totally illogical

[Afleet]

from the DRF

Andy Beyer explains Bolt d'Oro's FrontRunner figure



Bolt d'Oro ran 1 1/16 miles on a fast Santa Anita dirt track in 1:43.54 winning the FrontRunner Stakes on Saturday at Santa Anita by 7 3/4 lengths. It was a fast time - really fast. The FrontRunner, for 2-year-olds, was race 8. Paradise Woods, the Grade 1-winning 3-year-old filly, had won race 5, the Zenyatta Stakes, by 5 1/4 lengths, going the same 1 1/16 miles in 1:44.34.
So, when the Beyer Speed Figures for the card came out Sunday, many were surprised to see Paradise Woods get a 105 Beyer, while Bolt d'Oro was assigned a 100. There was no change in the weather between the races, and, in fact, the folks making the figures are not even suggesting they needed to use a split variant to calculate the Beyers for the Saturday card at Santa Anita.
The problem with taking Bolt d'Oro's Beyer figure at face value, said Andy Beyer, is that the number seemed implausible from two angles.
"If we were to take Bolt d’Oro’s time at face value, he would equal the fastest Beyer Speed Figure by a 2-year-old in the last 25 years," Beyer wrote in an email Sunday.
"Is that possible? Certainly," Beyer wrote. "Bolt d’Oro is well-bred, lightly raced and undefeated. We have no way of knowing how good he might be.
"But if Bolt d’Oro ran a 113, the colts finishing 2-3-4 would have earned figures of 100, 96 and 91. Each of the top four finishers would have improved between 16 and 28 points over his previous career best. My experience in making figures tells me that such a scenario is almost unbelievable."
Bolt d'Oro himself ran figures of 77 and 85 in his first two starts. Even a jump to a 100, the highest 2-year-old figure of 2017 by eight points, is considerable.
"Whenever we assign a speed figure in this fashion, we monitor the subsequent performances of the horses in the field," wrote Beyer. "If our initial figure was wrong, we will change it retroactively. After the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile is run on Nov. 4, we will have a better gauge of Bolt d’Oro and the colts who were behind him Saturday."

[cj]

People take less risks as they get older, generally speaking.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I agree totally illogical...and until we know all the components of Beyer numbers I'll continue to view them as unreliable...Raw time is a better indicator.

[AndyC]

... "If we were to take Bolt d’Oro’s time at face value, he would equal the fastest Beyer Speed Figure by a 2-year-old in the last 25 years," Beyer wrote in an email Sunday.
"Is that possible? Certainly," Beyer wrote. "Bolt d’Oro is well-bred, lightly raced and undefeated. We have no way of knowing how good he might be.
"But if Bolt d’Oro ran a 113, the colts finishing 2-3-4 would have earned figures of 100, 96 and 91. Each of the top four finishers would have improved between 16 and 28 points over his previous career best. My experience in making figures tells me that such a scenario is almost unbelievable."
Bolt d'Oro himself ran figures of 77 and 85 in his first two starts."

What is so illogical about Beyer's explanation? Andy may not always be right but he is always logical.

[cj]

I agree totally illogical...and until we know all the components of Beyer numbers I'll continue to view them as unreliable...Raw time is a better indicator.

Yeah, you keep betting on fastest raw times and let us know how that works out for you.

[cj]

What is so illogical about Beyer's explanation? Andy may not always be right but he is always logical.

Assuming earlier figures couldn't be off a bit and using them as justification, particularly when they all came in sprint races?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Yeah, you keep betting on fastest raw times and let us know how that works out for you.

What I would like to know is what are the exact reasons that go into arriving at the figure in this case to make the colt's Beyer lower when he ran faster...?

...unless you know everything that goes into making the figures, how can anyone verify if a Beyer is an error or not...and on top of it they do admit a subjective component in revising the number later, if need be, as well...(in this case, it appears they made the revision in advance)...their system told them one number but they felt it was too high, I guess, then subjectively downgraded the number...is it better to leave the number up, then maybe, downgrade later on...?

Is the Beyer number a crucial component in arriving at TimeformUS figures...?

[cj]

What I would like to know is what are the exact reasons that go into arriving at the figure in this case to make the colt's Beyer lower when he ran faster...?

...unless you know everything that goes into making the figures, how can anyone verify if a Beyer is an error or not...and on top of it they do admit a subjective component in revising the number later, if need be, as well...(in this case, it appears they made the revision in advance)...their system told them one number but they felt it was too high, I guess, then subjectively downgraded the number...is it better to leave the number up, then maybe, downgrade later on...?

Is the Beyer number a crucial component in arriving at TimeformUS figures...?

I thought Beyer explained that in the article. I'm not sure what more he can say. I don't agree with what he did, but that doesn't mean he won't turn out to be correct, and he has certainly earned the right to make those types of decisions.


As for the last sentence, to quote John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!"

[cj]

People take less risks as they get older, generally speaking.

I've been told this didn't come across well so I want to explain. First and foremost, I consider myself as one that has "gotten older". I turned 50 this May. I'm certainly no spring chicken.

I was speaking from personal experience. When I was younger (and dumber), I though my figures were invincible. If a 5k claimer earned a G1 figure at Fairmount, I was convinced he would be competitive in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. I've gotten wiser and learned a lot since then, and I'm sure I'll continue to learn. Now that my figures are public and people purchase them to bet, figures like the Frontrunner are quite the internal dilemma. It is tough to make a very big number when I'm not confident in the figure. I know people are using that data to bet real money. It is easy to find reasons to knock a figure down.

In this case, I actually tried. I struggled with this race just like I would imagine Beyer did. I thought maybe there was a timing problem so I downloaded all the route races and timed them on my computer. They were all spot on. This was a fast track in California on a perfectly clear day. I simply couldn't justify breaking this race out from the others.

The only reason I could have used was that my projections indicated the race looked "fishy". This is how I catch many timing errors that others don't notice. This is what Beyer did. I understand why he did it. I just don't want to go down that road. Projections are far from perfect, particularly for top 2yo colts going long the first time. The projections are based on sprints for rapidly improving horses, and often those sprints (many are maiden races) aren't based on much data either. So I don't want the projections to become a self fulfilling prophecy.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I thought Beyer explained that in the article. I'm not sure what more he can say. I don't agree with what he did, but that doesn't mean he won't turn out to be correct, and he has certainly earned the right to make those types of decisions.


As for the last sentence, to quote John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!"

Apparently, Bolt d'Oro earned a 113 Beyer here...and they are saying "Whenever we assign a speed figure in this fashion" ...meaning, I guess, when they subjectively assigned the 100 Beyer....That is a 13 point drop...!

Either you trust the automated metric or you do not...

How do you know that the other Beyers that day do not deserve the same treatment...?

Why not drop the Beyer on Paradise Woods also...?

[ReplayRandall]

The only reason I could have used was that my projections indicated the race looked "fishy". This is how I catch many timing errors that others don't notice. This is what Beyer did. I understand why he did it. I just don't want to go down that road.

So publicly, you don't want to go down that road, but do you hammer it out privately??.....I'll "bet" you do.

[cj]

Apparently, Bolt'Oro earned a 113 Beyer here...and they are saying "Whenever we assign a speed figure in this fashion" ...meaning, I guess, when they subjectively assigned the 100 Beyer....That is a 13 point drop...!

Either you trust the automated metric or you do not...

How do you know that the other Beyers that day do not deserve the same treatment...?

Why not drop the Beyer on Paradise Woods also...?

These really aren't questions for me.

[cj]

So publicly, you don't want to go down that road, but do you hammer it out privately??.....I'll "bet" you do.

I use exactly the same thing everyone else does. There is nothing I store privately for myself. If I were going to do that, I would never mention a single timing error that I find. I resent the implication to be honest. I'm going to assume you are kidding and let it slide though.

[Spalding No!]

It's a bit ironic that Beyer alludes to the dramatic jump Bolt D'Oro made from a 70+ debut and 80+ Futurity to a triple digit figure for the Forerunner. And yet, that is exactly what Paradise Woods did in the SA Oaks.

And furthermore there was no retroactive re-assignment of the SA Oaks figure after her subsequent dud performances at Churchill and Del Mar.

Michael Wrona's racecall histrionics aside, Paradise Woods looked like she was struggling in the final sixteenth (as all horses regardless of class--except Bolt d'Oro--have looked on this tiring SA surface) of the Zenyatta. She will get buried with any sort of pace pressure in the Distaff.

[Fager Fan]

It's a bit ironic that Beyer alludes to the dramatic jump Bolt D'Oro made from a 70+ debut and 80+ Futurity to a triple digit figure for the Forerunner. And yet, that is exactly what Paradise Woods did in the SA Oaks.

And furthermore there was no retroactive re-assignment of the SA Oaks figure after her subsequent dud performances at Churchill and Del Mar.

Michael Wrona's racecall histrionics aside, Paradise Woods looked like she was struggling in the final sixteenth (as all horses regardless of class--except Bolt d'Oro--have looked on this tiring SA surface) of the Zenyatta. She will get buried with any sort of pace pressure in the Distaff.

That last observation is interesting. She didn't look great late, but I thought at least part of the explanation was the rider was shutting her down.

I don't like Beyer rather arbitrarily adjusting his numbers. That's more for the other guys to do. He didn't mind giving McLean's Music a 110 or something in his one and only race, so what's the big difference? I don't think the projection method is a very good method, though used by many/all. In human sports, we see it all the time, where level of competition can make competitors rise or lower to the occasion. The competitors hone in and concentrate, or the tune out a little and aren't concentrating. Or they get into a groove. I'm not sure that there's a clear explanation for the phenomenon, but it's a real one. I don't see why it couldn't likewise happen with horses. It's no less sensible to me than whatever explanation supposedly exists for a surface having a closing bias.

[ReplayRandall]

I use exactly the same thing everyone else does. There is nothing I store privately for myself. If I were going to do that, I would never mention a single timing error that I find. I resent the implication to be honest. I'm going to assume you are kidding and let it slide though.

Of course I'm kidding, well kind of......You can't tell me you don't wrestle with timing, run-ups and suspect numbers that don't influence your betting, even after you post your figs? ......Relax, I didn't infer anything other than privately changing your mind about what you may ultimately bet on your own.

[thaskalos]

Beyer's explanation leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. A horse wins its race roughly 4 lengths faster than a "classier" horse won an earlier race...and there is no atmospheric reason by which to explain this "unlikely outcome". But, since the race-figure as it stood "seemed implausible"...an arbitrary adjustment was made...to restore the impression that everything is "nice and orderly" in the horse-racing world. As if total confusion would ensue if Bolt d'Oro had a single abnormally-high speed figure sticking out of his past-performances.

I've talked about such Beyer figure-adjustments in the past, and whenever I do...someone invariably interjects to tell me that there must have been a valid reason that caused the Beyer Associates to "split the day's variant". But this clearly isn't the case here. Bolt d'Oro gets a 100 and Paradise Woods gets a 105...and I remain convinced that Beyer is interjecting "class" into his ratings...even though he continues calling them "pure-speed figures".

[VigorsTheGrey]

Beyer's explanation leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. A horse runs its race roughly 4 lengths faster than a "classier" horse ran an earlier race...and there is no atmospheric reason by which to explain this "unlikely outcome". But, since the race figure as it stood "seemed implausible"...an arbitrary adjustment was made...to restore the impression that everything is "nice and orderly" in the horse-racing world. As if total confusion would ensue if Bolt d'Oro had a single abnormally-high speed figure sticking out of his past-performances.

I've talked about such Beyer figure-adjustments in the past, and whenever I do...someone invariably interjects to tell me that there must have been a valid reason that caused the Beyer Associates to "split the day's variant". But this clearly isn't the case here. Bolt d'Oro gets a 100 and Paradise Woods gets a 105...and I remain convinced that Beyer is interjecting "class" into his ratings...even though he continues calling them "pure-speed figures".

Well, a "seemed implausible" victory is about what I would expect from a race whose projections, as cj said, looked "fishy"...:lol:

[dnlgfnk]

There are a host of inconsistencies that make the attempt to assign a figure with exactitude contradictory.

Utilize the projection method for any significant length of time, and one would see their figures shrink over a month or two. There is a tendency to underestimate a projection when horses with close past figures are clumped together at the finish of the race in question. There is usually a retroactive correction using par times to elevate weeks worth of figures, resulting in something aside from the pure projection method.

Further, having written a few books on the volatility of figures in light of trip handicapping, Andy suggests we are now to expect a linear result of the relevant horses' next races as the lens by which to gauge the figures from last Saturday. Bolt d'Oro stalked a 72-1 shot two wide. What if he draws the outside post in a large BC field teeming with early speed, and encounters a grueling trip as the reference point for confirming Saturday's figure?

The FrontRunner result reminds me that at times, there is something mysterious about outrun figures, i.e., Sham in the Derby and Preakness, or a harness horse who can track a leader doing all the heavy lifting and pace to the wire behind the winner in a time he could never record on his own, we are told. Very often, when glancing at a horse's career best figure, it is in a race where he was defeated, frequently by many lengths in the highest class he has raced in.

[JustRalph]

I smell something and it smells like a souped up track, between races.

[AndyC]

Beyer's explanation leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. A horse wins its race roughly 4 lengths faster than a "classier" horse won an earlier race...and there is no atmospheric reason by which to explain this "unlikely outcome". But, since the race-figure as it stood "seemed implausible"...an arbitrary adjustment was made...to restore the impression that everything is "nice and orderly" in the horse-racing world. As if total confusion would ensue if Bolt d'Oro had a single abnormally-high speed figure sticking out of his past-performances...

So you think that Beyer is illogical because he questions a race where the top 4 horses jump up double digits in speed figures? He has been making his figures for 40 some years and he has never seen such a race. Does his experience help or hinder him?

[Afleet]

So you think that Beyer is illogical because he questions a race where the top 4 horses jump up double digits in speed figures? He has been making his figures for 40 some years and he has never seen such a race. Does his experience help or hinder him?

So you think its plausible that two horses that ran the same distance at the same racetrack w/in 30 minutes of each other's race, where one horse ran 3-4 lengths slower time(w/o stumbling, wide the whole race, etc.) gets a faster speed figure. That seems logical to you?

[classhandicapper]

I'm not going to take a position on what the figure should be and why, but I think Beyer was clear that the reason he broke it out was not just that a 113 would have meant that Bolt d'Oro jumped way up to an extremely fast figure. It would have meant that the top 4 finishers all jumped way up.

What he was weighing was the reality of the very fast time against the probability that something accounts for it that he couldn't identify, but that it's not reflective of how fast the horses ran.

These are the kinds of races we get to discuss. It's high profile and extreme. My point has always been what about all the race that are lower profile and where we are talking about 5-6 points. If these things happen 13 points worth, they happen way more often for fewer points. Yet no one notices. Everyone just has strong opinions based on those figures.

[thaskalos]

So you think that Beyer is illogical because he questions a race where the top 4 horses jump up double digits in speed figures? He has been making his figures for 40 some years and he has never seen such a race. Does his experience help or hinder him?

We live in the era of the "Super-Trainer"...and horses will, on occasion, show drastic and unexplained improvement from one race to the next. And, YES...once in a while, four horses ARE bound to improve dramatically all in the same race. What should we do when that happens...reduce the improving figures down to the level of "believability"?

What's the harm in having Bolt d'Oro show one unusually-high figure in his past performances? Does one single speed-figure define the horse, as far as "ability" is concerned? Four horses ran greatly-improved figures in that race...and there is no atmospheric reason by which to invalidate these figures. In a stakes race early in the year whose details I don't accurately recall...the "classy" top-finishers ran a lot SLOWER than they had showed in the past...and the Beyer-figures were adjusted UPWARDS...because the slower figures "seemed implausible".

When looking at the Beyer figures...are we seeing the actual ratings that the horses RAN...or are we viewing Beyer's INTERPRETATION of them? And if it's the latter, then...why does he insist on calling his ratings "pure-speed figures"?

[DeltaLover]

I do not have yet access to the figures for Sep 30 so I cannot have an opinion yet; given Beyer’s comment I am curious to see how they will come out and anyone is interested I can post my analysis here..

For the moment all I have is the analysis of the pps look which I present here:

Here you can see the pps for Paradise Woods:

http://i65.tinypic.com/2wd283o.png


The race that stands up is the Apr8 win where she earned a 113 final figure with a 70 pace in a track as slow by 18 point

In this snapshot you can see all the races for the day that were used to calculate the variant:

http://i66.tinypic.com/2qwga9y.png


Note that all the other starters of the day ran slower than corresponding times for the class while their raw figures were higher than the average for their class with single exception the PW. This is what inflated her figure a lot.

Here you can see the ppps Bold D’oro

http://i63.tinypic.com/2k110g.png

He earned an 80 while pressing a 107 race

While this is the breakdown for the races of the day that were used to estimate the variant for his last race in a track slow by 2.

http://i64.tinypic.com/23hb1b5.png

[CincyHorseplayer]

Can't quite remember the circumstances but Beholder did this as a 2yo and the big fig stayed. She ended up winning the Juvenile Fillies at 7/2. For the reasons cited above=no real change in the course, I believe the big fig again. Hope 7/2 is there for this guy also!

[Fager Fan]

We live in the era of the "Super-Trainer"...and horses will, on occasion, show drastic and unexplained improvement from one race to the next. And, YES...once in a while, four horses ARE bound to improve dramatically all in the same race. What should we do when that happens...reduce the improving figures down to the level of "believability"?

What's the harm in having Bolt d'Oro show one unusually-high figure in his past performances? Does one single speed-figure define the horse, as far as "ability" is concerned? Four horses ran greatly-improved figures in that race...and there is no atmospheric reason by which to invalidate these figures. In a stakes race early in the year whose details I don't accurately recall...the "classy" top-finishers ran a lot SLOWER than they had showed in the past...and the Beyer-figures were adjusted UPWARDS...because the slower figures "seemed implausible".

When looking at the Beyer figures...are we seeing the actual ratings that the horses RAN...or are we viewing Beyer's INTERPRETATION of them? And if it's the latter, then...why does he insist on calling his ratings "pure-speed figures"?

I agree with you and have made the same argument many times. If they'd just leave the numbers as are, we'd see it's less of an oddity as more are noted as doing the same.

Of course, me agreeing means you're terribly wrong. Or terribly depressed.

[thaskalos]

I agree with you and have made the same argument many times. If they'd just leave the numbers as are, we'd see it's less of an oddity as more are noted as doing the same.

Of course, me agreeing means you're terribly wrong. Or terribly depressed.

:lol:

Well...you know what they say about the broken clock...:)

[Fager Fan]

:lol:

Well...you know what they say about the broken clock...:)

I do. Too bad there are so few who work on clocks these days, else I'd offer to take you in for repair. :p

[AndyC]

So you think its plausible that two horses that ran the same distance at the same racetrack w/in 30 minutes of each other's race, where one horse ran 3-4 lengths slower time(w/o stumbling, wide the whole race, etc.) gets a faster speed figure. That seems logical to you?

Comparing the time of one race to the other of course it doesn't seem right. The results of the top 4 finishers seem to indicate otherwise. Andy has admitted that he may be wrong and that a change might be in the offing. Can you say for certain that the track didn't change? Was watering the same? Track maintenance the same?

[thaskalos]

I do. Too bad there are so few who work on clocks these days, else I'd offer to take you in for repair. :p

I think there is a lesson here for the both of us. :ThmbUp:

[Poindexter]

Thaskalos, I agree with you. Sort of silly to call yourself a speed figure and downgrade the figure many lengths for any reason. Actually sort of fraudulent.

Why doesn't the DRF just provide 2 figures. Figure 1 would be a pure Beyer Figure based off the final time, unedited for any reason (a speed figure as Thaskalos asks for). Figure 2 would be the current edited figure. They can explain that figure 2 "in our opinion is a more accurate and predictive figure based off of our many years of experience using complex handicapping techniques". At that point they can let the handicapper make his own decision on how to handicap.

We don't ask Andy Beyer and his associates to hold our hand when we go to the betting windows, so why do they feel a need to hold our hand when providing us the BSF. Or is it about preserving their own image as indispensable? Can't go out on the limb and say that a 2yo ran much faster than Grade 1 horses of both sexes, even though he did.

[AndyC]

We live in the era of the "Super-Trainer"...and horses will, on occasion, show drastic and unexplained improvement from one race to the next. And, YES...once in a while, four horses ARE bound to improve dramatically all in the same race. What should we do when that happens...reduce the improving figures down to the level of "believability"?

What's the harm in having Bolt d'Oro show one unusually-high figure in his past performances? Does one single speed-figure define the horse, as far as "ability" is concerned? Four horses ran greatly-improved figures in that race...and there is no atmospheric reason by which to invalidate these figures. In a stakes race early in the year whose details I don't accurately recall...the "classy" top-finishers ran a lot SLOWER than they had showed in the past...and the Beyer-figures were adjusted UPWARDS...because the slower figures "seemed implausible".

When looking at the Beyer figures...are we seeing the actual ratings that the horses RAN...or are we viewing Beyer's INTERPRETATION of them? And if it's the latter, then...why does he insist on calling his ratings "pure-speed figures"?

According to Beyer the era of the super trainer started a long time ago.

No atmospheric reason but perhaps a track reason.

Every figure has some interpretation, starting with the track variant.

I didn't realize that Beyer referred to his numbers as "pure-speed figures".

[Fager Fan]

I think there is a lesson here for the both of us. :ThmbUp:

:ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

One thing that people may not realize is that virtually every figure maker (except perhaps for Ragozin) breaks races out, split variants between sprints and routes etc... The difference is primarily a matter of how often they do and under what conditions.

[cj]

I smell something and it smells like a souped up track, between races.

But that would mean it got unsouped before the Awesome Again.

[cj]

So you think that Beyer is illogical because he questions a race where the top 4 horses jump up double digits in speed figures? He has been making his figures for 40 some years and he has never seen such a race. Does his experience help or hinder him?

I would say there is no chance he has never seen that before when looking at the raw times. I see it plenty and have only been doing this full time a fraction as long as Beyer. Now of course he controls whether the horses are actually credited with jumping up or not. If he always breaks the race out, then of course he has never seen it and he never will.

[Poindexter]

Thaskalos, I agree with you. Sort of silly to call yourself a speed figure and downgrade the figure many lengths for any reason. Actually sort of fraudulent.

Why doesn't the DRF just provide 2 figures. Figure 1 would be a pure Beyer Figure based off the final time, unedited for any reason (a speed figure as Thaskalos asks for). Figure 2 would be the current edited figure. They can explain that figure 2 "in our opinion is a more accurate and predictive figure based off of our many years of experience using complex handicapping techniques". At that point they can let the handicapper make his own decision on how to handicap.

We don't ask Andy Beyer and his associates to hold our hand when we go to the betting windows, so why do they feel a need to hold our hand when providing us the BSF. Or is it about preserving their own image as indispensable? Can't go out on the limb and say that a 2yo ran much faster than Grade 1 horses of both sexes, even though he did.

Just for the record (in case there is some confusion because I certainly wasn't very clear) figure 1 would of course include the variant and yes I assume that sprints have a sprint variant and routes have a route variant(did not include that in my post) just not the other adjustments made such as the 2 yo's can't possibly be that much faster than the older horses based off of their last race figures or this horses Beyer is too slow due to the slow pace and whatever other edits they do. These edits are part of the handicapping process and should not be used to put out a speed figure in my opinion. If a speed figure is giving a race extra or too little credit for pace or class reasons than obviously the handicapper by incorporating pace and class into his capping will end up overrating the horse.

[AndyC]

I would say there is no chance he has never seen that before when looking at the raw times. I see it plenty and have only been doing this full time a fraction as long as Beyer. Now of course he controls whether the horses are actually credited with jumping up or not. If he always breaks the race out, then of course he has never seen it and he never will.

To be clear, I am not defending his decision as being correct, I am defending him as being logical. When a highly improbable event occurs, in this case speed figs (based on assumed variant) increasing double digits for the first four finishers, it would be negligent not to examine the results. He decided that it was more probable that the track variant changed. The counter argument would be that the track was the same at all times during the day.

With the process of making variants being something less than an exact science couldn't any figure maker control the credit with horses jumping up?

[cj]

To be clear, I am not defending his decision as being correct, I am defending him as being logical. When a highly improbable event occurs, in this case speed figs (based on assumed variant) increasing double digits for the first four finishers, it would be negligent not to examine the results. He decided that it was more probable that the track variant changed. The counter argument would be that the track was the same at all times during the day.

With the process of making variants being something less than an exact science couldn't any figure maker control the credit with horses jumping up?

Of course they can control it. I was just saying there is no way he hasn't seen this in 2017 before, let alone in the last 40 years.

Beyer could very well turn out right, whatever that means. I went a different route but I'm not naive enough to think I couldn't be wrong. Arrogate may never run back to the 120 he got earlier in his career. Does that make it right or wrong? We never really know the answer to these questions. We just have the best we can do with the information given.

[Tom]

I know what you're thinking. "Did he earn a 113 or only a 100?"
Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I kinda lost track myself.

But being he is running in the BC Juvy, the most powerful 3yo race of the fall, before you single him, you gotta ask yourself one question. "Do I feel lucky?"

Well, do ya, punk?

------Andy Beyer October 1, 2017

[Afleet]

Comparing the time of one race to the other of course it doesn't seem right. The results of the top 4 finishers seem to indicate otherwise. Andy has admitted that he may be wrong and that a change might be in the offing. Can you say for certain that the track didn't change? Was watering the same? Track maintenance the same?

You are right-I can't say that for certain(racetrack changed). I actually agree that it may not be possible for all those horses to improve so dramatically in the same race (even though 2 y/o do improve dramatically-you see it everyday in the pp's), but why not just give Paradise woods a lower number?

[clocker7]

Not sure why figs peddlers pull this kind of stuff.

Especially Beyer.

In one of his early books, he flat out stated that success is achieved by relying upon the numbers over a huge sample size, and being willing to absorb losses created by anomalies.

Any individual fig can be crazy. That was his belief back then.

[elhelmete]

But that would mean it got unsouped before the Awesome Again.

This is what makes me go hmmmmm about split variants due to track conditions.

I've sat and watched hundreds of race cards and boy I'd be lying if I said I saw conspicuous evidence of the surface scraped or massively watered in between races. Of course certain exceptions stand out, like during the days when SA and DMR were trying to figure out the synthetic surfaces. But those exceptions IMHO prove my rule...?

Weather-wise I understand a little more. I've seen the cold ocean mists roll in quickly in from the ocean at DMR and HOL, and at SA I've seen the mercury rise like it popped a Viagra, baking the shit out of the surface.

But overall, I still have a hard time wrapping my head around a split variant.

[classhandicapper]

Beyer could very well turn out right, whatever that means. I went a different route but I'm not naive enough to think I couldn't be wrong. Arrogate may never run back to the 120 he got earlier in his career. Does that make it right or wrong? We never really know the answer to these questions. We just have the best we can do with the information given.

I agree.

The 113 figure could be right, but since it was such an extreme performance for several horses relative to their prior level, they may not duplicate it. Then people will argue the figure was too fast.

I have no solid explanation for the figure or how it fits with the rest of the day.

I tend to think the Baffert horse that finished second is probably a very good horse. He was 1-1 first time out. Baffert's horses often jump up 2nd time out. This one is by Curlin and probably figured to do better going longer. So he's probably legit. The other Baffert looked good too and he got killed. So I think this was a legitimate field of Grade 1 2yos. The winner crushed. So he's very good. It "feels" faster than a 100 given the win margin but 113 is a bit tough to swallow.

[Tom]

When they run back, if they go off at 6-1 or better, the race got a 113.

If they go off favored, it got a 100.

[Robert Fischer]

When they run back, if they go off at 6-1 or better, the race got a 113.

If they go off favored, it got a 100. :ThmbUp:

That's value in a nutshell.

[cj]

You are right-I can't say that for certain(racetrack changed). I actually agree that it may not be possible for all those horses to improve so dramatically in the same race (even though 2 y/o do improve dramatically-you see it everyday in the pp's), but why not just give Paradise woods a lower number?

It isn't like they were the only routes on the card.

[proximity]

People take less risks as they get older, generally speaking.

kinda reminds me of the grand canyon discussion in quinn's book figure handicapping.


i think hopkins made that number?

[cj]

This is how the four G1 route winners look in our charts. Running lines are past performance style. You'll note final time is even hire for Bolt d'Oro.

[cj]

kinda reminds me of the grand canyon discussion in quinn's book figure handicapping.


i think hopkins made that number?

I remember that vaguely. I'm curious about the Beholder race mentioned earlier. That was a crazy number, going to have to look it up on my stuff.

[RunForTheRoses]

I respect Beyer but all 4 could have run their asses off, these were Cali-dominant horses which had time off sine Dmr. What does Thorograph and Ragozin say?

[CincyHorseplayer]

I remember that vaguely. I'm curious about the Beholder race mentioned earlier. That was a crazy number, going to have to look it up on my stuff.

That was me. It just seems like contradictory logic regarding these two. Interested to see what you find.

[classhandicapper]

I remember that vaguely. I'm curious about the Beholder race mentioned earlier. That was a crazy number, going to have to look it up on my stuff.

We discussed that one privately at the time. I don't remember what we concluded.

[cj]

We discussed that one privately at the time. I don't remember what we concluded.

I knew personal I stuck with the big number. I think ahe eventually got back to it when wining the Pacific Classic. Was it wrong? Who knows. She sure turned out to be a special horse.

[classhandicapper]

I knew personal I stuck with the big number. I think ahe eventually got back to it when wining the Pacific Classic. Was it wrong? Who knows. She sure turned out to be a special horse.

I think I prefer leaving them alone unless you have clear evidence something about the conditions changed significantly (rain, temperature, humidity, heavy maintenance, wind etc..). When you start tweaking too much they stop feeling like speed figures and start to resemble some kind of class analysis with back figures substituting for class designations. Plus, there are too many opportunities for incorrect back door adjustments for how the track was playing, pace, trips etc... that get done through the track variant.

[cj]

I discussed this race and more here with Jason Beem:

https://extra.betamerica.com/barn-podcast-10317/

[jay68802]

Didn't Beyer write about a similar situation in his book Picking Winners? And as far as this figure goes, the two things that stand out are:

[ReplayRandall]

I discussed this race and more here with Jason Beem:

https://extra.betamerica.com/barn-podcast-10317/

CJ, do you revise your numbers? If so, how often and under what circumstances? Lastly, what is the maximum time in between a revision from said race would you allow?

[Prof.Factor]

My 2 cents ...
I've been making and betting my own speed figures for a long time.
Personally, I don't see a reason to break the race out.
"Arazi"-like performances do happen, never to be repeated.
The rest of the field earned numbers that certainly fit according to my numbers.
I'll adjust variants with timing errors (mostly), weather, run-ups.

[cj]

CJ, do you revise your numbers? If so, how often and under what circumstances? Lastly, what is the maximum time in between a revision from said race would you allow?

I discuss this in the podcast, you'll have to listen.

[ReplayRandall]

I discuss this in the podcast, you'll have to listen.

You've revised maybe 10 in the last 5 years, according to the podcast. I didn't hear you say why or how long you waited before making the change, but with that few a number I guess it really doesn't matter.

[thaskalos]

I discuss this in the podcast, you'll have to listen.

I listened to the podcast. Is there a way to mute-out Jason Beem? :)

[chiguy]

I know I will get hate here but speed figures are for nerds. I believe my eyes and I think the horse ran huge. The trainer said after the DM Futurity that the horse was only 70% cranked. He broke slow, circled the field and won. It was a sprint, he is bred to be a router. Going a route, maybe 85-90% cranked, clean break and trip = a monster performance.

[AndyC]

I know I will get hate here but speed figures are for nerds. I believe my eyes and I think the horse ran huge. The trainer said after the DM Futurity that the horse was only 70% cranked. He broke slow, circled the field and won. It was a sprint, he is bred to be a router. Going a route, maybe 85-90% cranked, clean break and trip = a monster performance.

No hate just questions and comments. What does 70% cranked mean? Would you think that a horse risks injury when it runs a race when it far less than optimum condition? I know I am not a horse but when I am competing in some athletic endeavor and my conditioning is less than it should be I am in big danger of an injury. I can try and dial back my competitive juices but I doubt a horse can do the same. Would a trainer or an owner risk a valuable animal by entering a race unprepared?

Every time I see a dirt race and where a closer wins someone will comment about how the horse accelerated in the stretch. If you believe your eyes you would agree, if you believe the numbers you might have a different opinion. My experience tells me that a horse who looks like a million bucks winning a race today may have hit its top form and may be a bet against in 5 weeks. Form is not static. Conversely a horse who looks tired after running or late in a race might be on the improve.

[thaskalos]

Speed and pace figures may not be the "end-all" in handicapping, but, to me at least...they provide a "window" thru which I can analyze the horse's condition, the precision of which no other handicapping tool can provide.

IMO, without an accurate set of speed and pace figures...the handicapper is -- for lack of a more suitable word -- "handicapped".

[ultracapper]

I would have been more comfortable if Beyer would have stuck with the original number, and added a caveat, listing his concerns, rather than this immediate adjustment.

[cj]

I listened to the podcast. Is there a way to mute-out Jason Beem? :)

Thanks for listening. Jason is great!

[cj]

You've revised maybe 10 in the last 5 years, according to the podcast. I didn't hear you say why or how long you waited before making the change, but with that few a number I guess it really doesn't matter.

Thanks for listening, seriously, and glad your back.

The very few I changed were races where I knew I made a call that could have gone drastically either way, and I made the wrong call. It has been so long since I've even changed one I honestly don't remember what the last one was.

[cj]

I know I will get hate here but speed figures are for nerds. I believe my eyes and I think the horse ran huge. The trainer said after the DM Futurity that the horse was only 70% cranked. He broke slow, circled the field and won. It was a sprint, he is bred to be a router. Going a route, maybe 85-90% cranked, clean break and trip = a monster performance.

Trainer speak. No horse is winning any race running at 70% speed...so what does 70% cranked even mean? I would bet the ROI for horses trainers said were "not fully cranked" (or something similar) when winning a race is dismal.

[chiguy]

First off the " I know I'm not a horse" line is one of the funniest things I have read on here.

I think it means he hadn't really laid down the horse yet. Same thing happens when a horse comes off a layoff. Many of them are not conditioned or cranked however you want to put it to give their best performance. I don't think the horse was unprepared, just not set down. You used to see it all the time in racing, preps first then ready for the big money.

I understand they eye can fool you and you do have to take the time into consideration but I loved everything I saw from this horse Saturday. Very smooth and efficient stride, reaching out to do more. Unless he has bad luck of some sort I think he wins the BC. He has speed to place himself into a good position so I think he has a better opportunity to stay out of trouble.

[DeltaLover]

I know I will get hate here but speed figures are for nerds. I believe my eyes and I think the horse ran huge. The trainer said after the DM Futurity that the horse was only 70% cranked. He broke slow, circled the field and won. It was a sprint, he is bred to be a router. Going a route, maybe 85-90% cranked, clean break and trip = a monster performance.


:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:

[Tom]

I know a lot of Beyers are changed, at least at NYRA.
I put them all into my db, then, later on, I re-enter them in another column, all from Winner's Books, as a check. I see many changed figs over a few months. Any figs I am suspicious of, I make red, then see later on if they changed.

[Fager Fan]

I know a lot of Beyers are changed, at least at NYRA.
I put them all into my db, then, later on, I re-enter them in another column, all from Winner's Books, as a check. I see many changed figs over a few months. Any figs I am suspicious of, I make red, then see later on if they changed.

I'd venture a guess that Ragozin and TG have put pressure on Beyer to present a number that ultimately reflects more than a simple speed figure.

Though I'd rather it not be changed, I mind less this kind, which is explained as illogical, hence there must be something about the track for that race that caused this to happen, hence I'm going to lower the number, than I am for at least one of the numbers given to CA Chrome. I'm sure it was discussed here before. It was his first or second start back after returning from the bone bruising, out in CA, and his figure was significantly adjusted upwards, with the most absurd explanation I can think of. That explanation was that the pace was slow (set by CA Chrome, incidentally), so CA Chrome couldn't run faster than he did, so we're going to adjust it upwards because we know he's a better horse than the figure indicated. What the h@%$!?

[classhandicapper]

I think the track at SA that day was carrying horses a little better than the typical North American track does. A few dirt races that day had plenty of speed in them, the fractions were quick, but the front runners hung in better than "I" would have expected. I don't have a formula for it, but I think sometimes tracks like that carry horses to inflated figures if the race develops in the sweet spot pace wise. My feeling now is that the big figure is legit, but unlikely to be duplicated unless those horses happen to get a modestly speed favoring surface in the BC again and a pace that also compliments the track. The winner is obviously very good no matter what, but maybe not quite as good as a 113.

[thaskalos]

The winner is obviously very good no matter what, but maybe not quite as good as a 113.

And this plays into what I was saying earlier. The winner may not be good enough to repeat the 113, but he ran that figure ONCE. And the handicapper should be made aware of that. It's important to know that a particular horse is capable of firing a 113 under ideal racing circumstances. To cavalierly reduce that 113 to a 100, just because the horse "isn't really that good", is a disservice to the paying customer...IMO.

[jay68802]

We all know that speed figures are estimates, that being said, is this horse now the early favorite to win the Kentucky Derby?

[Fager Fan]

We all know that speed figures are estimates, that being said, is this horse now the early favorite to win the Kentucky Derby?

Yes, until Nov. 4th at least.