Aqu Dec 30, Race 2-- Wrong Beyers [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

RXB

12-29-2004, 09:43 PM

For anyone who might care, a few horses that ran in the inner track's 2nd race on December 8 are coming back in Thursday's 2nd race.

The winner's Beyer is listed as 63. I gave the horse an 81. I have reviewed the race and the other times that day and I feel good that 81 is reasonably accurate. There is no way that the figure should be anywhere nearly as low as 63. (Maybe it was a data entry error; supposed to be 83?)

With that said, the pace of the race in question was rather slow, particularly for the first half mile-- I rated the race 57-67-81 for adjusted pace and final times-- so I'm not going to be betting anything coming out of that race. (I assigned Trick Again pace figures of 96-93 in her N3X loss last out, so she could be tough here on the drop.) However, I think it's fair to warn people that the printed Beyer is way out of whack.

stablehand

12-29-2004, 11:05 PM

i actually gave it an even slower beyer figure...more like a 60....the pace was soooo very slow early.....i think the beyer of 63 is close enuff...

Macdiarmadillo

12-29-2004, 11:59 PM

While I disagree with DRF Beyers much of the time, if the race was that slow paced early and slow overall, there is no reason for me to doubt it was a 63. It happens. While the late pace fig is interesting in comparison to the early, it's not going to be like a 90 to bring the final time up to expected numbers. They just can't run fast enough late to do this.

For one, whoever was leading early is not going to get an easy lead like that next time, if ever again. Plus at least some following horses were never extended, so the race for them was like a workout. Note that this was a very slow paced race in your records and more or less ignore this race IMO.

We'll see what happens Thursday.

RXB

12-30-2004, 12:45 AM

The final time wasn't really that slow. They came home in under 25 seconds, making up most of the time lost in the pedestrian opening half mile.

Compare that race's one-mile final time (1:39.56) with the other two routes that day:

1-70 yds, 3YO+ male Maiden Special Weight: 1:44.87 (raw mile time 1:40.58)
1 1/8, 3YO+ NY-Bred male N2X: 1:51.83 (raw mile time 1:39.35)

In adjusted final time terms, the mile race is about eleven points faster than the MSW race and nine points slower than the NY N2X race. So if the 63 is accurate, I'd have to give a 54 and 74, respectively, to the winners of those other races. And from both a class par perspective and a projected view of those races, none of those numbers would make sense.

RXB

12-30-2004, 01:01 AM

Slight correction-- the Beyers for the other two routes would then be 52 and 72, not 54 and 74. My God, another length out of kilter!

RXB

12-30-2004, 01:41 AM

One other point to note: horses from several of the sprint races on Dec 8th have come back to run since. My speed figures for all of those races have been either exactly the same as, or only a couple of measly points different than the published Beyers.

My route variant for the day is two or three points lower than the sprint variant. So if somebody wants to argue that the number should be 78 instead of the 81 that I assigned, I can understand it. 63 is completely out of the question.

12-30-2004, 06:28 AM

Here is my take on that day:

There were three routes run that day at Aqueduct, and the Beyer guys gave variants of 3 to two of them, but 13 to the race in question. So, they basically downgraded the race 10 points. Instead of a 63, I have the race as a 73. The catch however, as usual with the "projected Beyers" is the pace of the race.

I have the race with a shape of 59 73, which using a rough Quirin method of adding the two together, is going to put the race close to the Beyer anyway. I wouldn't base any wagering decisions on horses from this race unless a closer made up a lot of ground late. Otherwise, I'd look at previous races. Slow paced races are the worst to try to decipher, and this one was very slow.

Of those returning from the race, the 4 and 6 look better than the 1 and 3, but the 7 looks better than all of them.

sjk

12-30-2004, 07:23 AM

RXB,

I agree with you; I have the race at 84. I give the horses from the 12/8 race a good chance of running 1-2-3 in here. Be interesting to see how it works out.

12-30-2004, 07:28 AM

So, what do you have the other routes out for the day. If you have this race in the 80s, you either have the other routes as a lot higher than the Beyer, or you split the variant. Curious as to the thinking here.

sjk

12-30-2004, 07:57 AM

CJ,

Don't know if the question was addressed to me but I will answer. I make an initial number based on the daily variant (75 for the race in question) but when I use the number in a past performance I make adjustments which are specific to the each race. These are determined by how the horses in that race performed in the race previous and subsequent to the race in the PPs.

Looking at my PP report for today (which I don't usually do since I use my odds line in black box mode) I see that there is an 8.5 point positive adjustment related to the (12/8 R2) horses' performance in the race prior to 12/8. None of the horses in that race have run back yet but with 4 running today there will be another adjustment (downward if they run worse than the 84 would indicate) whenever a horse from the race appears again.

As to what numbers I gave the other route races that day:

Race 2: 75
Race 3: 65
Race 9: 88

These are subject to the adjustments described above which I do not calculate until they are used when the horses run again.

I routinely split the variant when the track condition changes. I have the fast track race variant at -2.5 and the good track race variant at -7.2.

12-30-2004, 08:05 AM

Yes, for you sjk.

I was asking since the the Beyer guys had a difference of 10 between the race in question and the other two routes, and you guys have a difference of 20, this would seem to imply that you have a difference of 10 for the other two routes, same with RXB.

I left the other two races alone, same as Beyer, but changed the other race to reflect what I thought was a higher final number earned due to the slow pace. My question should be, how did you handle the other two races? Same variant for all three routes, or separate variants somewhere in between?

Also, you've confused me. You said a few posts down you gave the race an 84, but now you say you gave it a 75, much closer to what I have.

sjk

12-30-2004, 08:18 AM

I do not normally split routes and sprints for making variants. For pace figure purposes I calculate how many lengths fast or slow each segment of the track was and I do make an adjustment to the route numbers based on the speed of the segment used for routes but not for sprints.

If there is a total disconnect between routes and sprints I make a separate number but this is rare. (On the Beulah Park issue, on 2/17/04 the 5 1/2 fulong times were totally out of sync with everything else and I split them out.)

I usually change variants when the track conditions changes although for a track drying out and going from good to fast, if I didn't have many races to work with I might not. My variants for aqi 12/8 are posted above.

It is hard for me to compare numbers with others because of the race-specific adjustments I make as noted above and because I do not calculate these until the number is used (and then I don't look at them; they are internal to the program). I also recalculate all my variants weekly (back to 1993 which is obviously overkill) which also tends to make my numbers a moving target.

RXB

12-30-2004, 11:24 AM

I gave the NY-bred race a 90. (That was the race that I used as the 'marker' for my route races, since it seemed the most reliable.) The MSW race came up as a 70, but I've got a question mark beside that because it seems a bit low, especially considering the margins between horses. At this point, though, I haven't projected upwards on that number; I'll leave it as a question mark, knowing that I considered it to be a weak field and that none of the horses are likely to be 'bet-backs' anyway.

I agree w/ cj that, even with the big difference in my Beyers for the race in question, Trick Again seems better today than any of the horses coming out of that race. However, I rarely bet horses with a 5/2 ML, and I doubt that I'll be doing so here.

If you look back at the Dec 8th race, most of the horses had been running in the high 70's / low 80's recently. And several of them had been running on the turf, which probably goes some way in explaining how the early energy expenditure for the race came in at almost exactly 50%, which is a rare occurrence in a dirt event.

Valuist

12-30-2004, 12:00 PM

Re: those horses coming back out of the Dec 8 race, I have the track rated as a slight inside bias that day. Toss in the slow early-speed up late race shape and the wide trip Halfway to Heaven had that day, she'll NEVER be close to 10-1 that the morning line has her at. I had her as the best horse in that Dec 8 race.

Valuist

12-30-2004, 01:10 PM

So once again they go slow and the same three run in the top 3 again with the top 2 switched this time. Once again it looks like you don't want to be wide and you don't want to be off the pace. The 9th should be interesting with a ton of speed in that race.

12-30-2004, 03:10 PM

The scratch of the 7 pretty much made this all irrelevant...makes you wonder why scratch the 7? I like to track these horses that scratch from seemingly good spots, they rarely do well when they do run.

RXB

12-30-2004, 06:36 PM

If the trainer scratches from a seemingly good spot, perhaps he's telling us something indirectly.

By the way, I've assigned the winner of today's 2nd race an 84 Beyer. And yes, I am confident again that this is a fairly accurate number.

I honestly believe that it was a simple data-entry error in DRF for that Dec 8th race. (If it wasn't, Beyer should start testing his employees for metabolites of controlled substances.)

12-30-2004, 06:47 PM

RXB,

I'm about 99% sure that wasn't a data error. They looked at the day's card, and saw no reason to split variants. Then, that race came back fast due to the SLOW pace, so they downgraded it since they don't look at pace. It happens all the time. The upgrade many times when the pace is fast and the race falls apart.

RXB

12-30-2004, 07:02 PM

I didn't do any real variant splitting on that card. Now, maybe they assigned lower numbers for the races as a group than I did, but even so, that 63 was way out of line. And given the horses' numbers leading up to that race as well as today's figure, I'm pretty sure that my number for the Dec 8th race was reasonably accurate.

Do you get the DRF Weekly Charts? If yes, I'd be curious to know what they assigned to the other two routes that day.

12-30-2004, 07:10 PM

Late here, I'll let you know in the morning.

RXB

12-31-2004, 05:50 PM

Never mind; the Jan 1st form has some horses running back from the NY-bred race. They gave it an 85, which is about what I expected.

12-31-2004, 06:21 PM

I don't understand how you could give those two races essentially the same figure. According to the Beyer scale, those times are nowhere near equivalent on the charts for the respective distances. The time for the filly race was 11 points slower on the raw Beyer scale than the NY bred race, yet you only have a difference of 4.

Like I said, I bumped the race up 10 points, but 18 seems way too much to me.

RXB

12-31-2004, 06:33 PM

Sorry, I'm not following you.

I gave the race in question an 81; the NY-bred race got a 90. That's approximately a five-length differential.

The difference in race times was 12.27 seconds. On the inner track, the difference for equivalent races at those distances is about 13.2 seconds. That's about five lengths (the .93 seconds, that is).

12-31-2004, 06:40 PM

OK, you said you expected an 85, which I took to mean you gave it an 85. So, you have all the races higher, some more than others.

RXB

12-31-2004, 06:57 PM

Yes, when I originally assigned that 90 I thought that it would probably be a couple of points above what the published Beyers would be. That's a simple difference of opinions, and I stand by mine.

Given that the Beyer boys assigned an 85 to the NY-bred race, they should have the race we've been talking about at 75 or 76, not 63. And, the MSW route that day should be about a 65, unless they project upwards a bit. (I'm guessing that they will.)