Ask Andy Beyer

[The Captain]

https://promos.drf.com/beyer

Beyer resource page email Beyer quesions via email askbeyer@drf.com:ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

It looks like they've done a really good job expanding on the Beyer Par information.

The Top Beyer info is also nice.

[Tom]

I stumbled onto those pars by accident - yes, much improved.:ThmbUp:

Still, can't help but wonder why so many races in the form have no Beyer par listed.

[dilanesp]

I stumbled onto those pars by accident - yes, much improved.:ThmbUp:

Still, can't help but wonder why so many races in the form have no Beyer par listed.

To have a good par time you need a large sample of races at that condition, surface, and usually distance.

[classhandicapper]

I stumbled onto those pars by accident - yes, much improved.:ThmbUp:

Still, can't help but wonder why so many races in the form have no Beyer par listed.

They have an internal system where the PARs are entered by the Beyer team. That's probably the source for the newspaper also. Now that they have a much improved PAR report, it may be a matter of time before the newspaper gets updated also, but I don't know that.

I like the Ask Beyer and Jerardi columns. As long as they are willing to take the time to explain some of the nuances of figures and specific races, that's a plus for horse players.

[PaceAdvantage]

Damn Arrogate had to get a 122 Beyer...otherwise...Holy Bull would share with no other 3yo on that list....

[JeremyJet]

To have a good par time you need a large sample of races at that condition, surface, and usually distance.

Right. But you would think they have that covered based on the data provided in this thread.

Just about every race indicates "pars not available" when you print the form off the website. I'm not certain, but I think the print edition of the form is better at providing this information.

[Suff]

To have a good par time you need a large sample of races at that condition, surface, and usually distance.

True. But the question still applies.



Still, can't help but wonder why so many races in the form have no Beyer par listed.

Among the possible answers is that racing secretaries...blah blah.. killed condition/class as a usable handicapping feature.

[classhandicapper]

Damn Arrogate had to get a 122 Beyer...otherwise...Holy Bull would share with no other 3yo on that list....

Holy Bull was all over that list. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

I am able to calculate pars for just about every race from my own DB.

If I had access to DRF's db.........:cool:

[JeremyJet]

I am able to calculate pars for just about every race from my own DB.

If I had access to DRF's db.........:cool:

Exactly.

[ronsmac]

1997. The year of the giant beyers.

[Robert Fischer]

I hope Mr. Beyer is doing well, and is able to participate in some Derby discussions.

[Tom]

Andy contacted Mike and asked him to relay to Class and that we should submit the questions about lack of pars, so I did tonight.

Nice to know he reads us and reached out!
Class Act!!!

I will post link to his reply.

[jocko699]

Not a big fan of his numbers but really like that he takes the time to answer questions. This to me embodies a class act!!!!

[letswastemoney]

Meh. I was able to privately email Beyer for one of my own HRN articles. He answered both of my questions.

Interestingly, he downplayed owning a 100+ Beyer in this crop.

[classhandicapper]

Interestingly, he downplayed owning a 100+ Beyer in this crop.

He recently wrote an article in that column about how the top 3yos are all so lightly raced coming into the Derby these days, then tend to run lower figures now and then get much better later.

[Tom]

He recently wrote an article in that column about how the top 3yos are all so lightly raced coming into the Derby these days, then tend to run lower figures now and then get much better later.

No foundation anymore.
I thing same with the handicap division - so lightly raced they never into the razor sharp condition horse used to be in for the big races.

[dilanesp]

No foundation anymore.
I thing same with the handicap division - so lightly raced they never into the razor sharp condition horse used to be in for the big races.

It really is amazing to compare what happens now to what Noor and Citation did in 1950 (running every couple of weeks and setting a bunch of world records) or even what Spectacular Bid did at Santa Anita in 1980 (three races in seven weeks, a track record and an American record, and another big win four weeks later).

[Tom]

Andy contacted Mike and asked him to relay to Class and that we should submit the questions about lack of pars, so I did tonight.

Nice to know he reads us and reached out!
Class Act!!!

I will post link to his reply.

His reply appeared today.
Hey Wayne! We made the papers and no jail time! :headbanger:

https://www.drf.com/news/preview/ask-beyer-pars-can-only-be-published-when-there-confidence-data?type=news/all-handicapping

Thanks ANDY!

[classhandicapper]

His reply appeared today.
Hey Wayne! We made the papers and no jail time! :headbanger:

https://www.drf.com/news/preview/ask-beyer-pars-can-only-be-published-when-there-confidence-data?type=news/all-handicapping

Thanks ANDY!

That's a good column for educating fans on figures. I hope people keep reading it.

[Half Smoke]

because of my skepticism of the absolute value of speed figures I sent this email to the askbeyer address shown above on April 16 and received no response

would like to hear comments

here's what I sent:


"My understanding of how speed figures are calculated is that the times of all the races for the day are compared to the par or average times of races at that track for those levels, at those distances on a given day.

So, for example if 7 of 9 races on a card are all run faster than average and the other 2 races are about the same as average then for that day the track surface will be considered very fast and that will then be used to calculate speed figures.

But isn't it more that a little bit possible that those faster than average speeds occurred for reasons other than the relative fastness or slowness of the surface? For example, couldn't it just be that for random reasons the horses entered happened to be of higher quality on that day?

When blackjack experts run a computer simulation to consider, for example, a rule change, they typically have the computer play one billion hands.

Your designation of a speed figure is the result of usually only around 9 trials.

Isn't it more than a little bit possible that at least on some days the consideration of the track surface based on the speed of the races on that day will not be representative?"

[cj]

because of my skepticism of the absolute value of speed figures I sent this email to the askbeyer address shown above on April 16 and received no response

would like to hear comments

here's what I sent:


"My understanding of how speed figures are calculated is that the times of all the races for the day are compared to the par or average times of races at that track for those levels, at those distances on a given day.

So, for example if 7 of 9 races on a card are all run faster than average and the other 2 races are about the same as average then for that day the track surface will be considered very fast and that will then be used to calculate speed figures.

But isn't it more that a little bit possible that those faster than average speeds occurred for reasons other than the relative fastness or slowness of the surface? For example, couldn't it just be that for random reasons the horses entered happened to be of higher quality on that day?

When blackjack experts run a computer simulation to consider, for example, a rule change, they typically have the computer play one billion hands.

Your designation of a speed figure is the result of usually only around 9 trials.

Isn't it more than a little bit possible that at least on some days the consideration of the track surface based on the speed of the races on that day will not be representative?"

I don't think Beyer is using pars very often any longer to make figures. It is a good place when you are first starting out, but most then move on to projections based on the quality of the field. If I were starting over today, i wouldn't even begin with pars. I'd start with someone else's figures that I thought were of good quality.

[elhelmete]

It is a good place when you are first starting out, but most then move on to projections based on the quality of the field.

I truly wish I understood the validity of that better. I just can't wrap my head around it, but people smarter than me can so I keep trying.

[cj]

I truly wish I understood the validity of that better. I just can't wrap my head around it, but people smarter than me can so I keep trying.

You just try to gauge what you expect the horses to run based on past performance, not some vague par which is really a problem these days with so many different conditions even within the same class. It is tough but over time you can get really good at it. I start with the last four races of the top eight finishers. I toss out races that aren't similar enough to today based on surface, distance, finish position (both today and the races I'm comparing) and how long ago it happened. You can get a big sample sizes this way compared to the small samples you get using pars.

If there are 5 sprints run on a card, I have a chance at 32 data points per race for a total of 160. Of course that rarely happens given today's field sizes and how little horses actually race, but I might have a good 80. I'll narrow it down by tossing out the the possible outliers, so maybe the 15 highest and 15 lowest, and base the track variant on the remaining 50.

The trick with projections is you have to be careful not underrate improving horses. The more horses you use the less likely that is to happen as you'll be using horses that regress as well and again tossing out the outliers before making a variant.

[JustRalph]

This is another thing that’s changed so much in the game.

In my early years on the board I learned a ton reading here. After a few years I took a dive into par times and received some great tutoring from Tom, Dave Schwartz and JimG (Great turf player) and soon it all changed. It was a ton of fun and understanding pars became 2nd nature and applying that to some big races changed my play completely.

In the game today? I doubt it would be such a revelation. Too many goofy classes etc

[Tom]

Making my own pace figures (using the Beyer variants 90% of the time) I find I get very few standout fig plays, but just as important, I get a lot of horrible races to totally through out horses from. It is handicapping a day's card after the fact trying to figure out what happened. A lot of slow races are just that - VERY slow. I mark the questionable races so when I handicap a race, I am alerted to go past that line.

The best deal is when I suspect a Beyer and am right about it. But he adjusts them so it won't last long.

[classhandicapper]

Making my own pace figures (using the Beyer variants 90% of the time) I find I get very few standout fig plays, but just as important, I get a lot of horrible races to totally through out horses from. It is handicapping a day's card after the fact trying to figure out what happened. A lot of slow races are just that - VERY slow. I mark the questionable races so when I handicap a race, I am alerted to go past that line.

The best deal is when I suspect a Beyer and am right about it. But he adjusts them so it won't last long.

I don't dig as deeply into pace figures anymore, but I agree 100% that digging into into the races after the fact is how you put yourself in a position of understanding the horses PPs better when they come back. I spend WAY more time on the follow up than the actual handicapping.

[mountainman]

I don't dig as deeply into pace figures anymore, but I agree 100% that digging into into the races after the fact is how you put yourself in a position of understanding the horses PPs better when they come back. I spend WAY more time on the follow up than the actual handicapping.

Well said, Wayne. I've always believed that furnishing viewers with useful take-aways from a race is more important than the pre-race commentary.

Few (skilled) players tune in to be touted, but interpreting what they just watched provides them with bricks to build future opinions from. And if (even the unlikeliest) of outcomes adhered, in retrospect, to some remotely plausible scenario, explaining the perfect storm that shaped a result can only enlighten good handicappers, sharpen their opinions of the entire field, and strengthen their instincts moving forward.

More and more in this spirit, and also for fun, I not only explore different scenarios in the pre-race, but also argue BOTH sides of contending forms in attempting to explain why one sharp handicapper might side against a certain runner, while another embraces the same horse.

In the end, my opinion is clear, but nowadays subordinated to the more important task of treating a race as an organic mixture of forms and interpretations. Not something dead, pre-ordained, and serving as an excruciating obstacle course that leads to some "correct answer."


Incidentally, sir, I would LOVE for Formulator to incorporate personal notes submitted BEFORE a race has been run. Unlike Nancy, who takes copious notes while prepping for the show, I rely strictly on memory when passing along what my research has discovered. And that sometimes becomes hit -and-miss. LOL!

[classhandicapper]

Incidentally, sir, I would LOVE for Formulator to incorporate personal notes submitted BEFORE a race has been run. Unlike Nancy, who takes copious notes while prepping for the show, I rely strictly on memory when passing along what my research has discovered. And that sometimes becomes hit -and-miss. LOL!

There's a new version being developed. The early BETA is available at the homepage and has that feature .

[mountainman]

There's a new version being developed. The early BETA is available at the homepage and has that feature .

Tech idiot here. Please explain, sir. For instance, will the new version incorporate that feature???

[mountainman]

Incidentally. Beyer should put me on his xmas list for the 20x a night I invoke his figs. In fact, I almost changed my name here once to "Antibrisman," but that just doesn't roll smoothly off the tongue.

Simple guy here, so a bottle of Old Spice will do, Andy. Chix dig it.

[mountainman]

Much appreciated Beyer's tasteful homage to the incomparable Glenn Gallivan, by the way. I loved the guy.

[steveb]

I don't think Beyer is using pars very often any longer to make figures. It is a good place when you are first starting out, but most then move on to projections based on the quality of the field. If I were starting over today, i wouldn't even begin with pars. I'd start with someone else's figures that I thought were of good quality.


we would disagree there.
i don't think i am just starting out, and there is no way i would use a projection method.
i guess though it depends on your definition of 'projection' as i know how fast any particular race should be run before the event(but it has NOTHING to do with how fast the runners in this race may have run previously), so maybe that would be a 'projection' although i don't see it as such.


pars(or in my case standards, because they are not averages as such) are fine.
if you are projecting, then that is basically saying that you expect this race to be run in that time, or something similar.
not so different to me, but mine will never be changed after the fact.

[classhandicapper]

Tech idiot here. Please explain, sir. For instance, will the new version incorporate that feature???

Yes. There's a notes section related to each horse for today's race that you can use for whatever you want.

Go to the home page. On the left, set it to PPs (instead of wagering) and select a race card. That will take you into the new Classic PPs. Then there's a tab for going into Formulator Beta.

Once you get into the new Formulator beta PPs, there's a box on the right near the earning box for notes.

[mountainman]

Yes. There's a notes section related to each horse for today's race that you can use for whatever you want.

Go to the home page. On the left, set it to PPs (instead of wagering) and select a race card. That will take you into the new Classic PPs. Then there's a tab for going into Formulator Beta.

Once you get into the new Formulator beta PPs, there's a box on the right near the earning box for notes.

I get that, Wayne. And tx. But I'm asking if the new Formulator will allow me to print out a card with PRE-RACE annotations BEFORE the races have been run.

[classhandicapper]

I get that, Wayne. And tx. But I'm asking if the new Formulator will allow me to print out a card with PRE-RACE annotations BEFORE the races have been run.

I don't think that's available yet. I don't know if it's in the long term plans. You can print the regular Card, Trip, and Race notes in the PPs. I let someone know what you are asking for.

[bobphilo]

You just try to gauge what you expect the horses to run based on past performance, not some vague par which is really a problem these days with so many different conditions even within the same class. It is tough but over time you can get really good at it. I start with the last four races of the top eight finishers. I toss out races that aren't similar enough to today based on surface, distance, finish position (both today and the races I'm comparing) and how long ago it happened. You can get a big sample sizes this way compared to the small samples you get using pars.

If there are 5 sprints run on a card, I have a chance at 32 data points per race for a total of 160. Of course that rarely happens given today's field sizes and how little horses actually race, but I might have a good 80. I'll narrow it down by tossing out the the possible outliers, so maybe the 15 highest and 15 lowest, and base the track variant on the remaining 50.

The trick with projections is you have to be careful not underrate improving horses. The more horses you use the less likely that is to happen as you'll be using horses that regress as well and again tossing out the outliers before making a variant.

Excellent explanation of the projection method. Takes more time than pars but yields much more accurate figures. Beyer said that he used pars when he was just starting out and had nothing else to work with but switched to projections when he had generated some numbers.

[bobphilo]

You just try to gauge what you expect the horses to run based on past performance, not some vague par which is really a problem these days with so many different conditions even within the same class. It is tough but over time you can get really good at it. I start with the last four races of the top eight finishers. I toss out races that aren't similar enough to today based on surface, distance, finish position (both today and the races I'm comparing) and how long ago it happened. You can get a big sample sizes this way compared to the small samples you get using pars.

If there are 5 sprints run on a card, I have a chance at 32 data points per race for a total of 160. Of course that rarely happens given today's field sizes and how little horses actually race, but I might have a good 80. I'll narrow it down by tossing out the the possible outliers, so maybe the 15 highest and 15 lowest, and base the track variant on the remaining 50.

The trick with projections is you have to be careful not underrate improving horses. The more horses you use the less likely that is to happen as you'll be using horses that regress as well and again tossing out the outliers before making a variant.

I used to use the same method except I rarely went beyond the top 4 or 5 finishers unless they were close. Horses finishing far back are usually not preservered with and are probably not running representative races. I know this gave me a smaller sample but a more representative one.

[classhandicapper]

I get that, Wayne. And tx. But I'm asking if the new Formulator will allow me to print out a card with PRE-RACE annotations BEFORE the races have been run.

Update.

That feature is already in place. ;)

[dilanesp]

I used to use the same method except I rarely went beyond the top 4 or 5 finishers unless they were close. Horses finishing far back are usually not preservered with and are probably not running representative races. I know this gave me a smaller sample but a more representative one.

Yes, and that speaks to a problem I have always had with figure gurus, including Beyer. They assume- and advocate- that a 77 run in a performance where a horse is far back means the same thing as a 77 run in a winning performance.

It actually could either be too low OR too high. Too low because the horse wasn't perservered with. But also too high for a reason any track and field fan can tell you- that runners often run their best times in races where they finish off the board, because the better runners "pull them along" and pace them to a faster time.

The more a horse is beaten, the less you can trust the number as a handicapping tool.

[classhandicapper]

It actually could either be too low OR too high. Too low because the horse wasn't perservered with. But also too high for a reason any track and field fan can tell you- that runners often run their best times in races where they finish off the board, because the better runners "pull them along" and pace them to a faster time.

The more a horse is beaten, the less you can trust the number as a handicapping tool.

I agree.

The horses that don't finish in the top few are sometimes horses that were used early trying to win but got put away by superior horses. So they rarely run the best final time figure they are capable of. That goes double if they were already well out of the "purse" group and get eased late by the rider.

The latter is WAY more apparent in harness racing where horses that were in the back and made no real move into contention sucked up late with a faster final time than they could possibly earn if they moved earlier and actually tried to win the race.

[Tom]

That is why they let us bet on the races.
You have to handicap the race to know how to look at the figure.

[mountainman]

Update.

That feature is already in place. ;)

Didn't work for me, sir. How might it be done?? (starting to sound like Dr Evil here: "All I want is sharks that shoot frikken laser beams out of their heads!!")

[AndyC]

Yes, and that speaks to a problem I have always had with figure gurus, including Beyer. They assume- and advocate- that a 77 run in a performance where a horse is far back means the same thing as a 77 run in a winning performance.

It actually could either be too low OR too high. Too low because the horse wasn't perservered with. But also too high for a reason any track and field fan can tell you- that runners often run their best times in races where they finish off the board, because the better runners "pull them along" and pace them to a faster time.

The more a horse is beaten, the less you can trust the number as a handicapping tool.

Beyer makes no such assumption. He is not making performance numbers, just speed figures. Factors used that may enhance or detract from the numbers is up to each individual handicapper.

[dilanesp]

Beyer makes no such assumption. He is not making performance numbers, just speed figures. Factors used that may enhance or detract from the numbers is up to each individual handicapper.

That's slippery.

Obviously Beyer says he is only measuring the performance, not how the figure was earned.

But he also says that his figures are the single most important handicapping factor, the way, the truth, and the light, etc. And he specifically argues that you can compare horses' figures where they finish way back to other horses' winning figures. And he dismisses the "not perservered with" reasoning and ignores the "sucked in" issue.

[classhandicapper]

That's slippery.

Obviously Beyer says he is only measuring the performance, not how the figure was earned.

But he also says that his figures are the single most important handicapping factor, the way, the truth, and the light, etc. And he specifically argues that you can compare horses' figures where they finish way back to other horses' winning figures. And he dismisses the "not perservered with" reasoning and ignores the "sucked in" issue.

From his comments I think he consideres all aspects of trip when evaluating past performances, but I don't believe he includes all aspects of trip when making his variant projections.

For example, TG and RAG consider ground loss and weight changes when making their projection variants. TFUSA considers the pace and how it may have impcated the horses. Beyer is mostly just looking at prior figures and not consiering the ground loss and pace (unless perhaps it's very extreme like on turf). To me, in theory you should be including everything, but that makes a subjective process even more subjective. So there's an argument against it too.

[AndyC]

That's slippery.

Obviously Beyer says he is only measuring the performance, not how the figure was earned.

But he also says that his figures are the single most important handicapping factor, the way, the truth, and the light, etc. And he specifically argues that you can compare horses' figures where they finish way back to other horses' winning figures. And he dismisses the "not perservered with" reasoning and ignores the "sucked in" issue.

Have you done a study on the "not persevered with" and "sucked in" horses to back up your claims? What percentage of these horses actually run back to the numbers and how many don't? And how do those percentages compare with horses not in the those 2 categories?

[cj]

That's slippery.

Obviously Beyer says he is only measuring the performance, not how the figure was earned.

But he also says that his figures are the single most important handicapping factor, the way, the truth, and the light, etc. And he specifically argues that you can compare horses' figures where they finish way back to other horses' winning figures. And he dismisses the "not perservered with" reasoning and ignores the "sucked in" issue.

Come on, he said that a LONG time ago and clearly doesn't handicap as if that is true any longer. He has written several books since that should make this crystal clear.

[dilanesp]

Have you done a study on the "not persevered with" and "sucked in" horses to back up your claims? What percentage of these horses actually run back to the numbers and how many don't? And how do those percentages compare with horses not in the those 2 categories?

I have seen many instances of ridiculous figures in far back performances. I throw them out. Why would I need a study for information I don't use?

[AndyC]

I have seen many instances of ridiculous figures in far back performances. I throw them out. Why would I need a study for information I don't use?

You are the one that claimed it was an issue. You would need a study to see if your observation is, in fact, true. Races where horses don't run back to figures happen everyday.

[classhandicapper]

There are problems with studies like that.

Most of the horses that drop back and get eased late are the ones that try to compete but get used up battling or get outrun by superior horses. Then as they tire, the jockey eases them late after they are already out of the purse money. The same thing will happen to that horse in race after race unless he drops in class (or there is form change).

So the only way to test it would be to look at horses that showed some contending speed or at least made a big move, dropped back, got eased, and then dropped in class.

That's when their figures should (and usually do) improve.

[AndyC]

There are problems with studies like that.

Most of the horses that drop back and get eased late are the ones that try to compete but get used up battling or get outrun by superior horses. Then as they tire, the jockey eases them late after they are already out of the purse money. The same thing will happen to that horse in race after race unless he drops in class (or there is form change).

So the only way to test it would be to look at horses that showed some contending speed or at least made a big move, dropped back, got eased, and then dropped in class.

That's when their figures should (and usually do) improve.

My comment pertained mostly to the figures of horses getting "sucked in". That would be easy to study.

I have found that most losing bettors have a habit of making bets based on opinions of handicapping factors with zero data for support.

[dilanesp]

My comment pertained mostly to the figures of horses getting "sucked in". That would be easy to study.

I have found that most losing bettors have a habit of making bets based on opinions of handicapping factors with zero data for support.

It's not an affirmative claim. The affirmative claim is the figure is unreliable. Sucking the horse in is one of several reasons it could be unreliable.

[Saratoga_Mike]

It's not an affirmative claim. The affirmative claim is the figure is unreliable. Sucking the horse in is one of several reasons it could be unreliable.

This concept ("sucking the horse along") applies to harness racing, but I don't think it applies to t'bred racing. Hopefully, someone with a database can show some stats.

[classhandicapper]

I have found that most losing bettors have a habit of making bets based on opinions of handicapping factors with zero data for support.


I agree with that 100%.

It's usually either the result of some short term experience that made a big impression or they read it in a book written by someone that learned the same way.

[classhandicapper]

This concept ("sucking the horse along") applies to harness racing, but I don't think it applies to t'bred racing. Hopefully, someone with a database can show some stats.

I'm not sure how to test that, but I have demonstrated some of this to my satisfaction.

If a horse moves way up in class and tries to compete, it will often fail to duplicate its figures earned at the lower class. Then when it drops back down in class its figure will jump back up (there are exceptions like high quality lightly raced horses that will move up in class and show even more).

However, if the same type of horse just sits in the back of the pack and makes a very non threatening very late move at the higher class, it will often run the same figure at the higher class.

It kind of like what we see with deep closers in general.

If they move very late, they'll often make a good run and earn a good figure, but without being in position to win. Next time, if they move sooner and actually try to get into position to win, they'll hang and disappoint. So to me, the sucking up late phenomenon is more about the timing of the move and whether the horse worked in the middle of the race to get into position to win or not.

[dilanesp]

This concept ("sucking the horse along") applies to harness racing, but I don't think it applies to t'bred racing. Hopefully, someone with a database can show some stats.

Well it applies to human racing too.

So why WOULDN'T it apply to thoroughbreds?

[cj]

This shouldn't be too hard to test. You just have to define the suck up horse. Try a query, for example, with horses that weren't in the top 3 at any point, have a last race speed figure in the top three next out, and see how they do from a win percentage and ROI standpoint. Then compare to all horses with a top 3 speed figure last out that were in the top three at some point during the last race.

You can do the same for horses that battle for the lead then fade to the back. The only limits are your ability to accurately define what you are researching. The answers are there if you get the question right.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Well it applies to human racing too.

So why WOULDN'T it apply to thoroughbreds?

Like you, I'm speculating (just taking the other side). CJ has given a broad outline of how to test your theory. I look forward seeing the results from a large-scale database query. I'm always open to changing my mind, especially based on the results from a large data query.

[thaskalos]

In harness racing, the "sucking up" factor is blatant; a horse that can never brake 1:59 when winning will often run 1:58 (or even faster) when chasing a faster horse to the wire. Andy Beyer has observed that this phenomenon does not transfer over to the thoroughbreds...and I tend to agree. In our game...the horses seem to record their best speed figures when they run their sharpest races.

[classhandicapper]

This shouldn't be too hard to test. You just have to define the suck up horse. Try a query, for example, with horses that weren't in the top 3 at any point, have a last race speed figure in the top three next out, and see how they do from a win percentage and ROI standpoint. Then compare to all horses with a top 3 speed figure last out that were in the top three at some point during the last race.

You can do the same for horses that battle for the lead then fade to the back. The only limits are your ability to accurately define what you are researching. The answers are there if you get the question right.


I would make the "suck up category" as coming from further back than just outside the top 3 early. To me, it's more of a last move situation where the horse made no effort to actually be in a position to win the race early but then finished strongly without threatening.

If you are mid back, you probably earned it with an early or mid race move.

[cj]

I would make the "suck up category" as coming from further back than just outside the top 3 early. To me, it's more of a last move situation where the horse made no effort to actually be in a position to win the race early but then finished strongly without threatening.

If you are mid back, you probably earned it with an early or mid race move.

I wasn't really trying to define it for you, just saying it was easy to do and you need to provide the definition of what you want to test. That was just an example.

[delayjf]

using the Beyer variants 90% of the time

Do you make an individual variant for your pace figures?

[Tom]

Do you make an individual variant for your pace figures?

Yes. I convert the Beyer to a Quirin number, then make the raw fractions Quirin style also.

Beyer - Qirin = 105

Raw fractions = 98 - 96, slow 7 and slow 9

I have Dave Schwartz Par Times and use his $10K bases.

[bobphilo]

I agree.

The horses that don't finish in the top few are sometimes horses that were used early trying to win but got put away by superior horses. So they rarely run the best final time figure they are capable of. That goes double if they were already well out of the "purse" group and get eased late by the rider.

The latter is WAY more apparent in harness racing where horses that were in the back and made no real move into contention sucked up late with a faster final time than they could possibly earn if they moved earlier and actually tried to win the race.

That's why fast final times are much less useful in harness racing when a horse is badly beaten. It's called "carried to time". I always wondered why that was since it seems contradictory but I think it's due to the fact that in nature any horse that lags behind the herd is the most likely to be brought down by predators so that many carry this inborn terror of being left behind. I've even noticed this in my recreational riding. The power of evolutionary psychology.

[bobphilo]

That's why fast final times are much less useful in harness racing when a horse is badly beaten. It's called "carried to time". I always wondered why that was since it seems contradictory but I think it's due to the fact that in nature any horse that lags behind the herd is the most likely to be brought down by predators so that many carry this inborn terror of being left behind. I've even noticed this in my recreational riding. The power of evolutionary psychology.

It's still not clear why being "carried to time" is much much more likely to apply to harness racing than T bred racing. Something I'll need to work on.

[classhandicapper]

It's still not clear why being "carried to time" is much much more likely to apply to harness racing than T bred racing. Something I'll need to work on.

Most likely there is way more drafting involved in harness racing because of the sulky.

[Maximillion]

It's still not clear why being "carried to time" is much much more likely to apply to harness racing than T bred racing. Something I'll need to work on.

I think it could be this way at least partially because of better speed figures being available for the T breds (where i agree this very, very rarely happens)

[dilanesp]

That's why fast final times are much less useful in harness racing when a horse is badly beaten. It's called "carried to time". I always wondered why that was since it seems contradictory but I think it's due to the fact that in nature any horse that lags behind the herd is the most likely to be brought down by predators so that many carry this inborn terror of being left behind. I've even noticed this in my recreational riding. The power of evolutionary psychology.

It's not unique to horses.

If you look at human distance runners at just below the elite level, they often run their best times when they are in an event with paced, elite runners. The effect can be dramatic-- Jeff Nelson, who for many years was the fastest high school 2 miler of all time, ran 8:36.3 as a high schooler against an elite field of runners, but couldn't break 8:50 against high school competition.

It's a function of pace dynamics. We simply run faster when we have a target to run at.

[AndyC]

It's not unique to horses.

If you look at human distance runners at just below the elite level, they often run their best times when they are in an event with paced, elite runners. The effect can be dramatic-- Jeff Nelson, who for many years was the fastest high school 2 miler of all time, ran 8:36.3 as a high schooler against an elite field of runners, but couldn't break 8:50 against high school competition.

It's a function of pace dynamics. We simply run faster when we have a target to run at.

Seeing how the vast majority of horses are decelerating in the last 1/4 mile of a dirt race are they really running at a target?

A human knows for many days in advance that they will be running against elite caliber competition. A human's brain can prepare the body to do extraordinary things. I doubt that a horse has the same ability.

[classhandicapper]

I'll try again, but from another direction to make it clearer.

IMO, it's partially a function of energy distribution. If you are trying to win a race, you have to either use your horse early or in the middle to get into position to win. The key word there is "use".

If you are at the back of the pack running very comfortably for your level of ability and then make one very late run, you are typically not in any position to win, but since you never used your horse, you are apt to finish quite well. You may earn a slightly faster speed figure than you would have if you did use the horse earlier to get into position. It depends on the quality of the horses in front of you and the pace they were setting. You won't catch better horses, but they may drag you to that better time as a result.

Drafting may also be a component of it, but I don't have enough knowledge to know how much or how to measure it.

[46zilzal]

I would make the "suck up category" as coming from further back than just outside the top 3 early


I worked standardred meets for 9 years and saw this repeatedly.....The stewards were actually the ones who told me to watch for it

[dilanesp]

Seeing how the vast majority of horses are decelerating in the last 1/4 mile of a dirt race are they really running at a target?

A human knows for many days in advance that they will be running against elite caliber competition. A human's brain can prepare the body to do extraordinary things. I doubt that a horse has the same ability.

Why wouldn't they see it as a target?

There's another thing we all know about. Horse makes lead in the stretch and "waits" on competition. Jockeys describe this all the time. Forego was a classic example. Put him on the lead and he would relax. Put a horse alongside him and he would give maximum effort.

I think this is inherent in competition. Any athlete trained to compete will try to summon extra energy to keep up with another competitor.

As CH says, when they are used early, they may have no energy left. But when they aren't....

[AndyC]

Why wouldn't they see it as a target?

There's another thing we all know about. Horse makes lead in the stretch and "waits" on competition. Jockeys describe this all the time. Forego was a classic example. Put him on the lead and he would relax. Put a horse alongside him and he would give maximum effort.

I think this is inherent in competition. Any athlete trained to compete will try to summon extra energy to keep up with another competitor.

As CH says, when they are used early, they may have no energy left. But when they aren't....

Rarely is a horse not "used" early in a dirt race. They are usually running slower in the last part of the race compared to the first part of a race. While a horse may receive some benefit from running covered up not having the full force of the wind as a restriction it won't find some extra energy by virtue of racing against better.

I would opine the exact opposite of your theory. Horses under less stress are able to use their energy more efficiently and run faster. Many frontrunners, for example, run their fastest times when they are able to run loose on the lead with no stress. Those same frontrunners are usually unable to duplicate fast times when challenged for the lead.

Quit trying to compare humans in competition with horses in competition. Horses do not mentally prepare for competition the way humans do.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I checked out Beyer's opinion on this matter - he covers it in Beyer on Speed. As several of us have noted, the "sucked along" factor absolutely exists in harness racing. Beyer agrees. However, he does not believe it exists in t'bred racing. Therefore, he does not discount figs earned in a "sucked along" fashion. Perhaps he's changed his mind since the book was published, but I doubt it.

[dilanesp]

Rarely is a horse not "used" early in a dirt race. They are usually running slower in the last part of the race compared to the first part of a race. While a horse may receive some benefit from running covered up not having the full force of the wind as a restriction it won't find some extra energy by virtue of racing against better.

I would opine the exact opposite of your theory. Horses under less stress are able to use their energy more efficiently and run faster. Many frontrunners, for example, run their fastest times when they are able to run loose on the lead with no stress. Those same frontrunners are usually unable to duplicate fast times when challenged for the lead.

Quit trying to compare humans in competition with horses in competition. Horses do not mentally prepare for competition the way humans do.

Mental preparation has nothing to do with this in human racing. It's a matter of pace dynamics.

[classhandicapper]

Rarely is a horse not "used" early in a dirt race. They are usually running slower in the last part of the race compared to the first part of a race. While a horse may receive some benefit from running covered up not having the full force of the wind as a restriction it won't find some extra energy by virtue of racing against better.



I agree that contenders typically try to get good position early or make a mid race move later trying to get into contention. That's how you usually win races.

However, let's say a rider lays back and decides to make one late run against better horses. That won't give him more energy. However, it could distribute his energy better than chasing them depending on the pace.

Those horses typically don't win unless the race collapses because they are positioned too far back turning for home (and overmatched), but they sometimes run faster than they would have in the typical race where they are used to get early position.

[AndyC]

I agree that contenders typically try to get good position early or make a mid race move later trying to get into contention. That's how you usually win races.

However, let's say a rider lays back and decides to make one late run against better horses. That won't give him more energy. However, it could distribute his energy better than chasing them depending on the pace.

Those horses typically don't win unless the race collapses because they are positioned too far back turning for home (and overmatched), but they sometimes run faster than they would have in the typical race where they are used to get early position.

Very few horses have the ability to change their natural running style. A natural frontrunner taken back will often expend much energy fighting the jockey resulting in a poorer than expected race. Yes, your scenario can happen, I just doubt that it happens very often.

[Tom]

I see that a lot in the PPs.

[classhandicapper]

Very few horses have the ability to change their natural running style. A natural frontrunner taken back will often expend much energy fighting the jockey resulting in a poorer than expected race. Yes, your scenario can happen, I just doubt that it happens very often.

I agree that "rank" front runners are not a candidate.

It's usually a more versatile horse than can lay close and make a move in the middle of the race. If you try to make that middle move against better horses, you are pretty much screwed. If you lay back and make one run, you won't win, but you'll often finisher higher in the field and run a faster race.

Those are the horses that people play back off their figures.

In their next start if instead of making one late run they actually try to win, the effort in the middle of race causes the figure to drop a little.

[thaskalos]

So, to summarize:

Let's say that a particular horse has run the best figures of the entire field in its last couple of races, but has done so while running "evenly", at the same class and distance as the horse is facing today. And the horse is being offered at an enticing betting price on the tote board. Does the steed deserve the discriminating bettor's confident win-wager...or do its lackluster running lines keep us sitting on our wallets?

[AndyC]

So, to summarize:

Let's say that a particular horse has run the best figures of the entire field in its last couple of races, but has done so while running "evenly", at the same class and distance as the horse is facing today. And the horse is being offered at an enticing betting price on the tote board. Does the steed deserve the discriminating bettor's confident win-wager...or do its lackluster running lines keep us sitting on our wallets?

Has the horse won in the past or does it show a herd mentality?

[classhandicapper]

So, to summarize:

Let's say that a particular horse has run the best figures of the entire field in its last couple of races, but has done so while running "evenly", at the same class and distance as the horse is facing today. And the horse is being offered at an enticing betting price on the tote board. Does the steed deserve the discriminating bettor's confident win-wager...or do its lackluster running lines keep us sitting on our wallets?

If by "evenly" you mean he sat at near the back of the pack and made no effort until they reached the top of stretch but then picked up tired horses, I would downgrade his figures a bit and go from there.

If he was used to get mid pack position early and then ran evenly after that, I'd take him more at face value.

[Tom]

So, to summarize:

Let's say that a particular horse has run the best figures of the entire field in its last couple of races, but has done so while running "evenly", at the same class and distance as the horse is facing today. And the horse is being offered at an enticing betting price on the tote board. Does the steed deserve the discriminating bettor's confident win-wager...or do its lackluster running lines keep us sitting on our wallets?

If his figure are the best in today's match up, and he was losing to horse running better figures, then I say the horse is certainly worth a bet. He is meeting lesser today. Lackluster is relative.

[deelo]

Dear Andy,

I mean, Andrew,

How did it feel on Preakness Day when Mike Watchmaker made you look like an idiot after you derailed the podcast for 20 minutes ranting and raving about the Derby DQ like a facebook comment lunatic. When Mike finally got you to settle down and focus on the present instead of past, Mike picked WoW then you rambled another 20 about how horrible he was going to run. Thoughts?

[mountainman]

I think the tow-along element depends largely on surface and running style. I've seen completely outclassed grass horses with one even- gear lose by 6 lengths, yet run career figs. While front-running (or pace-oriented) dirt horses usually run far below their normal numbers when seriously over-matched.

[mountainman]

Has the horse won in the past or does it show a herd mentality?

I believe the "herd" instinct most factors in when a runner breaks far behind its field. So often it seems like the slow starter ( with the notable exceptions of sluggish closers and badly outclassed participants) hits a top speed seemingly beyond its ability, when desperate to join the field.

[Robert Fischer]

So, to summarize:

Let's say that a particular horse has run the best figures of the entire field in its last couple of races, but has done so while running "evenly", at the same class and distance as the horse is facing today. And the horse is being offered at an enticing betting price on the tote board. Does the steed deserve the discriminating bettor's confident win-wager...or do its lackluster running lines keep us sitting on our wallets?
Thaskalos

'Enticing' is a relative term.

Am I restricted to the high Beyers, or am I allowed to use other models (like video replay), as well?

I think the tow-along element depends largely on surface and running style. I've seen completely outclassed grass horses with one even- gear lose by 6 lengths, yet run career figs. While front-running (or pace-oriented) dirt horses usually run far below their normal numbers when seriously over-matched.

Dirt seems to expose the 'scrubs' more than Turf.

I don't know the 'herd' stuff. Very few horses are able to win on their own, and I'm hoping to find one at a value. If you were strictly figure based, you'd have to adjust for the herd and the surface...

[AndyC]

I believe the "herd" instinct most factors in when a runner breaks far behind its field. So often it seems like the slow starter ( with the notable exceptions of sluggish closers and badly outclassed participants) hits a top speed seemingly beyond its ability, when desperate to join the field.

In my view, a herd horse is one that is most content running within a pack of horses. The alpha horse is the one who always wants to lead the pack. A herd horse can have the physical talent of a champion but can lose to inferior horses who are alpha horses. They have the ability to run with any pack securing higher speed figs while running with high quality horses and getting lower figs while running with lower quality horses.

I had no idea how strong these traits were in horses until I spent considerable time with a horse trainer. Not a TB horse trainer but a mustang trainer.

[mountainman]

Tricky definitions that I look at more in terms of heart and running style. Determination and deep stretch bravery are true determinants. And I would attribute a tendency to blend in with the competition more to a lack of tenacity than to some hard-wired herd instinct.

[FakeNameChanged]

Tricky definitions that I look at more in terms of heart and running style. Determination and deep stretch bravery are true determinants. And I would attribute a tendency to blend in with the competition more to a lack of tenacity than to some hard-wired herd instinct.
Great observation. btw, did Mnr Casino take down your perspective link?

[AndyC]

Tricky definitions that I look at more in terms of heart and running style. Determination and deep stretch bravery are true determinants. And I would attribute a tendency to blend in with the competition more to a lack of tenacity than to some hard-wired herd instinct.

There are many studies on the herd instincts of horses but that's a topic for another thread. What we agree on is that some horses habitually underperform due to (insert explanation here). Accordingly speed figures should not be given much weight for these horses.

[deelo]

Dear Andy,

I mean, Andrew,

How did it feel on Preakness Day when Mike Watchmaker made you look like an idiot after you derailed the podcast for 20 minutes ranting and raving about the Derby DQ like a facebook comment lunatic. When Mike finally got you to settle down and focus on the present instead of past, Mike picked WoW then you rambled another 20 about how horrible he was going to run. Thoughts?

"you have -63 reputation points for this post" LOL

that podcast was the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard, Andy lost all his reputation points with anyone that heard it.

[PaceAdvantage]

"you have -63 reputation points for this post" LOLSounds about right. Rep system gets it right again.

[deelo]

I'm just saying I expect a professional to get on a podcast and act like one. Not rant like a twitter feud lunatic while Mike struggles to keep him on the rails.

Sour grapes? jeesh

[deelo]

Also, a forum mod shouldn't act like baby. Sorry for whatever chord I struck with Andy I guess? Very weird, moving on now..

[mountainman]

Great observation. btw, did Mnr Casino take down your perspective link?

Not at all, sir. But the link on my Pace Advantage page no longer works. Just go to moreatmountaineer.com, click "racing," and scroll down to "point of view." Most, but not all, of my blogs are archived there. " The Darkest Mile" is my favorite. I just got a proposal to team with an artist and convert it to comic-book format. But they want changes that would much alter the original. And the compensation would be almost nill.

[PaceAdvantage]

Also, a forum mod shouldn't act like baby. Sorry for whatever chord I struck with Andy I guess? Very weird, moving on now..

LULZ

ps. just another boring troll

Oh, I know, I know, you're just SO OUTRAGED over this INJUSTICE done to you on this PODCAST that you were listening to for free, that you just had to come here and VENT over such a horrible thing...

LULZ indeed sir. LULZ indeed.

[classhandicapper]

The ironic thing about that Beyer Derby/Preakness analysis is that imo he may still be right about it.

War of Will got about as good a trip in the Preakness as a horse can possibly get saving ground sitting just off a fast pace on a day when horses were having some trouble rallying far outside on the turn. He got both a favorable flow trip relative to the leaders and a favorable path trip relative to the closers in a relatively weak Preakness.

I hated him in the Belmont off that race and left him off every ticket. Unfortunately, I didn't make a score, but I think his Derby trip was not as bad as some people think and his Preakness win did not vindicate their view. He's good, but imo he's not as good as some of the others.

[clicknow]

I had no idea how strong these traits were in horses until I spent considerable time with a horse trainer. Not a TB horse trainer but a mustang trainer.

Interesting stuff, and something that Kerry Thomas has tried to perfect in his true nature of the Herd Dynamic, which I find great reading every year. The idea that natural tendencies cannot be taught, only managed. And to these he adds in things like sensory impediments, athletic tendencies, watching how a horse impresses him/herself upon the environment, or is impressed and positioned by it.

Of note one of the things that will really mess up a horse is stress. Emotional and psychological stress requires mental stamina, not just physical. He goes into this in depth in some of his reports over the years. Brilliant stuff.

[classhandicapper]

I don't doubt that there are herd tendencies.

You can visually see how some horses will consistently really dig in and try and other won't. However, I think a lot of it is physical.

One reason a horse will dig in and sustain the fight is that he's competitive, but another is that he actually has the speed and stamina to do it. Some other horse may be just as competitive, but since he's physically overmatched he'll get outrun and hit empty long before the others and not have the energy left to try when the real racing starts later. If the rider does try early, the horse will fall apart even worse later.

If you drop that uncompetitive horse down in class far enough, the demands of the lower quality race will be easier and he'll suddenly have the energy to finish strongly and look like a competitive horse against weaker.

[ReplayRandall]

So.....It always comes down to PACE....Highest sustained velocity, of the entrants in this specific race, crosses the line first....Sounds simple.

[Half Smoke]

I did the ask Beyer thing - my question was edited and Beyer answered

here is what appeared on the drf.com website:


"Q. My understanding of how speed figures are calculated is that the times of all races for the day are compared to the par of average times of races at the track for those levels.


If 7 of 9 races on a card are run faster than average, the track surface will be considered very fast. But isn’t it possible that the horses happened to be of higher quality on that day?


– S.D.


A. Some speed figures are calculated in the way you describe. Not ours. I did rely on pars when I was developing the figures in the early 1970s but quickly saw that this was a flawed approach – for the reason you cited. If the par for a race is 70, and three horses in the field have recently run figures around 70, but one of them wins the race by five lengths, do we expect him to earn a figure of 70? No. If the race was at six furlongs, where five lengths equal 12 points, the winner might reasonably have improved enough to run an 82.


We analyze every race by examining how the horses finished, how many Beyer points separated them, and what figures they had earned in their recent starts. Then we ask: “What winning figure for this race would be most consistent with the previous form of the top finishers?” The answer to that question is what we call our projection for the race. We compare the projection with the result of each race on a card. The average difference between the projection and the result is the basis of our track variant – the number that measures the inherent speed of the racing surface."

Andrew Beyer


I would be interested in hearing comments on his explanation



https://www.drf.com/news/preview/ask-beyer-track-variant-measures-inherent-speed-racing-surface

[cj]

I did the ask Beyer thing - my question was edited and Beyer answered

here is what appeared on the drf.com website:


"Q. My understanding of how speed figures are calculated is that the times of all races for the day are compared to the par of average times of races at the track for those levels.


If 7 of 9 races on a card are run faster than average, the track surface will be considered very fast. But isn’t it possible that the horses happened to be of higher quality on that day?


– S.D.


A. Some speed figures are calculated in the way you describe. Not ours. I did rely on pars when I was developing the figures in the early 1970s but quickly saw that this was a flawed approach – for the reason you cited. If the par for a race is 70, and three horses in the field have recently run figures around 70, but one of them wins the race by five lengths, do we expect him to earn a figure of 70? No. If the race was at six furlongs, where five lengths equal 12 points, the winner might reasonably have improved enough to run an 82.


We analyze every race by examining how the horses finished, how many Beyer points separated them, and what figures they had earned in their recent starts. Then we ask: “What winning figure for this race would be most consistent with the previous form of the top finishers?” The answer to that question is what we call our projection for the race. We compare the projection with the result of each race on a card. The average difference between the projection and the result is the basis of our track variant – the number that measures the inherent speed of the racing surface."

Andrew Beyer


I would be interested in hearing comments on his explanation



https://www.drf.com/news/preview/ask-beyer-track-variant-measures-inherent-speed-racing-surface

I thought it was pretty well know that Beyer uses projections now, as do most people that make figures. Pars are so tough to do these days, they are actually nothing but projections themselves in my opinion.

[steveb]

I thought it was pretty well know that Beyer uses projections now, as do most people that make figures. Pars are so tough to do these days, they are actually nothing but projections themselves in my opinion.


you project horses, i project races(using standards).


if a horse has run an 80 in a race where winner generally runs a 70, then next time it's in that 70 race, imo all it needs to do is run that 70.

i would not project it as an 80

[cj]

you project horses, i project races(using standards).


if a horse has run an 80 in a race where winner generally runs a 70, then next time it's in that 70 race, imo all it needs to do is run that 70.

i would not project it as an 80

For me at least, projecting is a lot more complicated than that.

The standard part is tough here, particularly when using time. There simply aren't enough races to come up with a reliable standard with all the various conditions, distances, surfaces, etc.

[steveb]

For me at least, projecting is a lot more complicated than that.

The standard part is tough here, particularly when using time. There simply aren't enough races to come up with a reliable standard with all the various conditions, distances, surfaces, etc.


it is for me too, but that is the gist of it.



i don't know how they class horses in your country, but most places give them official ratings where 1 point = 1lb or .5kg.
the ratings themselves are iffy, but they allow you to figure how fast these types will run generally(solved by regression .99 correlation times run to official ratings using every horse in race rating).

after any meeting the std dev between expected and actual for any meeting rarely exceeds 5.... 5 would mean 5 metres per 1000 difference actual to expectation which is bugger all(.005%) in the scheme of things.

[cj]

it is for me too, but that is the gist of it.



i don't know how they class horses in your country, but most places give them official ratings where 1 point = 1lb or .5kg.
the ratings themselves are iffy, but they allow you to figure how fast these types will run generally(solved by regression .99 correlation times run to official ratings using every horse in race rating).

after any meeting the std dev between expected and actual for any meeting rarely exceeds 5.... 5 would mean 5 metres per 1000 difference actual to expectation which is bugger all(.005%) in the scheme of things.

That is the thing, we don't have a rating system like that here.

[steveb]

That is the thing, we don't have a rating system like that here.


fair enough.
you could probably do those same regressions using your own timeform figures.



would probably be more accurate too than using official ratings.


my own opinion(and confirmed by checks and balances i do), is that results are far more predictable using a race expectation, rather than horse expectation.


of course it all comes down to your own methodology i guess.

[classhandicapper]

I'm sure the goal is to generally keep dirt tracks consistent. However, one of the complications of doing figures in the US is that dirt tracks tend to be maintained between races. The maintenance crew will add water, allow moisture to dry from sun/wind, float or harrow the track, etc... between races.

So if the speed of a track can vary from race to race as it does (over and above the impact of wind, humidity and temperature on the horses) you sort of have to analyze each race independently and within the context of the day all at once to try to understand what happened.

Also, as CJ was saying, we have an almost endless supply of class designations at each track that don't translate well from track to track even when they are called the same thing. Some classes have a huge standard deviation even at the same track. So just using a PAR/Standard leads to problems in the US. That's not to say they can't help with the analysis at times.