But in painting, the final result amounts to a lot more than just a bunch of paints on a canvas. The "good scientific data" are the TOOLS...but whether or not those tools bring about the desired results depends on the skill of the CRAFTSMAN.

There is a lot more "good scientific data" around...than there are "good horseplayers".

[thaskalos]

The idea I am throwing out there is that the reason we often get to the point where we saying "it depends" and find ourselves trying to divine the answer from the details of this race is that we don't have the hard data required to answer the question.

IMO...we have plenty of "hard data". Unfortunately, this "hard data" is usually analyzed by "hard MINDS"...whereas a FLEXIBLE mind would bring about the better results.

[cj]

On the one hand...we all agree that the game of horseracing is "dynamic", and not "static"...suggesting that the game is prone to continuous change. But on the other hand...we seek to reduce this "dynamic game" to little more than the mere application of "good scientific data".

To me...handicapping "data" is similar to what the paints are to an artist. But in painting, the final result amounts to a lot more than just a bunch of paints on a canvas. The "good scientific data" are the TOOLS...but whether or not those tools bring about the desired results depends on the skill of the CRAFTSMAN.

There is a lot more "good scientific data" around...than there are "good horseplayers".

Not only does the actual racing change, but so does the way the public bets the racing, and that is at least as important as the racing itself!

[Cratos]

The problem is that without good scientific data behind you how do you know when it depends and when to break the rules. There is nothing unscientific about "breaking the rules" when the data suggests it.

Handicapping is a lot like medicine which is both art and science. Any good diagnostician has to look at the data like blood pressure and blood tests along with his visual impressions and then keep up with scientific journals to put it all together and decide on a diagnosis.

The Aristotelian principle divides up the subject areas of our modern colleges and universities to protect those boundaries that this principle created. The arts were about creativity while the sciences were about a rigorous application of technique and methods.

Therefore, if we apply this principle to horseracing we find from the Internet:

Handicapping

“The best science requires creative thinking. Someone must see a problem, form a hypothesis about a solution, and then figure out how to test that hypothesis and implement its findings. That all requires creative thinking, which is often called innovation. The very best scientists display creative genius equal to any artist. Consider Einstein’s innovations, for instance, or those of Niels Bohr, who realized that he was often entering philosophical speculation.”

Betting

“And let us also consider our artists. Creativity alone fails to deliver us anything of worth. A musician or painter must also learn a technique, sometimes as rigorous and precise as found in any science, in order that they can turn their thoughts into a work. They must attain mastery over their medium. Even a writer works within the rules of grammar to produce beauty."

I inserted the Handicapping and Betting distinctions.

[thaskalos]

Not only does the actual racing change, but so does the way the public bets the racing, and that is at least as important as the racing itself!

All true! :ThmbUp:

And yet...many horseplayers operate as if there is fixed "hard data" out there...on which they could base their play. They size their bets according to some "predetermined" ROI...when the truth is that our ROI is always in a state of flux, and YET to be determined. And they analyze their betting records to see on which types of races they achieve the best betting results...even though all this "data" changes, as time goes along.

We SAY that the game is "dynamic"...but we PLAY it as if it were STATIC.

[Nitro]

Not only does the actual racing change, but so does the way the public bets the racing, and that is at least as important as the racing itself!And that’s primarily because the so-called “public” is not the only participant in the betting population.
All true! :ThmbUp:
And yet...many horseplayers operate as if there is fixed "hard data" out there...on which they could base their play. They size their bets according to some "predetermined" ROI...when the truth is that our ROI is always in a state of flux, and YET to be determined. And they analyze their betting records to see on which types of races they achieve the best betting results...even though all this "data" changes, as time goes along.

We SAY that the game is "dynamic"...but we PLAY it as if it were STATIC.Who’s “We”? Please speak for yourself!
Yes the game is certainly dynamic and the only things that keep pace with it on every level are the betting pools.

As far as I’m concerned it’s not a science at all. Science involves math which is considered by many to be a precise discipline. This game is so far from being exact its ridiculous. The past performance data is subjectively input and any conclusions drawn become only further skewed. If this statement weren’t true, than obviously the majority of handicappers would arrive at the same conclusions. (Which if correct would produce nothing but winners).

[thaskalos]

Who’s “We”? Please speak for yourself!



My "We" was rhetorical, Nitro...and I apologize for not pointing that out. I am well aware of the fact that you employ highly-exclusive, super-sophisticated software...which separates you from everybody else. :ThmbUp:

[Cratos]

And that’s primarily because the so-called “public” is not the only participant in the betting population.
Who’s “We”? Please speak for yourself!
Yes the game is certainly dynamic and the only things that keep pace with it on every level are the betting pools.

As far as I’m concerned it’s not a science at all. Science involves math which is considered by many to be a precise discipline. This game is so far from being exact its ridiculous. The past performance data is subjectively input and any conclusions drawn become only further skewed. If this statement weren’t true, than obviously the majority of handicappers would arrive at the same conclusions. (Which if correct would produce nothing but winners).
I agree that horserace handicapping is not precise, but it is mathematical because the “tools” use to calculate are from “mathematical statistics” which are probabilistic; hence this is how the imprecision of the outcomes are being derived.

[Nitro]

My "We" was rhetorical, Nitro...and I apologize for not pointing that out. I am well aware of the fact that you employ highly-exclusive, super-sophisticated software...which separates you from everybody else. :ThmbUp:No problem and your suppositions are true, except that I'm not the only one employing this method.
I agree that horserace handicapping is not precise, but it is mathematical because the “tools” use to calculate are from “mathematical statistics” which are probabilistic; hence this is how the imprecision of the outcomes are being derived.I’m not sure how many others like myself are not familiar with the term “probabilistic”. So I thought I might find a reasonably good explanation that might be of interest:
Wikipedia: The aim of a probabilistic logic (also probability logic and probabilistic reasoning) is to combine the capacity of probability theory to handle uncertainty with the capacity of deductive logic to exploit structure of formal argument. The result is a richer and more expressive formalism with a broad range of possible application areas. Probabilistic logics attempt to find a natural extension of traditional logic truth tables: the results they define are derived through probabilistic expressions instead. A difficulty with probabilistic logics is that they tend to multiply the computational complexities of their probabilistic and logical components. Other difficulties include the possibility of counter-intuitive results, such as those of Dempster-Shafer theory. The need to deal with a broad variety of contexts and issues has led to many different proposals.

[cj]

Thread about a legend turns to this...sad.

[EMD4ME]

Thread about a legend turns to this...sad.

I thought it, thankfully you said it.

[bobphilo]

The Aristotelian principle divides up the subject areas of our modern colleges and universities to protect those boundaries that this principle created. The arts were about creativity while the sciences were about a rigorous application of technique and methods.

Therefore, if we apply this principle to horseracing we find from the Internet:

Handicapping

“The best science requires creative thinking. Someone must see a problem, form a hypothesis about a solution, and then figure out how to test that hypothesis and implement its findings. That all requires creative thinking, which is often called innovation. The very best scientists display creative genius equal to any artist. Consider Einstein’s innovations, for instance, or those of Niels Bohr, who realized that he was often entering philosophical speculation.”

Betting

“And let us also consider our artists. Creativity alone fails to deliver us anything of worth. A musician or painter must also learn a technique, sometimes as rigorous and precise as found in any science, in order that they can turn their thoughts into a work. They must attain mastery over their medium. Even a writer works within the rules of grammar to produce beauty."

I inserted the Handicapping and Betting distinctions.

Very true. Any researcher trying to solve any question must:

1) Form a hypothesis. This is a creative part.

2) Test this hypothesis mathematically to see if the results are not due to chance alone. One needs as accurate data as possible for this stage but one needs the data. Since data is not always perfect the results must be tested for level of significance to determine the probability of the results not being due to chance alone. That usually is between 5 in 100 or even 1 in 100.

3) Interpret these results based on the findings. This is also creative.

One cannot go on to the final stage without the results of the 2nd mathematical stage. This applies to all fields of knowledge from the hard sciences to the so called soft social sciences. Anything else is just blowing smoke.

Interesting fact is many of the great philosophers were also mathematicians and logicians from Pythagoras to DesCartes to Leibniz to Bertrand Russell and Whitehead.