Songbird

[classhandicapper]

From me after the last race:

Even when they come back good, you often don't get any further development. Quite a few seem to mature earlier than their male counterparts.

I was a big defender of hers last year and still think she was better than some figure oriented handicappers thought (just not quite as good as the more seasoned and older Beholder at that stage). But I wasn't particularly impressed with this first race back. They left CA to avoid the tougher mares, this wasn't a particularly strong field, the race was not fast, and if anything, she was in the better path. She'll probably move forward, but she BETTER if she wants to beat some of the mares in CA.

I haven't changed my view. I think a pretty good case can be made that going 10F spotting weight is not an ideal set of conditions for her, but imo, this is not the same filly as last year so far.

I'm not basing that on her speed figures or her winning margins. I consider that stuff a byproduct of the race conditions/development and not necessarily indicative of ability. It's that she's even having trouble running away from horses with less early speed than the type she could cruise away from on the turn well within herself last year. So far, she's not as fast (I'm talking about turn of foot fast not speed figure fast) and she's not winning with much extra stamina and reserve energy in the tank. She's beating weaker horses on competitiveness.

A lot of fillies don't develop from 3 to 4 and some also go backwards. She may be one of the latter. We'll see if she goes forward.

[lamboguy]

From me after the last race:



I haven't changed my view. I think a pretty good case can be made that going 10F spotting weight is not an ideal set of conditions for her, but imo, this is not the same filly as last year so far.

I'm not basing that on her speed figures or her winning margins. I consider that stuff a byproduct of the race conditions/development and not necessarily indicative of ability. It's that she's even having trouble running away from horses with less early speed than the type she could cruise away from on the turn well within herself last year. So far, she's not as fast (I'm talking about turn of foot fast not speed figure fast) and she's not winning with much extra stamina and reserve energy in the tank. She's beating weaker horses on competitiveness.

A lot of fillies don't develop from 3 to 4 and some also go backwards. She may be one of the latter. We'll see if she goes forward.i couldn't agree more. usually the big improvements can come between 2-3. its not uncommon to see fillies regress when they become 4.

the people that manage that horse have a set of e yes and they might be thinking of retiring her now because it sure doesn't look like she could beat a legit grade 1 field now after yesterday.

[Bullet Plane]

It was surprising to find her in that deep against very minor league company.

Maybe she found the surface "cuppy."

[sour grapes]

i would skip the personal ensign,and forget about taking on males in the woodward.wouldnt be suprised to see her retired after this ordinary performance,even rachel couldnt improve after her 3yo season which was a much tougher campaign

[RunForTheRoses]

That was undoubtedly a disappointing performance and I agree withe the statements about development.
One thing I would like to throw in there is that Delaware is kind of a peculiar track. *Maybe* give her one more chance?

[BrentT]

One things for sure, he wont be retiring her.

A better option for the horse may be stay at home in California and see how she responds when not getting on an airplane to go cross country. That cross country shipping takes its toll on a horse.

[dilanesp]

Had they put the 127 or 128 on her that she deserved, she probably would have lost.

[Dahoss9698]

The funniest thing to me is the people up in arms by the opinion that Songbird might be a bit overrated.

She's really, really good....but some are calling her an all time great and I don't see that. Not when you compare her to past greats.

[Quesmark]

The funniest thing to me is the people up in arms by the opinion that Songbird might be a bit overrated.

She's really, really good....but some are calling her an all time great and I don't see that. Not when you compare her to past greats.
Memories are short,for many the latest is the greatest,until the next one comes along...

[classhandicapper]

The funniest thing to me is the people up in arms by the opinion that Songbird might be a bit overrated.

She's really, really good....but some are calling her an all time great and I don't see that. Not when you compare her to past greats.

The only thing that ever bothers me about evaluations of top horses are the definitive opinions based on a single set of speed figures.

I think that misses the mark by a thousand miles.

[cj]

The only thing that ever bothers me about evaluations of top horses are the definitive opinions based on a single set of speed figures.

I think that misses the mark by a thousand miles.


They aren't a bad starting point though.

[classhandicapper]

They aren't a bad starting point though.

The major problem is that if you consult Thorograph you will find allowance horses now that would blow away the best horses from the 80s (and most likely the 70s also).

If you consult Beyer figures they will tell you that those same horses from the 70s, 80s, and even 90s would blow away most of the Grade 1 horses today.

If you consult Ragozin, the best horses from each period look a little more level except for a blip faster from a few years back.

So how does one go about making comparisons of great horses and forming definitive opinions with figures when the disagreements are so extreme?

You can't. That's why it bothers me when people do.

I think a more realistic approach is to look at the accomplishments of the horses, who beat who, by how much, how consistently, with what trips, with a special appreciation for wins under extremely testing circumstances.

Lots of mediocre horses run really fast figures when the conditions are favorable and sometimes great horses don't run very fast when not required.

The truly great horses do extreme things when occasionally demanded and nothing else will get the job done. All others get exposed.

[devilsbag]

The major problem is that if you consult Thorograph you will find allowance horses now that would blow away the best horses from the 80s (and most likely the 70s also).

If you consult Beyer figures they will tell you that those same horses from the 70s, 80s, and even 90s would blow away most of the Grade 1 horses today.

If you consult Ragozin, the best horses from each period look a little more level except for a blip faster from a few years back.



In the 1980s, would have paid to see Andre the Giant taking on Beyer, Brown, and Ragozin in a Handicapper Handicap Match™.

[AltonKelsey]

Not to mention the advances in medical science, training, et al, that we've had over the last 40 years.

You really think the horses of old wouldn't have run differently given those changes in they way they'd be medicated and otherwise handled.

Maybe they'd be slower .... ;)

[classhandicapper]

Not to mention the advances in medical science, training, et al, that we've had over the last 40 years.

You really think the horses of old wouldn't have run differently given those changes in they way they'd be medicated and otherwise handled.

Maybe they'd be slower .... ;)

Exactly.

We have no way of controlling for drugs (legal and illegal), medical and training advances, changes in the composition and depth of the surfaces, synthetics, and other factors. We also see severe figure drift in opposite directions among the most competent and respected figure makers.

Heck, they can't even agree on the races this weekend.

So if someone comes to me and says horse "X" is definitively not a great filly because there were fillies 20-30 years ago running faster figures, I'm not going to take him seriously no matter what his reputation as a gambler and horse player.

There are no perfect standards for that kind of thing, but speed figures are probably among the worst. I'd way rather debate their records, trips, and what we've all seen.

IMO, Songbird was better than some of her figures indicated early last year and also slowly moved forward and demonstrated that. I don't think you need figures to see that Songbird has not picked up where she left off, let alone gotten better at 4. It remains to be seen if she will slowly recover her best form and improve, but a lot of times fillies do not.

[GMB@BP]

They aren't a bad starting point though.


I would love to see a TUS chart with the better routing fillies the past decade or so since you were making figures. The Beyers are meaningless to me.

[Fager Fan]

Exactly.

We have no way of controlling for drugs (legal and illegal), medical and training advances, changes in the composition and depth of the surfaces, synthetics, and other factors. We also see severe figure drift in opposite directions among the most competent and respected figure makers.

Heck, they can't even agree on the races this weekend.

So if someone comes to me and says horse "X" is definitively not a great filly because there were fillies 20-30 years ago running faster figures, I'm not going to take him seriously no matter what his reputation as a gambler and horse player.

There are no perfect standards for that kind of thing, but speed figures are probably among the worst. I'd way rather debate their records, trips, and what we've all seen.

IMO, Songbird was better than some of her figures indicated early last year and also slowly moved forward and demonstrated that. I don't think you need figures to see that Songbird has not picked up where she left off, let alone gotten better at 4. It remains to be seen if she will slowly recover her best form and improve, but a lot of times fillies do not.

Good post. Your way of looking at it also takes into account longevity, consistency, etc. We'll find a lot of horses who ran faster numbers here or there than many top horses (not just Songbird), but did they do it consistently over a long period of time, did they lose to horses they shouldn't have, did they win anyway even if they had some excuses had they lost, etc?

[GMB@BP]

Interesting that the race ties for Songbirds second best Timeform figure.

[thaskalos]

The major problem is that if you consult Thorograph you will find allowance horses now that would blow away the best horses from the 80s (and most likely the 70s also).

If you consult Beyer figures they will tell you that those same horses from the 70s, 80s, and even 90s would blow away most of the Grade 1 horses today.

If you consult Ragozin, the best horses from each period look a little more level except for a blip faster from a few years back.

So how does one go about making comparisons of great horses and forming definitive opinions with figures when the disagreements are so extreme?

You can't. That's why it bothers me when people do.

I think a more realistic approach is to look at the accomplishments of the horses, who beat who, by how much, how consistently, with what trips, with a special appreciation for wins under extremely testing circumstances.

Lots of mediocre horses run really fast figures when the conditions are favorable and sometimes great horses don't run very fast when not required.

The truly great horses do extreme things when occasionally demanded and nothing else will get the job done. All others get exposed.

The speed/pace figure's role is to report how fast a particular race was run...and that's IT. If the handicapper automatically assumes that these horses are only as good as their last figure or two indicate...then that's the HANDICAPPER'S fault. My main complaint with the commercial figures today is that they are sometimes augmented in order to excuse these "great" horses for the "slower" races that they sometimes run. A "superstar" horse's best races are in the 120 Beyer neighborhood...and then this "superstar" wins a stakes race while running a 105 speed figure. As a result...the Beyer Associates scramble to find an excuse to explain the slowish figure...as if this last slower number has somehow undermined the super-horse's "social standing" in the game. And, after some examination, the figure is increased to a more respectable 115...and order is restored in the world again. :rolleyes:

These horses sometimes run fast and win...and they sometimes run slower, and still win. Massaging the figures in order to smooth out the performances of these horses, as if these figures were "power ratings"...is a disservice to the paying customer...IMO. These figures have limitations...and they can't be expected to account for the totality of the horses' "worth" on the track. The figures are only a PIECE of the puzzle...and there is still a lot of handicapping left to be done...even after the figure is born. Report the figures as they are, I say...and leave the "massaging" to the CUSTOMER. Otherwise...stop calling them "pure-speed figures".

[classhandicapper]

The speed/pace figure's role is to report how fast a particular race was run...and that's IT. If the handicapper automatically assumes that these horses are only as good as their last figure or two indicate...then that's the HANDICAPPER'S fault. My main complaint with the commercial figures today is that they are sometimes augmented in order to excuse these "great" horses for the "slower" races that they sometimes run. A "superstar" horse's best races are in the 120 Beyer neighborhood...and then this "superstar" wins a stakes race while running a 105 speed figure. As a result...the Beyer Associates scramble to find an excuse to explain the slowish figure...as if this last slower number has somehow undermined the super-horse's "social standing" in the game. And, after some examination, the figure is increased to a more respectable 115...and order is restored in the world again. :rolleyes:

These horses sometimes run fast and win...and they sometimes run slower, and still win. Massaging the figures in order to smooth out the performances of these horses, as if these figures were "power ratings"...is a disservice to the paying customer...IMO. These figures have limitations...and they can't be expected to account for the totality of the horses' "worth" on the track. The figures are only a PIECE of the puzzle...and there is still a lot of handicapping left to be done...even after the figure is born. Report the figures as they are, I say...and leave the "massaging" to the CUSTOMER. Otherwise...stop calling them "pure-speed figures".

I pretty much agree with everything you are saying. :ThmbUp:

I've been thinking about this issue for decades.

To sum it up, there are so many things going on that can impact the times of races, it's close to impossible to measure and control for it all. That's why there are so many disagreements among figure makers for today's races, let alone races decades apart earned on different dirt surfaces with different medication rules etc....

On top of that (as you are saying) there are subjective judgments and differences of opinion on how much creative license the figure maker should be able to take to massage numbers or use "changing track speed" as the rationale for times that could easily have been impacted by other factors.

I understand why everyone uses figures. Time matters and they make the game much easier. But they have limitations.

If I had one simple wish fulfilled, it would be that the biggest names in the sport stop making such definitive statements about the merits of horses or a single performance based primarily on figures, especially based on only one set, or when the horses ran decades apart. There are other equally valid and accurate ways of measuring horses that should still be part of the discussion.

[storyline]

How about track management act responsible for reporting factual run-ups, distances and times.

In addition the tracks report the "track maintenance schedule" hours before the first race.

Failure to accurately do so would result in fines, have the monies fund retired racehorses etc.

Many believe misinformation is because of incompetence, on the contrary, I believe some group is enjoying information the rest of us don't have.

Then we can have a discussion about figure makers...:bang:

[storyline]

The speed/pace figure's role is to report how fast a particular race was run...and that's IT. If the handicapper automatically assumes that these horses are only as good as their last figure or two indicate...then that's the HANDICAPPER'S fault. My main complaint with the commercial figures today is that they are sometimes augmented in order to excuse these "great" horses for the "slower" races that they sometimes run. A "superstar" horse's best races are in the 120 Beyer neighborhood...and then this "superstar" wins a stakes race while running a 105 speed figure. As a result...the Beyer Associates scramble to find an excuse to explain the slowish figure...as if this last slower number has somehow undermined the super-horse's "social standing" in the game. And, after some examination, the figure is increased to a more respectable 115...and order is restored in the world again. :rolleyes:

These horses sometimes run fast and win...and they sometimes run slower, and still win. Massaging the figures in order to smooth out the performances of these horses, as if these figures were "power ratings"...is a disservice to the paying customer...IMO. These figures have limitations...and they can't be expected to account for the totality of the horses' "worth" on the track. The figures are only a PIECE of the puzzle...and there is still a lot of handicapping left to be done...even after the figure is born. Report the figures as they are, I say...and leave the "massaging" to the CUSTOMER. Otherwise...stop calling them "pure-speed figures".

Gus or anyone else, figure makers are in a tough spot because who do they trust...

1) the tracks to accurately report run-ups, distance or times

2) track maintenance (changed running surface)

3) projection of the top 4-5 finishers?


I can excuse figure makers to some extent, the suits not so much. What say you?

[dilanesp]

One thing I think figure makers sometimes forget is even aside from the issues with timing and run-up and everything else, the figure is just a measurement of a performance; it's not the performance itself.

Last year, we had an Olympic 1500 meter race run in 3:50 and change, which is painfully slow. (That converts to about a 4:07 mile, which is slower than top runners were running in the 1940's on cinder tracks.)

In the case of the Olympics, we know what the problem was. It was a slow pace. Indeed, Matt Centrowitz, the gold medalist, came out to LA this spring and ran 3:33 and change, which was excellent time, when he had a pacesetter.

Now, if we were making speed figures, Centrowitz's Rio Olympics figure would be terrible. So would all the world class athletes behind him. So the temptation would be to increase it.

But why? Why can't we just accept that some great athletes ran a slow race? It happens. It's no different than when you have an eagerly anticipated baseball game between two first place teams with top pitchers, and the game ends up 12-7 with 13 pitchers coming into the game and 7 fielding errors. It happens in sports.

I get the feeling that speed figure makers want their figures to do too much. They want them to be the ultimate description of a horse's ability, rather than an adjusted time measurement and a handicapping tool. But they can never be that. You still have to watch races, and you still have to realize that sometimes you get a slow performance for one reason or another.

[cj]

I don't think figure makers think that at all. I think some people try to make speed figures out to be more than they are, but in general that isn't the people making them.

[dilanesp]

I don't think figure makers think that at all. I think some people try to make speed figures out to be more than they are, but in general that isn't the people making them.

Well it is definitely true that the marketing of figures (especially by the DRF) is not the makers' fault.

But the rushing in to adjust figures in stakes races, which has happened for years, is done by figure makers.

[AltonKelsey]

I you're going to constantly fiddle with stakes figures because you don't want to 'insult' the horse of the moment, then its not a figure at all. It's a gold star.

[cj]

Well it is definitely true that the marketing of figures (especially by the DRF) is not the makers' fault.

But the rushing in to adjust figures in stakes races, which has happened for years, is done by figure makers.

I hear this a lot, much more often than it actually happens in fact. Got some recent examples?

[cj]

I you're going to constantly fiddle with stakes figures because you don't want to 'insult' the horse of the moment, then its not a figure at all. It's a gold star.

Who does this? I know personally i don't care if I somehow insult a horse with a figure. I'm sure Beyer doesn't either.

[AltonKelsey]

I don't have a specific case, but I believe I've heard Beyer say he will adjust a very low figure UPWARD if he thinks it doesn't represent the true 'ability' of the runners.

Anyone else hear that , or was it only in my dreams.

[Fager Fan]

I hear this a lot, much more often than it actually happens in fact. Got some recent examples?

The first start by Chrome in his last year racing.

[Fager Fan]

Who does this? I know personally i don't care if I somehow insult a horse with a figure. I'm sure Beyer doesn't either.

Beyer admitted h adjusted it up, and there are tons of examples I've read over the past few years and here he did that.

[cj]

Beyer admitted h adjusted it up, and there are tons of examples I've read over the past few years and here he did that.


Tons? Okay, give me five from last year. You ever notice you rarely hear about these adjusted figures later on after the horses race back?

Here is the thing people are missing. The big name horses are high profile and people notice more when things don't add up in their eyes figure wise. But that doesn't mean the figure maker isn't using the same exact methods and making the same type of decisions he does all for races every day around the country.

I also noted "add up in their eyes" because frankly most people don't know what they are talking about. Reading Picking Winners or Handicapping Speed doesn't make somebody an expert on the day to day machinations of making speed figures. It is way more complicated than most people can imagine. I'm not trying to make out what I and others like me do to be rocket science. But it isn't flipping burgers at McDonald's either. Any time I break out a figure I have a good reason, not just "it looked too slow", and I'm more than happy to explain it.

Back to the thread topic, the thing with the Songbird race is I played it straight like I do the vast majority of numbers. I was surprised it as high as it was, even if that was still below par for a G1 for females. The track was slow compared to most ovals and there were plenty other races for comparison. I'll be watching every horse that runs back like I do for most figures I have even some doubt for going forward.

[AltonKelsey]

Not surprised the fig for Songbird came back 'decent'.

There was nothing visually that implied the race fell apart, other than the close finish.

[Fager Fan]

Tons? Okay, give me five from last year. You ever notice you rarely hear about these adjusted figures later on after the horses race back?

Here is the thing people are missing. The big name horses are high profile and people notice more when things don't add up in their eyes figure wise. But that doesn't mean the figure maker isn't using the same exact methods and making the same type of decisions he does all for races every day around the country.

I also noted "add up in their eyes" because frankly most people don't know what they are talking about. Reading Picking Winners or Handicapping Speed doesn't make somebody an expert on the day to day machinations of making speed figures. It is way more complicated than most people can imagine. I'm not trying to make out what I and others like me do to be rocket science. But it isn't flipping burgers at McDonald's either. Any time I break out a figure I have a good reason, not just "it looked too slow", and I'm more than happy to explain it.

Back to the thread topic, the thing with the Songbird race is I played it straight like I do the vast majority of numbers. I was surprised it as high as it was, even if that was still below par for a G1 for females. The track was slow compared to most ovals and there were plenty other races for comparison. I'll be watching every horse that runs back like I do for most figures I have even some doubt for going forward.

Isn't Chrome's San Pasquale egregious enough?

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

He admits he actually gave a horse a false number because that horse set a slow pace. It'd be absurd if he did that when another horse set a slow pace, but when the winner and recipient of the false figure is the one who set the slow pace, it's off the charts absurd.

There have been plenty of times that a horse received a Beyer only to see a day or three later the number had been adjusted up or down. I'm not talking about the prelim figures either, but the ones posted officially at DRF in their charts.

Serling claimed at the time that it was no big deal that he adjusted the figure due to pace, that he did it a lot with Zenyatta. I can't verify that, just reporting what he said.

I just want a true fig. Horses can and should go up and down. How can we trust Arrogate putting up 3 fantastic numbers, for example, if we can't trust Beyer is publishing the true number?

[thaskalos]

Tons? Okay, give me five from last year. You ever notice you rarely hear about these adjusted figures later on after the horses race back?

Here is the thing people are missing. The big name horses are high profile and people notice more when things don't add up in their eyes figure wise. But that doesn't mean the figure maker isn't using the same exact methods and making the same type of decisions he does all for races every day around the country.

I also noted "add up in their eyes" because frankly most people don't know what they are talking about. Reading Picking Winners or Handicapping Speed doesn't make somebody an expert on the day to day machinations of making speed figures. It is way more complicated than most people can imagine. I'm not trying to make out what I and others like me do to be rocket science. But it isn't flipping burgers at McDonald's either. Any time I break out a figure I have a good reason, not just "it looked too slow", and I'm more than happy to explain it.

Back to the thread topic, the thing with the Songbird race is I played it straight like I do the vast majority of numbers. I was surprised it as high as it was, even if that was still below par for a G1 for females. The track was slow compared to most ovals and there were plenty other races for comparison. I'll be watching every horse that runs back like I do for most figures I have even some doubt for going forward.

Beyer was notoriously slow in recognizing the role that pace played in a horse's final time...and there has been no indication that he has become proficient in pace handicapping even NOW. When the Beyer Associates presume to artificially adjust the Beyer figures to reflect the effect of the pace of the race...how does the customer know that these figure-makers understand pace better than he does HIMSELF?

Why doesn't Beyer supply the race's original speed figure, as WELL as the adjusted figure...so the customer can choose for HIMSELF if he wants to accept the adjusted figure, or not?

[Mulerider]

I don't have a specific case, but I believe I've heard Beyer say he will adjust a very low figure UPWARD if he thinks it doesn't represent the true 'ability' of the runners.



I don't remember the reason stated for the adjustment, but the original 93 BSF awarded to Hence in this year's Sunland Derby was later changed to 97.

Mule

[cj]

Beyer was notoriously slow in recognizing the role that pace played in a horse's final time...and there has been no indication that he has become proficient in pace handicapping even NOW. When the Beyer Associates presume to artificially adjust the Beyer figures to reflect the effect of the pace of the race...how does the customer know that these figure-makers understand pace better than he does HIMSELF?

Why doesn't Beyer supply the race's original speed figure, as WELL as the adjusted figure...so the customer can choose for HIMSELF if he wants to accept the adjusted figure, or not?

I don't want to get into being the defender of Andy Beyer. He has his methods, I have mine. I learned a ton from his work but have went in my own direction. I can't answer your question because I don't know the answer. We alert users to issues with a coding system at TimeformUS. It isn't perfect but it does indicate when I don't have as much confidence in a number.

[cj]

Isn't Chrome's San Pasquale egregious enough?

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

He admits he actually gave a horse a false number because that horse set a slow pace. It'd be absurd if he did that when another horse set a slow pace, but when the winner and recipient of the false figure is the one who set the slow pace, it's off the charts absurd.

There have been plenty of times that a horse received a Beyer only to see a day or three later the number had been adjusted up or down. I'm not talking about the prelim figures either, but the ones posted officially at DRF in their charts.

Serling claimed at the time that it was no big deal that he adjusted the figure due to pace, that he did it a lot with Zenyatta. I can't verify that, just reporting what he said.

I just want a true fig. Horses can and should go up and down. How can we trust Arrogate putting up 3 fantastic numbers, for example, if we can't trust Beyer is publishing the true number?

Like I said, I'm not here to defend or explain Andy Beyer. He is a legend and a smart guy and can explain himself way better than I can. I just think as the leader in the area, he gets a lot of unfounded criticism. He isn't perfect like none of us are. I obviously think I do some things better or I'd still be using Beyer figures myself!

I don't remember what the Chrome number was from Beyer. I gave it a 119, which is at or just below a G3 par. It equates to about a 99 Beyer figure. It was a very slow pace and we at TimeformUS have the luxury of showing the pace figure alongside the overall number. Beyer doesn't have that.

[Tom]

Why doesn't Beyer supply the race's original speed figure, as WELL as the adjusted figure...so the customer can choose for HIMSELF if he wants to accept the adjusted figure, or not?

That's what the Winner's Books are for. You get every race at every track every day. Valuable set of data. I can tell when a race is broken out or a variant is split, or when CJ disagrees. Those are the races I want to know about and look closely at. I download the tracks I play every week and then I know if a major change has been made.

[classhandicapper]

Why doesn't Beyer supply the race's original speed figure, as WELL as the adjusted figure...so the customer can choose for HIMSELF if he wants to accept the adjusted figure, or not?

I've been asking for that for decades (along with the track variant applied to each race so I can see which races were broken out and which days were split etc..). I've done those kinds of calculations manually on and off in NY and for big stakes days out of NY for long time. I've since stopped because I don't play many races in NY anymore and have better use for the time, but I agree with you.

There are a lot of reasons they may not want to give that information out and there are also "space" issues within the PPs, but for one segment of customers it's useful information.

[classhandicapper]

That's what the Winner's Books are for. You get every race at every track every day. Valuable set of data. I can tell when a race is broken out or a variant is split, or when CJ disagrees. Those are the races I want to know about and look closely at. I download the tracks I play every week and then I know if a major change has been made.

+1

[classhandicapper]

CJ,

You are way more sensitive to the pace issue than any of the other major figure makers. That makes me think you should should see things a lot more like me even if your own handicapping is more figure oriented.

This is the way I see it.

Everyone can see how an extremely fast pace can cause a race to totally collapse and an extremely slow one can prevent horses from running to their best figures.

The thing is, paces aren't just so extreme everyone notices. There's everything in between those extremes. Those are tougher to see and measure.

When you throw those smaller pace variations on top of the subjective trip/bias/race flow and accuracy issues, figures more or less have a range of accuracy - which is why the top figure makers disagree all the time yet all produce very good results.

To put in one way, a horse may get a figure of 100, but the reality of how fast he ran could be anywhere from 95 to 105 and the trip could be worth a lot more in either direction (with some days/races being tougher than others).

I could sit here all day and make the case for figures from a handicapping and gambling perspective. But I still find it annoying when some experts (not talking about here) base their views primarily on figures or "trip adjusted figures" from one source as if those numbers on the paper represents the definitive reality of how good that horse was/is even though the numbers were calculated decades apart. They are a small piece of evidence among many other pieces of information that at times may be more conclusive and accurate.

[dilanesp]

I've been asking for that for decades (along with the track variant applied to each race so I can see which races were broken out and which days were split etc..). I've done those kinds of calculations manually on and off in NY and for big stakes days out of NY for long time. I've since stopped because I don't play many races in NY anymore and have better use for the time, but I agree with you.

There are a lot of reasons they may not want to give that information out and there are also "space" issues within the PPs, but for one segment of customers it's useful information.

It definitely seems to me that if there is a way for a figure maker to provide raw numbers without adjustments, they should do so.

Maybe there isn't room in the DRF, but they could at least do a + or -. I.e., if a figure was adjusted downward, it should read 85-, and if it was adjusted upward, 92+.

And this isn't an indictment of figure makers as far as I am concerned. I made figures myself when I was younger. Some numbers make no sense at all. I remember a promising 2 year old at Del Mar when I was making figures, who ran an 81 breaking his maiden (excellent for a 2 year old), then won a stakes race in a 74. The second place horse also dropped down 7 points. And the third place horse dropped 6. It made no sense, especially since two year olds normally improve their numbers, especially promising stakes horses. Maybe the timer malfunctioned. (Of course these days, cj would know that. :) )

So I know why numbers get adjusted. But nonetheless, when they do, the danger is you are no longer getting the scientific measure of the speed of the race-- you are just getting the figure maker's own opinion of the horse's ability, which could be mistaken.

[classhandicapper]

So I know why numbers get adjusted. But nonetheless, when they do, the danger is you are no longer getting the scientific measure of the speed of the race-- you are just getting the figure maker's own opinion of the horse's ability, which could be mistaken.

The biggest danger is one I've been discussing with CJ for years, If a race comes up faster or slower than expected because of the pace or race development and the figure maker is not sensitive to those things or chooses to adjust it anyway, then someone that does not know he tweaked the figure might make a personal adjustment on top of that and double count it, which of course would be disastrous.

[cj]

The biggest danger is one I've been discussing with CJ for years, If a race comes up faster or slower than expected because of the pace or race development and the figure maker is not sensitive to those things or chooses to adjust it anyway, then someone that does not know he tweaked the figure might make a personal adjustment on top of that and double count it, which of course would be disastrous.

...and when it comes to pace, if you adjust a race, you are treating all horses the same when most likely the pace was extreme and had vastly different effects on individual horses.

[Jeff P]

...and when it comes to pace, if you adjust a race, you are treating all horses the same when most likely the pace was extreme and had vastly different effects on individual horses.

Imo, this is an important point.

Speaking strictly for myself:

No matter whose figures I am using, I would prefer the figure maker use the same procedure, and make figures the same way, consistently, for every single race -- without adjusting for pace.

I prefer to make my own adjustments -- on an individual horse basis -- as the need arises -- for the impact of pace, early/late bias, inside/outside path bias, and individual trips, etc.

Things work better for me that way.


-jp

.

[cj]

Imo, this is an important point.

Speaking strictly for myself:

No matter whose figures I am using, I would prefer the figure maker use the same procedure, and make figures the same way, consistently, for every single race -- without adjusting for pace.

I prefer to make my own adjustments -- on an individual horse basis -- as the need arises -- for the impact of pace, early/late bias, inside/outside path bias, and individual trips, etc.

Things work better for me that way.


-jp

.

Agree, and in my case I give both for the user to see.

[classhandicapper]

...and when it comes to pace, if you adjust a race, you are treating all horses the same when most likely the pace was extreme and had vastly different effects on individual horses.

+1