Beyer ART or SCIENCE

[karlskorner]

Quoted from Equidaily.com

Beyer Speed figures:Art of Science ? Interesting quote from the guru himself. Any Beyer on how much human imput goes into the Beyer Speed Figures and how two figure-nakers could in fact come up with different numbers. Appearing on the panal during DRF's daily Saratoga on 8/28/05, Beyer ws handicapping that afternoon's 7th race which fetured Ice Wynnd Fire. That one was exiting on Aug 6 race which he won and was assigned a Beyer number of 102,
"Since our speed figures started appearing in the Form a decade ago and people have gotten used to them, some people treat them as gospel - I mean there are a lot of horseplayers that have the sense that these are carved in stone and handed down by god. In fact, they're all made by human beings and sometimes we're confused about what the number should be.
My partner Mark Hopkins does the New York figures and we had a huge disagreement about Aug 6, which was the day of the WhitneyStakes when he gave XCommentator a figure of 123 and gave Ice Wynnd Fire a 102 in the other mile and eight race that day.
"If I have been dong the figures I would have said that there was no way those two horses in the Whitney could have run that high, That the mile and an eights races came up too fast. And if they were my numbers it would have been 114 for Commentator and 93 for Ice Wynnd Fire. Today we're going to find out.
"Mark is usually right in these disputes I should hasten to point out, but Icy Wynnd Fire might not be as good as that 102 suggests"
As an addendum: Beyer went on to say Icy Wynnd Fire was a legit contender in that Aug 28 race and he suggested an exacta box with Win Wuith Beck, Ice Wynnd Fire won the race by a length and a half in a wire-to-wire fashon earning a BSF of 101. Commentator's next start after that 123 Whitney was the Gi Woodward where he ran third and received an 82 BSF "

[kenwoodallpromos]

Does that mean those 2 horses should repeat close to their last Beyer number to legitimize their last one? Isn't Beyer's variants the adjustment that legitimizes it?
With such a wide difference among their own people, that in itself answers the question of whether it is science or art- it is art in the final figure.
I have never heard of "hard" science being at odds so often unless there is a lot of art thrown in, like the evolution vs. creation debate on both sides.
As I stated prior, I think overall it is the best of the figures available for what it measures (CJ's goes well beyond that), but none are science enough for me or Beyer to rely on exclusively.

[ceejay]

Art or Science isn't the question. Science uses interpretation of data. I'm a scientist, and I interpret data, every day. The discussion between Beyer & Hopkins is simply two different interpretations of the same data.

[nobeyerspls]

Is all science objective and all art subjective? If you and I follow the rules with our paint-by-numbers landscape, they might look the same but are they art? I suppose it's nice to know that the guy who they're named after holds them to be accurate plus or minus 10%.

[Tom]

CJ's work would appear to verify that 10% error range.

[mainardi]

Doesn't it make anybody even the slightest bit nervous that Beyer Figures can be adjusted at the discretion of the people who set the figures?

I remember reading in one of Andy's MANY books that the numbers are based in mathematics (hello, science), but they also take other factors into consideration (the art of the deal). He even gave an example that went something like "after seeing many of the the horses perform poorly in their next race, we went back and lowered the figures for the entire field (in the previously run race)".

So, this means that a horse could get a 100 in a race, and if the guys who set the numbers felt they overrated that race (based on an "artsy" decision, I would assume), then they would lower the 100 to 95 (as an example). Yikes! :eek:

It's for that reason that I stopped using the Beyer Figures when I used to handicap out of the DRF. Then they stopped offering them in the data files that I use in my software -- and none of my customers have asked for them in the last 15 years -- so it hasn't been that much of an issue for me.

If you swear by them (rather than swear AT them), could you please post your reasons, as I'm sure that it would be interesting reading...

I almost forgot... if it were possible for the DRF Speed Rating & Track Variant combo to be off by 10% -- not as likely, as it's based in mathematics -- that could mean an inaccuracy of up to 10 lengths! Is that the implication with Beyer's as well? If so, it's another reason to consider devaluing their importance.

The phrase "jump the shark" comes to mind... :cool:

[sparkywowo]

To say the numbers are off by 10 percent is inaccurate because the Figure is not proportional to the final time. If the figure is off by 10 pts, that is typically 5 lengths. That is significant since the Figures are usually accurate to +/- 2 pts, and a 5-Sigma deviation indicates something other than a random fluctuation influenced the result.

The problem has to do with the beaten lengths adjustment. In "Beyer On Speed", Andrew Beyer writes the following which I paraphrase here: We stopped using the standard beaten lengths adjustment in turf routes and started using the 6 1/2 furlong adjustment because horses that were beaten many lengths were getting figures that were too high. Basically a turf route is off to a modest start with the real running coming at the end. Anyone can stay in contention for the first quarter or half mile, and horses that drop out were getting too much credit.

So, for example, if a race has a slow pace, the losers may be uncommonly close to the winners, because the winners don't bother putting the others away early, they do it late and win by a couple rather than a few. Since there is no fudging of the beaten lengths adjustment, the losers will get figures that are too high and do not reflect the fact that when the real running started they had nothing. The final figure that ends up in the DRF should make sense for both the winner and the losers, and in the case that it doesn't you have to know how to interpret it. And, since most people won't know how to interpet it, and remembering that a particular figure can't be taken at face value is problematic, the compromise is to try to use hindsight based on a subsequent race to assign a meaningful number.

Obviously, if you make your own figures you can decide whether or not to use the standard beaten lengths adjustment or tweak it to get numbers which are more accurate.

[dav4463]

The Beyer numbers are a major part of the puzzle for me. I use them over Bris numbers because I am so used to them. Point is: I think any speed figure number is close enough to be used if it approximates how well the horse ran on a given day. They don't have to be perfect to be usable.

[karlskorner]

Looking at the free simulcast progam CRC gave away today, there are 20 or more tracks running with approximately 2000 horses, which means to me that Beyer, Hopkins and their 3 associates are "looking at" and rating 400 (more or less ) entrants each, when the charts are published. There has got to be some serious errors in there somewhere

[the little guy]

I will tell you what Beyer told me recently in response to peoples' gripes about them changing figures....

" We never change them to make them LESS accurate. "

[DJofSD]

mathematics (hello, science)

Mathematics is not science. They are different.

Science is a more restrictive process than mathematics. An example I've used before is this: mathematically, there is no limit to how fast I can travel. Science by way of Einstein's theories states there is a limit -- the speed of light (and, by the way it would take all of the energy in the universe to be able to accelerate an object to that speed).

So, as far as I'm concerned, the Beyer figure makers can do all the "math" they want but until their numbers are strictly based upon some rigorous math based process that has some science to it (let's just say predictive and repeatable), it's an art. But art is great -- what your doctor practices is considered an art.

DJofSD

[KingChas]

I will tell you what Beyer told me recently in response to peoples' gripes about them changing figures....

" We never change them to make them LESS accurate. "

That comment sounds like Professional Redboarding! :D

[KingChas]

mathematics (hello, science)

Mathematics is not science. They are different.

. But art is great -- what your doctor practices is considered an art.DJofSD

Not to get off thread DJ but thats called "con-artistry". ;)

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sounds like they have good intentions! Did Andy ever tell you what % of the time he personally thinks his figures are MORE accurate or he agrees with them after his people change them? Is it 100% or almost?

[DrugSalvastore]

There are just some days when you can't make a real accurate figure, and you just have to stab at one.....

I'll use the San Felipe Stakes as an example.

The D. Wayne Lukas trained Consolidator wins the prestigious San Felipe Stakes by open lengths. His final time for the race was an otherworldly 1:40 flat. He breaks the stakes record by OVER one full second--narrowly gets the track record--and runs the fastest final time for 8.5 furlongs at Santa Anita in the past several years.

A good collection of horses are left in his wake. 2nd place finisher Giacomo ends up winning the Ky Derby. Don't Get Mad eventually wins the Derby Trial and Northern Dancer. Wilko was a Breeders Cup Juvenile champ. Roman Ruler was a top horse at age two, and subsequently won the Dwyer and Haskell. So it's not like Consolidator drowned a field of bums that day.

The reason why it's so tough to give a figure that day--is because the San Felipe was the only race run around two turns. You are pretty much left to stab and project.

The Beyer figure for Consolidator came back a 105. So basically, he ran a new top, and everyone else either paired or went backwards. The 2nd place finisher Giacomo, ran a 98 in his previous start, the Sham Stakes, despite recieving one of the most god awful bad trips of the meet. He had no excuse from a trip standpoint in the San Felipe...he just got burned by the winner, and beat all the rest.

No one can fault the beyer folks for giving Consolidator a 105..., but if anyone really thinks that the 105 he got was cut and dry--they are kidding themselves. A lot of different factors made that a horrible race to do a figure for.

Consolidator only made one more start in his career--he was practically eased and retired. He was a $1.25 million dollar yearling buy, and would have hardly been the first D. Wayne Lukas trained horse to run a giant race and go unsound---if in fact he even did run a giant race that day.

[cj]

The Beyer figure for Consolidator came back a 105. So basically, he ran a new top, and everyone else either paired or went backwards. The 2nd place finisher Giacomo, ran a 98 in his previous start, the Sham Stakes, despite recieving one of the most god awful bad trips of the meet. He had no excuse from a trip standpoint in the San Felipe...he just got burned by the winner, and beat all the rest.

He had a very good excuse that day, the pace figure was in the mid 90s Beyer style, while the speed figure was 105, giving a closer very little chance at all.

By the way, using pace numbers really helps when you are trying to make variants for lone route races.

[v_d_g]

mathematics (hello, science)

Mathematics is not science. They are different.

Science is a more restrictive process than mathematics. An example I've used before is this: mathematically, there is no limit to how fast I can travel. Science by way of Einstein's theories states there is a limit -- the speed of light (and, by the way it would take all of the energy in the universe to be able to accelerate an object to that speed).

So, as far as I'm concerned, the Beyer figure makers can do all the "math" they want but until their numbers are strictly based upon some rigorous math based process that has some science to it (let's just say predictive and repeatable), it's an art. But art is great -- what your doctor practices is considered an art.

DJofSD

There's certainly a distinction between pure and applied science: the former essentially mathematics, the latter where one's theories are confirmed or refuted.

Don't know what it means to say that applied science is 'more restrictive' than pure science.

Let's see: Beyer gets his data from empirical sources (observation/measurement); develops a theory based on that data (his speed figures); and then applies it to a given race for confirmation or refutation.

Seems very similar to me to what the pioneers of the 17th century scientific revolution (Descartes, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Huygens, etc.) were doing.

His method is certainly 'scientific'.

[Tote Master]

With a background in structural engineering, I will simply state that IMO this entire argument is completely flawed. Those that attempt to apply science, mathematics or any other legitimate discipline to something that is in reality just a game are relying on statistics to arrive at some rationale for future predictions. These statistics will inevitably provide a platform for measuring which variables carry the most weight when making a determination for final betting selections.

Unfortunately, if the platform doesn’t change (or is not flexible enough) as the condition of each animal changes, or the conditions of each race changes, it will time and again collapse. The main problem here is that the focus for the entire exercise is on the wrong commodity: The Animal. It should be in fact, on those who control it and their valued commodity: Their Money. The platform invariably leaves out this key ingredient and cannot account for any changes with regard to the intentions of the connections. Good, bad or indifferent, these intentions are measured by their betting activities.

If the object of the game is to win (other people’s) money (and if we assume that it’s also a valued commodity - to some!), then it follows that those with the most confidence in their betting activities will inevitably use their money to gain a valued return? Yes, they might even be betting a bit more then those who are using the statistics for making selections. Why is that? Perhaps its because their confidence is based on what they’ve successfully done before!

[DJofSD]

Certainly you jest.

DJofSD

[RonTiller]

Wow, any thread on a horse racing BBS that references Descartes, Newton AND Kepler impels me to jump in! Just to get in the flow of things, how about Schroedinger, Born and Dirac.

Art, pure science, applied science, mathematics, confirmation, refutation, etc. - there's a lot going on here. From somebody unqualified to work at NASA, here's my take.

First, regarding mathematics. Everybody uses mathematics, correctly or not, to construct a speed number, power number or ANY yabadabado number. Some people are dazzled by differential equations, fancy exponential expressions and other mathematical paraphenalia and assume that if you are doing THAT, it must be correct, or at the very least, sophisticatedly wrong. Now making numbers DOES in fact involve math, but one can use sophisticated math to arrive at all sorts of BAD numbers. A physics test in college attests to this, as my mathematics was impeccable but my answer was wrong, due to using the wrong approximation equation and making several wrong assumptions. Impeccable math, wrong equation, wrong assumptions, wrong answer (I did get almost full credit for being wrong in an interesting way! Still no NASA job.). A more horsey example. I can bring to bear the most sophisticated math on the planet to creating a number based on the square of the jockey weight and the deceleration between call 1 and 2 to the 3.6th power, adjusted by the phases of the moon. The math may be dazzling, and CORRECT, but the number will almost certainly have a 12% win percentage (random chance). Yawn.

This brings us to evaluating the number, in this case, the speed rating, which one's math helps one to make. Is making a speed number like predicting the trajectory of a cannon ball, using Newtonian physics? No. How about predicting the decay of a cesium atom? No. Is it an ART then (whatever THAT means)?

Making speed numbers could be an art, in some sense of the term ART, if for instance, one meditated on each horse's name and then spontaneously wrote out the speed number for it, with no real understanding of what one was doing or how it worked. They just appear.

At the other end of the spectrum, one can treat it as an engineering problem: what components go into making a speed rating, what assumptions does one make, what methodology goes into making the components and most importantly, how does one measure the resulting number? The whole process is transparent There are no fancy equations followed by ADJUSTED BY A GUT FEELING or {fancy differential equation} + {fancy adjustment based on regression} + {intuition based on handicapping for 34 years}.

These are two endpoints. There's a lot of room in the middle. Cramer is at the totally engineering end of the spectrum. All components that go into the rating are meticulously tested and the methodologies exhuastively compared to other possibilities. An example of the empirical and engineering nature of this enterprise is handling turns. How does one incorporate turns into one's methodology. You find anomalous data points for Belmont and Hastings Park, do the reserach, and find the correction factors for turns based on this work. Plug in the corrections and the anomalous data points vanish, but then Fairgrounds has an anomaly. Figure that out, make corrections that you believe will work, measure again, and if they are still there, you didn't fix it!
I guess a good example of how this works is Balto Star's huge speed number from several years ago, at Turfway. Cramer spent 2 days dissecting this race, all the numbers that went into the projections, the underlying assumtions and methodologies, and concluded that there was nothing amiss. To change the methodology to accomodate THIS race meant demonstrably screwing up other horses' numbers But it was agonizingly tempting to just knock it down 10 points because it looked better.

This gets into how one measures the resulting numbers. I think I've already said all I have to say on that, except for this. One cannot PROVE or DEMONSTRATE that most individual speed numbers are right or wrong. Whacky variations, like Ghostzapper getting a 25 versus Zippy Chippy getting a 126 seem just plain wrong, but for most horses, how could one prove that 78 is THE ABSOLUTE CORRECT WRITTEN IN THE FABRIC OF THE UNIVERSE speed number, rather than 75 or 81? I guess I'm somewhat of a relativist on that - speed numbers are relative to the methodology used to create them. There is no ABSOLUTE CORRECT WRITTEN IN THE FABRIC OF THE UNIVERSE
speed number.

It should be pointed out that speed numbers based wholly on pars could also fit this far end. No fudge room at all, give me pars and the speed numbers follow by natural necessity (of course one can maintain that pars are an art, but one need not maintain this).

Where does Beyer fit in this spectrum? I don't know. I'm guessing that he doesn't just pull numbers magically out of his *ss. It is possible to have as part of one's methodology the agreement with an experienced handicapper's considered judgement. So there can be a well defined framework, complete with pretty and correct mathematics, based on empirical research (nothing by Huygens though) which also incorporates an irreducable human element, gut feeling or intuition not capturable by computer algorithms, however fancy they are. The catch is, does the contribution of the human element result in demonstrably better numbers, measured in an objective way?

That is why the Jim Bayle study several years ago, measuring speed ratings from Thorograph, Ragozin, Beyer, Cramer and Trackmaster by numerous parameters, was so interesting. A pity that once all the data was collected (a full year's worth), he refused to complete the project or facilitate somebody else finishing it.

Ron Tiller
HDW

[mainardi]

Ummmm, excuse me, but mathematics IS science... unless, of course, we should discount Princeton University's WordNet is being a fraud (defined as: n : a science or group of related sciences dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement) ;)

Since mathematics is the core for all computations of the other sciences -- just ask (if you could) Pythagoras, DaVinci, Fibonacci, Babbage, Newton, Einstein and others how they would feel about the "math is not science" statement -- we can better understand why Beyer Speed Figures (BSFs) are BOTH art AND science.

Just to recap, Andy and the gang use formulas (again, science, no matter how contrived the formulas may be), and then adjust them based on their personal handicapping insights. If you desire to achieve complete mutual exclusivity -- choosing instead to look at class as a completely separate entity -- then BSFs are not for you. If, instead, you don't mind your formulas having a "fudge factor", then stick with the BSFs.

Remember, it's just one tool in your handicapping toolbox... anybody wagering solely based on BSFs isn't really doing much handicapping. :cool:

[karlskorner]

If I were "using" Beyer numbers, it seems to me I would like to know who is making them. Apparently there is the possibility of any one of the 5 associates putting the numbers up on a specific track. I could post a horse running tomorrow and ask the Beyer number makers "on this board" to rate it, iin all possibilities I would get six different numbers.

[the little guy]

If I were "using" Beyer numbers, it seems to me I would like to know who is making them. Apparently there is the possibility of any one of the 5 associates putting the numbers up on a specific track. I could post a horse running tomorrow and ask the Beyer number makers "on this board" to rate it, iin all possibilities I would get six different numbers.Where exactly do you come up with this misinformation?

[DJofSD]

As I recall, there was an article in the DRF many years ago detailing the fact that Andy Beyer no longer makes the figures and he sold the business to a group of people.

DJofSD

[the little guy]

As I recall, there was an article in the DRF many years ago detailing the fact that Andy Beyer no longer makes the figures and he sold the business to a group of people.

DJofSDWhere exactly do YOU come up with this misinformation?

[DJofSD]

Reread my post: there was an article in the Daily Racing Form, probably 1994, that Beyer no longer was involved in the figures.

You don't believe my, go look it up.

DJofSD

[the little guy]

Reread my post: there was an article in the Daily Racing Form, probably 1994, that Beyer no longer was involved in the figures.

You don't believe my, go look it up.

DJofSDI read your first post, my reading comprehension skills are actually quite good, and I think you said " as I recall". Was I wrong?

You were wrong then, and continue to be, by insisting on the existance of some fictitious article containing inaccurate information.

[karlskorner]

The immediate information would be from the posted aticle above. If Beyer and Hopkins can't agree on Wynnd Fire ( Hopkins 102, Beyer 93 ) than what more is there to say. Those who use BSF are depending on the maker of the number ( who ever he may be )

[the little guy]

The immediate information would be from the posted aticle above. If Beyer and Hopkins can't agree on Wynnd Fire ( Hopkins 102, Beyer 93 ) than what more is there to say. Those who use BSF are depending on the maker of the number ( who ever he may be )What more is there to say? How about starting with the truth? First of all Andy said ( and don't forget - I was sitting right next to him when he said this ) that he and Mark had a disagreement about the two turn figs on Whitney Day. But, they agreed to use Mark's interpretation of the data. How this relates to your initial comments that up to five people could be making the numbers for a specific track is beyond me. But, then again, it's the internet, a place where people feel the right to say just about anything they want.

[karlskorner]

Thats just the point,the 2 owners of BSF disagree, so they toss a coin an use Hopkins numbers. The 5 people I spoke of where from a Washington Post Article by Beyer a while back, in which he stated there are 5 people making all the BSF numbers for all the tracks.

[the little guy]

Thats just the point,the 2 owners of BSF disagree, so they toss a coin an use Hopkins numbers. The 5 people I spoke of where from a Washington Post Article by Beyer a while back, in which he stated there are 5 people making all the BSF numbers for all the tracks." So they toss a coin and use Hopkins numbers ".

Are you for real?

[kenwoodallpromos]

In Beyer's and Little Guy's defense on this point, I think for Beyer to accept the figures of the actual person assigned to that track is noble.
I thought Beyer a few years back signed a licensing contract with DRF but I had not heard he sold the rights to make the numbers or the business.
TLG- if Beyer thought certain two-turn numbers could be more accurate, that variables would that depend on, since two-turn times involve an additional section of the track not used for one-turn races?
I read Beyer considered some times to be anomilies, but I think it was supposed to be due to the individual horse.
Does Beyer atribute any unusual times to other external race-to-race factors?
Like track maintenance?

[the little guy]

I don't know what reasons, per se, he would attribute to " unusual " times, as the potential reasons are probably many. Honestly, I don't talk to him about speed figures very often, and only in specific cases when I feel very strongly that they are wrong, and have good reason/evidence to do so. I don't think the actual causes for aberational times are important, as much as understanding when they exist, and dealing with them accordingly.

[cj]

Thats just the point,the 2 owners of BSF disagree, so they toss a coin an use Hopkins numbers. The 5 people I spoke of where from a Washington Post Article by Beyer a while back, in which he stated there are 5 people making all the BSF numbers for all the tracks.

Yes, but they don't rotate tracks or anything. The same guys do the same circuits. I'm sure Beyer deferred to Hopkins as he is the New York guy and is probably a better judge of New York racing than Beyer is now.

[GMB@BP]

holy shit this is funny,

so based on the information i read

1) beyer no longer owns the company that produces the speed figures
2) the figures are fairly random and are determined mostly by a coin flip

[classhandicapper]

holy shit this is funny,

so based on the information i read

1) beyer no longer owns the company that produces the speed figures
2) the figures are fairly random and are determined mostly by a coin flip

:lol:

He has several associates that make the figures around the country and a computer database that checks the figures of shippers from every track to make sure the various circuits remain in sync. He occasionally tinkers with a circuit if the data tells him that a circuit is off by a couple of points.

The reality is that if you put 10 competent speed figure makers in a room and asked them to make the variant for a typical day, they would come back with several different answers. People bring their own handicapping ideas and biases to the table when they make figures. On complex days you will often see differences of as many as 10 Beyer points for some races. I know this to be true because I have access to 3 sets of Beyer scale figures made by 3 competent people. I see huge differences all the time and it forces me to spend some time determining why they saw things differently and who is actually right. Not only that, sometimes I disagree with all of them!

This is one reason I like to view races from multiple directions (numeric and qualitative). Most people are looking at whatever set of numbers they are using and assume they are correct reflections of how fast/well a horse recently ran. That's only true if the figure maker is correct 100% of the time. I can assure you that's not always the case.

[midnight]

It comes back to the same old maxim: If you want it done right (or what you think is right) you have to do it yourself.

[the little guy]

It comes back to the same old maxim: If you want it done right (or what you think is right) you have to do it yourself.It's very easy to make snide comments, especially on the internet, but ones like this aren't clever, they are borne of ignorance. Do you know who works for Beyer Associates? Do you know the qualifications of these people? Do you know how much Beyer himself oversees the operation?

There's nothing wrong with not using Beyer speed figures, just as there's nothing wrong with an intelligent argument/disagreement with specific numbers, but simple and unknowledgable wise cracks only reflect badly on you.

[dav4463]

Doesn't Dick Jerardi make some figures? Also, I think Randy Moss does some. Anyway, they work well for me so I can't complain. They must be doing something right.

[PaceAdvantage]

" So they toss a coin and use Hopkins numbers ".

Are you for real?

Don't you love how people invent things as they go along?

[the little guy]

Don't you love how people invent things as they go along?Oh you know I do!

[karlskorner]

"toss a coin" was a figure of speech, guess I souldn't have used it, since everybody is so touchy. How about " we'll use your numbers this time, mine next "

[andicap]

"toss a coin" was a figure of speech, guess I souldn't have used it, since everybody is so touchy. How about " we'll use your numbers this time, mine next "

That's a silly statement as well, unwarranted by the facts. How can you at all intuit how Beyer and Hopkins decided to choose which figure to use? You are assuming it was a random event, like paying for a dinner bill.
Nothing in that article -- nothing!! -- could lead any rational person to that conclusion. In the article you posted Beyer admitted that Hopkins was usually right in these disputes. THAT's probably why he bowed to Hopkins -- that and as a good boss he delegates well and lets people in the best position to do so make the key decisions. Hopkins follows NY, Beyer doesn't -- at least as much as Hopkins.

[karlskorner]

Again, apparently the wrong use of words, but lets cut to the quick. Here are 2 partners for the past 10 or more years marketing a product to the public through the DRF. They use a method, what ever it is, to arrive at a conclusion, the method however is not written in stone, they are allowed their own opinions as to the conclusion, as noted in the original article, they were 9 points aoart in their final figure, add to this a couple associates who do 4/5 tracks daily and inject their opinions on races that were run 100's of miles from where they are sitting. There are thousands of players who dialy purchase the DRF and play the simulcast using BSF, their thoughts have to be are these the true figures or just the opinon of a person who is as far from the track as I am.

[Tom]

Would you rather be using numbers crafted by two professionals who might disagree on some races and who come up with a different view of a race now and then, or some mechanical numbers that will always be the same, no matter who makes a fig for the race......like......DRF SR+TV :eek:

[KingChas]

BSF = Science

Using BSF's = Art

Short and Sweet=Enuff Said ;)

[karlskorner]

If I were to use or purchase someone's figures I think I would go to The Sheets, Jerry Brown's T-graph or even the Wizard because I would know that a formula was used to arrive at the the conclusion. You are satisfied with CJ's figures and HTR because with their method you produce figures for Finger Lakes, Belmont, Monmouth or where ever and know that the formulas used are the same for each track. The opinion as to which horse/horses to play are yours. There is no and/or figure because of 2 peoples different opinions on a particular horse. If Beyer were making the figs for NY rather than Hopkins it would be 9 points lower for that particular horse than the one used by Hopkins. The opinion was made for you over and above the formula used by Beyer.

[cj]

If I were to use or purchase someone's figures I think I would go to The Sheets, Jerry Brown's T-graph or even the Wizard because I would know that a formula was used to arrive at the the conclusion. You are satisfied with CJ's figures and HTR because with their method you produce figures for Finger Lakes, Belmont, Monmouth or where ever and know that the formulas used are the same for each track. The opinion as to which horse/horses to play are yours. There is no and/or figure because of 2 peoples different opinions on a particular horse. If Beyer were making the figs for NY rather than Hopkins it would be 9 points lower for that particular horse than the one used by Hopkins. The opinion was made for you over and above the formula used by Beyer.

Again, a fountain of misinformation.

First off, you would not know the formula that was used to calucate figures for The Sheets, T-Graph, or the Wizard (does he make figures, I don't think so?) The only one that has made his formulas public knowledge is Beyer.

With any figures, the opinion of which horse to play is up to the individual. Give 10 guys a set of T-graph numbers, your likely to get 5 or 6 different selections, just like any other set of numbers. Whether a horse wins or loses doesn't make a figure right or wrong, they are what the horses did IN THE PAST, not necessarily what they will do today.

Finally, if Beyer were making the figures for New York, he may very well be more knowledgable about New York racing and came to the same conclusions that Hopkins did on his own.

[the little guy]

If I were to use or purchase someone's figures I think I would go to The Sheets, Jerry Brown's T-graph or even the Wizard because I would know that a formula was used to arrive at the the conclusion. You are satisfied with CJ's figures and HTR because with their method you produce figures for Finger Lakes, Belmont, Monmouth or where ever and know that the formulas used are the same for each track. The opinion as to which horse/horses to play are yours. There is no and/or figure because of 2 peoples different opinions on a particular horse. If Beyer were making the figs for NY rather than Hopkins it would be 9 points lower for that particular horse than the one used by Hopkins. The opinion was made for you over and above the formula used by Beyer.Here's a thought, you won't take it, but I'll give it nonetheless. Just let it go. With every post you show less and less knowledge about things which you insist on talking about. Do you actually believe that at Thoro-graph or Ragozin there is but one " figure-maker "? Or, if you realize there is more than one, duh, that they agree on EVERY number? My God, does common sense EVER apply to your posting, or do you just spew?

By the way, the Wizard is a " tout " sheet, not a speed figure service.

More points for consistancy.

[Valuist]

Someone was asking about Randy Moss and I believe he is/was one of the associates and he did/does many of the Midwestern tracks. I do believe that whoever is doing them now for the Midwest tracks is sharper than who was making them 3-4 years ago.

[the little guy]

Someone was asking about Randy Moss and I believe he is/was one of the associates and he did/does many of the Midwestern tracks. I do believe that whoever is doing them now for the Midwest tracks is sharper than who was making them 3-4 years ago.I don't know about specific tracks, save Oaklawn which Randy does, but I think he's worked for them for a long time.

[twindouble]

Here's a thought, you won't take it, but I'll give it nonetheless. Just let it go. With every post you show less and less knowledge about things which you insist on talking about. Do you actually believe that at Thoro-graph or Ragozin there is but one " figure-maker "? Or, if you realize there is more than one, duh, that they agree on EVERY number? My God, does common sense EVER apply to your posting, or do you just spew?

By the way, the Wizard is a " tout " sheet, not a speed figure service.

More points for consistancy.

I don't know squat about how Beyer or anyone else comes up with these figures and I still don't know after reading many posts how much weight each handicapper puts on them. For example, that one seminar I attended at Saratoga I didn't get the impression they were a major factor in your race analysis, mentioned yes but what did impress me was the depth you and others went into when it comes to trainer intent, trips, class (quality of the compitition), who's going to be where in the race, (pace off the form) and conditions. I walked away thinking this guy can handicap and very serious about the game. You would serve this forum very well or any other by doing the above in some form. I'm not suggesting you give out all the Cuba's you come up with but more of the above would help anyone struggling out there or beginners. The only draw back is there's no fee involved but you'll be here anyway.

I'm semi retired from playing the horses, just want to chew the fat, enjoy the game and at least feel like I got something to offer here wasting some time and I wouldn't compare my handicapping today with anyone who's living it day by day because I know that's what it takes to stay on top.

Good luck,


T.D.

[andicap]

CJ,
With any good figure producer, yours, Beyers, or Jim Cramer's are not there BOUND to be debates basically because of the variant. While the operation is computerized/automated to some extent there are a number of races where I'm sure the same Beyer-Hopkins argument is repeated over and over again.

The exception to me would be purely automated figures like BRIS which (and I will admittedly say I do NOT know how the BRIS figs are done, so I might be way off-base here. Hopefully someone will kindly correct me if I am) to my knowledge are done in a much more automatic fashion based on class pars.
I would trust these types of figures much LESS than ones where there is a human intervention element for the same reason computers don't work as black boxes for picking horses.

There are always special situations, exceptions, discrepencies and other weirdness you just can't program for and need "judgment."
This is where the "ART" comes in.

So I would disagree that making Beyers or CJ's or Cramer's is all science. There is an art to deciding if the track was +5 or +3 on a particular day.

[ryesteve]

I would trust these types of figures much LESS than ones where there is a human intervention element
Well, that depends on the human :)
For example, back during the stone age, before Beyer figs were getting published in the PPs, I used to make my own figs... and eventually learned that I was really bad at it. I was using projections to make variants, rather than class pars, and it turns out I carried a bias into the process: when coming up with a projected fig for a race that had been run, I was much more inclined to believe that a horse (or horses) had regressed and run worse figs, than believing that other horses in the field had suddenly run a few points higher. Or in a much more common scenario, what would tend to happen is that I'd be looking at the first 4 finishers and their past figs, and when trying to place a fig on this race, I could make one of the following assumptions: a) the winner and the 2nd place finisher improved 6 points, and the 3rd and 4th place horse stayed level; b) the winner and 2nd place horse stayed level and the other two regressed 6 points; c) the winner and 2nd place horse improved 3 points and the other two regressed 3 points.

Now, I probably NEVER made assumption "a"... I'd almost always prefer "c" because it seemed like a safe compromise. In hindsight, I understand now that the right answer should've been "a" a hell of a lot of the time... but by going with "c" too often, I was undercutting my figs. Since it was consistent undercutting, the problem wasn't immediately apparent... it wasn't until I started looking at my figs over time that I realized all my numbers were slowly creeping lower and lower. By the time I stopped years later, most bottom maiden claimers were actually getting negative figs.

So yeah, only trust a human when they know what they're doing :D

[Fastracehorse]

"Is making a speed number like predicting the trajectory of a cannon ball, using Newtonian physics? No. How about predicting the decay of a cesium atom? No. Is it an ART then (whatever THAT means)?"

Hi Ron,

Yes! Making a speed # does involve trajectories - trajectories around an elliptical shape. But no - no Newtonian physics.


And Ron also said: "At the other end of the spectrum, one can treat it as an engineering problem: what components go into making a speed rating, what assumptions does one make, what methodology goes into making the components and most importantly, how does one measure the resulting number? The whole process is transparent There are no fancy equations followed by ADJUSTED BY A GUT FEELING or {fancy differential equation} + {fancy adjustment based on regression} + {intuition based on handicapping for 34 years}."

Yes! Making a speed figure is much like an engineering problem and the process IS transparent. However, it is slightly more regimented than a GUT FEELING.

Great read Ron.

fffastt

[andicap]

Gee, Steve, I thought that went without saying. Why do you think I don't make my own figures? :D :D

I've used Beyers, BRIS, Cramer's and CJ's as well as the Sheets and Colts Neck over the years.

I judge a figure maker by how often he blows one. How often is he so far off on a horse that its not even a contender -- or just a fringe contender -- according to my methods. That's because I use figures mainly to get my top horses, usually but not always 3 or 4. So I don't care who had the winner "on top" the most often, just as long they were in the ballpark enough to be considered strong contenders. I mean if CJ has Horse A at a 78 and top-ranked by a single point and Beyer has it at 77 and second to a 78 or 79, in my mind they were both close enough. My final decision isn't going to be based on 1 or 2 points. That's a length or less!

In my non-scientific, totally anecdotal mind, of the first four CJ's are far and away the best. After that's it's close between Cramers and Beyers because when they disagree they seem to alternate being right. And both blow their share of figs big time -- like 10 ponts off seemingly -- but not that often except on the grass where they admit it's tougher.
BRIS is the worst without a doubt -- they seem to be in left field much more often than the others. But still usable. Many of the times I lost with them weren't necessarily because the figures were off: BRIS had the winners up there. It was my interpretations that stunk.

CN was excellent but it was so long ago I couldn't accurately judge them, and I didn't use The SHeets enough times to really say either.

[midnight]

It all boils down to the same old maxim: All the programs, figures, ratings, etc. are just assistants. Some of them might work and be profitable without any input from the user, but even so, the ROI will still improve if some common sense is applied to handicapping and money mangement.

[ryesteve]

Why do you think I don't make my own figures? :D :D

Well, at the time, it was either do 'em yourself or rely on the good ol' DRF SR+TV... but hell, all things considered, I might've been better off sticking to the latter, but that was a realization that took years to achieve.

[Tom]

Nobody's figures are "right." Some are generally more useful than others over the longrun. We are dealing with animals whose aches and pains vary with the weather and whose attitude determine thier performance as much as their talent. There is no such number taht all horses running on a certain day are slowed up by or helped by. Never, not even one single day has this ever happened and it never wil happen. We accpet that on certain days we can say that evidience exists that most horses were slowed up by a couple fifths or helped by a couple. Not all horses will cooperate with that.

Take A and B who run on a track labeled as Slow 5. Slightly deep, cuppy, a little tiring. The run 6 furlongs in 1.12. They run one-two, a head apart.
Two weeks later, they come back on a track later decide to be Fast 8. A runs in 1.10.2 and B runs up the track in 1.13. Duh? Bad variant? No. Maybe B has sore feet and cannot run on a hard surface, while B loves it. Maybe A cannot run a lick on a Slow 12 track. There are horses at my track who are great bets in deep, slow tracks and no variant in the world will ever make them run faster on a hard track.
Given a fast 7 track, a Gr 1 classic horse might set a track record improving his best race by many lengths. A $3000 F MC on the same card might actually only run a couple of ticks faster than normal.
On a slow track, cheap horses might be slowed as much as two seconds, while top stakes runners only 3 fifths.
You can't adjust blindly - speed figs are only a guess at reality. some guess better than others.

[NYPlayer]

There's certainly a distinction between pure and applied science: the former essentially mathematics, the latter where one's theories are confirmed or refuted.

Don't know what it means to say that applied science is 'more restrictive' than pure science.

Let's see: Beyer gets his data from empirical sources (observation/measurement); develops a theory based on that data (his speed figures); and then applies it to a given race for confirmation or refutation.

Seems very similar to me to what the pioneers of the 17th century scientific revolution (Descartes, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Huygens, etc.) were doing.

His method is certainly 'scientific'.

I don't wish to get into the semantics of whether making speed figures is an art versus science, but it seems to me that that certainly making figures is practicing mathematics - you're quantifying the physical forces that impacted the timing of a series of races. To accurately do this, you need to have a clear understanding of what forces were involved. The track is maintained from day to day, there is wet weather to contend with and wind as well. The horses also carried different weights. The wind's effects and the burden of weight can be measured directly, but determining how fast the track was on a given day can only be done indirectly. However, I think it's fairly safe to assume that given a known pattern of track maintenence and the recent weather, you sort of know what to expect from day to day - i.e. there are mininmum and maximum limits on what the track variant should be given a certain set of conditions.

If one accepts the above assessment as true, then I would assert that there is no way that Andrew Beyer's variant procedure is scientifically based or mathematically accurate. They make no provision for wind or weight in their adjustments, to say nothing of understanding the cyclical interplay of track maintenance and weather. Indeed, i don't think it matters to them whether the track was as sloppy, slow, or fast. They make their variants based solely on projections of how they believe the horses should have run. Certainly, there is a lot of judgment in making good figures, but the judment calls are reduced to a narrower range once you've factored out all of the known variables. The "art", then, is reduced by the "science".

I use the Ragozin Sheets regulary because they are far more accurate then anything else that's produced. It's obvious to me that all of the extra work they do - hand timing races, noting running paths, and taking wind measurements produces better figures. How do I know? I've made a number scores because of them. Horses don't don't often repeat their most recent performance, they typically improve or regress, so the ultimate test for any figure making methodology is noting where you stand after a set of predictions. Time and again The Sheets have demonstrated to me their superiority to the Beyer numbers, because the betting decisions I made from The Sheets were the right ones and looking at the Beyers in the Form, I either got a different impression of the race, or could not have played the same horses with the same confidence.

Just my thoughts on the matter. It's an interesting discussion.

[delayjf]

The Sheets have demonstrated to me their superiority to the Beyer numbers, because the betting decisions I made from The Sheets were the right ones and looking at the Beyers in the Form, I either got a different impression of the race, or could not have played the same horses with the same confidence.


Can you give us an example of the above??

[cj]

...If one accepts the above assessment as true, then I would assert that there is no way that Andrew Beyer's variant procedure is scientifically based or mathematically accurate...

...I use the Ragozin Sheets regulary because they are far more accurate then anything else that's produced...


Until they acknowledge that pace can have a big effect on final time, there figures will not tell the whole story at least 25% of the time. Many times I see The Sheets guys say a horse "bounced" off of a big figure, it looks to me like he ran the same race ability wise, just expended his effort in a different fashion.

I know that The Sheets are a good product, but they aren't this perfect measure you make them out to be. I've seen them blow ground loss (and be called out on it by Jerry Brown) many times, and they don't even fix it. And trust me, I'm no great fan of T-Graph either.

How do they adjust figures for wind? Wind is not constant in direction or speed during a race, so any wind adjustment made is a guess, which is no different than what Beyer is doing.

As far as ground loss, even when measured accurately, it is debatable that all wide trips hurt. Horses racing wide don't have to slow down as much on the turn as a horse racing inside, at least partially overcoming any ground loss. In track and field races that include running a turn, the runners NEVER want the inside, it is harder to run as fast. Another, The Sheets count ground loss the same regardless of which turn it is on. Surely, any handicapper knows that ground lost on the first turn of a race is usually much harder on a horse than ground lost on a second turn. The horses are running faster and expending more energy most times at this point in the race.

Finally, as far as value, do you think it might have something to do with the fact that anyone buying a DRF can see all the Beyers one wants, while the price of The Sheets is quite high? Make the Beyers private, and print The Sheets numbers in the form, and I doubt you'd be making those scores anymore with them.

Just a few thoughts to keep the discussion going...

[classhandicapper]

I find these debates about the quality of figures interesting.

I regularly look at 4 sets of speed figures and made my own pace and speed figures in NY for a long time (extremely similar to CJs). When I review the figures given to various high quality stakes races that I am very familiar with, I routinely see huge differences among the various figures AND how they got there.

Much of that is due to what is included in the figure and what is not.

Some include ground loss and weight and others do not.

Some are more sensitive to the potential impact of pace and break figures out (create a seperate variant) when a figure doesn't look right based on the ability of the horses in the race and the speed of the track that day. Others give you the raw figure and allow the handicapper to determine if pace was the issue and to what extent for each horse.

Some break out lots of races that don't fit without even being sensitive to the potential impact of pace.

Some give you a raw pace and speed rating with trip notes and biases.

I think the key thing is to understand what your views are on these subjects and find the figure maker that gives you high quality figures in the form that allows you operate the way you want.

For example:

I am very sensitive to pace. So I don't want my figure maker breaking races out where the pace was either very fast or slow. I want the raw speed figure and the ability to determine for myself whether the pace impacted various horses in the race and to what degree.

I don't want paths/ground loss built into my figures because I believe in inside and outside biases and that how hard you are working when you are wide is often more important than the ground loss.

I want a numeric pace figure for as many pace calls as possible because I look at big middle moves, strong finishing ability etc...

I don't want weight to be included in my figure because I'm not so sure anyone has a formula that measures the impact correctly in all instances. I'd rather just look at the weight shifts as a seperate function in races that appear very close otherwise.

I think you can see my pattern and preference. All I want is a raw speed and pace figure. I want everything else that people tend to either formulize or include in their ratings to be a seperate subjective function performed by me because I don't always agree with the figure maker about the impacts of certain things and IMO many of these things are too complex to be measured or formulized.

I think everyone should go through a similar type checklist and think about what they believe, want, and need and then pick the figures that give them what fits them best. All those mentioned and a couple of others are of very high quality.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I would rather have raw times than guesses also.
"In track and field races that include running a turn, the runners NEVER want the inside, it is harder to run as fast".
In track, outside runners get a staggered start and no banking also. Wing eliminates record runs. No track biases. no "conditions". Expected finish times are much more consistent because there are a lot less variables.
Most variable I would rather consider myself instead of the figure maker. And I like CJ's real distance and adjusted times instead of projected guesswork for times!

[twindouble]

Cj;Until they acknowledge that pace can have a big effect on final time, there figures will not tell the whole story at least 25% of the time.Many times I see The Sheets guys say a horse "bounced" off of a big figure, it looks to me like he ran the same race ability wise, just expended his effort in a different fashion.

< I call that a race within a race and pace is the main factor but it does work both ways, win and lose. > Borrego and Closing Argument are good examples.
No I didn't have Borrego to win, just deep in the gimmicks on both.



I know that The Sheets are a good product, but they aren't this perfect measure you make them out to be. I've seen them blow ground loss (and be called out on it by Jerry Brown) many times, and they don't even fix it. And trust me, I'm no great fan of T-Graph either.

< Loss of ground is a factor in any race, measuring it to me would be an enormous task concidering all the variables one would get from track to track race to race, not with standing the different field sizes plus post position. We old timers use trip hanidicapping to evaluate that, what you see can tell you if the horses easy trip, fair trip, a good one, or a bad one overall. This is best served when you get to know the horses and the tracks you play. It would be very difficult for me to unload on these questionable figures that incorperate measuring ground loss. I understand the power of a computer but now we are talking about visual data and who's watching the race.>

How do they adjust figures for wind? Wind is not constant in direction or speed during a race, so any wind adjustment made is a guess, which is no different than what Beyer is doing.

<To me, factoring in wind is what I call extreme handicapping. (good luck) >

As far as ground loss, even when measured accurately, it is debatable that all wide trips hurt. Horses racing wide don't have to slow down as much on the turn as a horse racing inside, at least partially overcoming any ground loss. In track and field races that include running a turn, the runners NEVER want the inside, it is harder to run as fast. Another, The Sheets count ground loss the same regardless of which turn it is on. Surely, any handicapper knows that ground lost on the first turn of a race is usually much harder on a horse than ground lost on a second turn. The horses are running faster and expending more energy most times at this point in the race.

< I agree, getting position on that first turn depending on the location of the gate realivant to the first turn and distance of the race along with knowing the track. Turns can be tighter from one track to another and the horses running style plays a big part. Belmonts long sweeping turns is kind of an equalizer when it come to your point running on turns. But those bull rings and different track configurations can be challenging when you throw them into your hadicapping mix or figures I would think. Keep in mind, I'm tring to uderstand how the figures are produced so I can evaluate their stregnths and weaknesses. > Excuse the red ink. T.D



Finally, as far as value, do you think it might have something to do with the fact that anyone buying a DRF can see all the Beyers one wants, while the price of The Sheets is quite high? Make the Beyers private, and print The Sheets numbers in the form, and I doubt you'd be making those scores anymore with them.

Just a few thoughts to keep the discussion going...

[delayjf]

How do they adjust figures for wind? Wind is not constant in direction or speed during a race, so any wind adjustment made is a guess, which is no different than what Beyer is doing.

Believe it or not they often take wind measurement from a local airport.

As far as ground loss, even when measured accurately, it is debatable that all wide trips hurt

How does Ragozin reconcile ground loss with any bias (inside or outside)that might exist???

And I like CJ's real distance and adjusted times instead of projected guesswork for times!

Kenwoodallpromos
Not sure I follow you here, what's the difference??

[NYPlayer]

CJ,

I liked the interesting questions you raised and actually had to print out your response to consider answering them.

Here goes:

The sheets and pace - I think pace is a fairly important factor particularly if you have a lone speed or multiple speeds in a race, and I believe that the sheet’s official line is that pace is important, but it only makes a difference in a small percentage of races. Before using the sheets, I used to look at the fractional times a lot, and if I saw a horse with a very quick fractional time, I would conclude that the race was better than it was rated by BSF, but as I got to use the sheets, I noticed that many of these horses were in fact rated better on the sheets anyway. I still think pace is important and potentially explains some situations, but I’ve found that the overarching factor in handicapping is form. It doesn’t really matter if an early speed horse has a much better pace figure if he’s coming off of a big effort and figures to bounce. In its next race, it may appear as though the horse is trying to rate, but it’s most likely running off the pace because it’s tired and actually putting in an off effort.

Ground loss - It seems to me that ground loss is a fairly straightforward measurement, once you’ve had some experience at it and the sheets have been doing this for a long time, so I find it hard to believe that they have any races that were very off on this. For a novice it’s tricky because it’s hard to tell visually (due to the line of sight) how many feet the horse was off the rail. If you look at horse widths, you would have make an assumption about how many feet a horse width is, but it seems like between two or three feet would be about right. My understanding is sheets uses experienced observers for this at most tracks. Ragozin mentioned in his book how you can determine (roughly) from the charts how many paths wide a horse was on the turns. Even if there are some errors here and there, it’s important to include this measurement, because when a horse runs wide it has to cover extra ground. It means for that horse, the race was actually longer than the published distance. So if a horse rallies three wide around the turn, as happens frequently and at the wire comes within a nose of the winner that ran along the rail, the horse who rallied wide expended a greater physical effort and should be rated accordingly. Let’s say the total ground loss meant 2 lengths. On the Beyer scale, how many points is it per length in a six furlong race? I believe it’s 2.5 points, so 2 lengths makes it 5 points. So let’s say that without any ground loss calc the horse was rated at an 85. With ground loss the figure would have been 90 – enough of a difference to affect some betting decisions I’d say.

Wind - Ragozin first figured out wind back in the 50’s (according to his book). It seems the Belmont sprints were run out of a long chute, which made the wind’s effect easier to measure as most of the race was in one direction. After a few hundred races you would know what the mathematical function would look like. Wind does change, but I don’t think it changes much during a race. At any rate, the observers are supposed to catch this. Obviously, any individual wind adjustment might not be entirely accurate, but it’s hardly a guess as you suggested, and it should be distinguished from the actual track variant. As far as I know, Beyer does not consider wind in his variant.

Value - If the sheet figures were published in the form, more people would be aware of them and the odds would shrink, but it would still not mean that you couldn’t get an edge through proper interpretation. Interpretation is important, and not everyone is good at it. As it stands now, if you bet the horse with the highest figure, no matter whose figures you use, you would probably still lose. If you published the sheet figures and made the Beyers private, it wouldn’t make any difference. Since the Beyers are substandard, no one would be able to get an edge with them anyway. I have no worries about this. The cost of making the sheet figures is higher than the Beyers, because of all the extra effort involved in their production. So if DRF bought figures from the sheets, the cost of each copy would at least double.

[NYPlayer]

Can you give us an example of the above??


A good example was the Travers, but a detailed explanation will have to wait until Monday. It's Friday and i'm a weekend warrier.

In a nutshell, Beyer overrated Belamy's Wood Fig, and underrated Flower Alley's most recent race. Both were similar numbers on sheets. Roman ruler had no chance on pattern. Amazingly, he was way overbet.

[speculus]

How do they adjust figures for wind? Wind is not constant in direction or speed during a race, so any wind adjustment made is a guess, which is no different than what Beyer is doing.

The effect of wind poses perhaps the most difficult problem for speed/pace handicappers, though my guess is that more than 95% of them are simply not aware of it.

Not that the 5% who may be aware can really do much about it.

Since, as you said, it would remain a mere guess, and IMO all our track variants would at best be "erroneous" or, at worst, be just "worthless" if the wind keeps on changing its direction and intensity in various parts of the track during different races on the same card.

To highlight the effect of wind, I would go to the extent of saying that, theoretically, if there was no wind, the best speed/pace handicappers in business would consistently strike the 40% mark and would always show decent profit, instead of struggling to touch the 30% mark and generally show a small long-term loss.

Wind, and its effect, I believe, have cremated more thoughts/ideas/theories of speed handicapping than any other single factor and exposed their proponents to ridicule.

[Kreed]

It's interesting Speculus that 40% seems like the Gold Standard & 30% is
very doable for mostly everyone. I assume that implies picking the winner
with ONE Pick. Anyways, I just about tossed Beyers away. I don't think AB or
his workers know the diff between 1 turn & 2 turn races. Beyers always seem
to over-rate 1-Turners --- and since I play mostly NY races, that matters.
Bris's are dreadful; Cramer's OK; CJ's (Free Figs), OK; Colt Necks' -- which
I had for a Monmouth meet didn't work for me. They seem very tilted toward
the Early Speed Leaders. SO, drum roll, I've gone over to the Sheets, which
I first abhorred a few years ago, but now, thanks to some 1-on-1 coaching,
now enjoy. BTW, Jerry Brown's figs which I have Never Used --- and I NEVER
will use --- turned me off when one Breeder's Day he Offered FIGS free &
his analyses & Figs were total LOSERS.

[fastCow]

I like what NY player wrote. In regards to the wind issue...

"Wind - Ragozin first figured out wind back in the 50’s (according to his book). It seems the Belmont sprints were run out of a long chute, which made the wind’s effect easier to measure as most of the race was in one direction. After a few hundred races you would know what the mathematical function would look like. Wind does change, but I don’t think it changes much during a race. At any rate, the observers are supposed to catch this. Obviously, any individual wind adjustment might not be entirely accurate, but it’s hardly a guess as you suggested, and it should be distinguished from the actual track variant. As far as I know, Beyer does not consider wind in his variant." -NY Player

I worked as an observer for Ragozin at Hollywood Park for awhile during the 80s. In California wind is pretty much a moot point. But he wanted an approximation, so he had me watch the direction and vertical angle of the flag flying in the infield.

A wonderful art v. science debate occured between Beyer and Ragozin during the what I believe was the first Handicapping Expo. Len was passionate in his attack on Beyer's "artistry." It was the buzz at the Expo back then.

For myself, I embrace both men's work and try to keep in mind the old engineering saying "precision without accuracy is worthless."

[Fastracehorse]

Since the variant is a reflection of the speed of the track - wind would be indirectly measured when constructing the Beyer.

fffastt

[NYPlayer]

Can you give us an example of the above??


I promised a more detailed response about the Travers, so here goes. To me the race was one of the most simple and clear examples of how The Sheets and their methodology of interpretation are superior to the Beyer’s and their inconsistent and even illogical view of a horse’s form and abilities.

According to the tote board, the Travers was a three horse race between Bellamy Road, Roman Ruler, and Flower Alley. None of the other horses could be considered as serious contenders to win. My analysis, based on Sheets, had FA as more likely to win than BR. But the real key was that FA was a toss on both ability and form (negative pattern). Here are the numbers Sheets and Beyers side by side, keeping in mind that on the Sheets, lower is better:

BR:

May___9(derby)_______90
April__-¼____________120
March__4____________96

RR:
Aug___3 ¼__________107
Jun____3 ½__________104
Mar___ 20___________56

FA:
July____1/2_________112
June____3__________103
May___12 ¾(Derby)__89
April___5 ½________95
Mar____6 ¼________93
Feb____6 ¼________88

I tossed the Derby figures from my analysis because that race was just too bizarre. It did have some relevance for Bellamy Road however, because that race was the reason for his layoff since May. Two main questions were, how would Bellamy come back off the layoff and would Flower Alley bounce? Bouncing is always a bigger risk after a horse breaks through to a new top figure and Alley had just made two tops in a row. My thinking was that the tops did not represent any dramatic move forward, ie they were fairly gradual, and the horse was lightly raced for the year with each race reasonably spaced, so I thought another good effort was a reasonable expectation.

As for BR, my experience has been that when a good horse comes off a layoff, expect a very good effort. But given his spotty race record, I would not have expected another top effort. Bellamy had run a –3/4 in the Wood, but when you compared it to Flower Alley’s most recent race (1/2), the two were very similar, so I chose Flower Alley based on current form.

Roman Ruler’s figures were not as good as either BR or FA. The toughest question here was might he improve? Looking at the Beyer’s you might say that was reasonable, but on the sheets, his pattern was completely negative. His figures as a three year old had yet to surpass his two year old sprint numbers. In fact, his first race as a three year old was about as good as a claimer, and there was a huge gap between that 20 and the pair of 3's. Obviously, the horse had some physical difficulties, so he was really a toss. He went off at 2-1 in the Travers and finished a well beaten third.

FA was a fantastic overlay at 3-1 and BR was not a bad bet at 2-1. BR finished second by 2.5 lengths. No, the bet wasn’t any easy cinch, I had to reason my way to it and know something about patterns, but it was well worthwhile.

Looking at the Beyers you had two problems. First you could not have recognized the negative pattern on RR, and BR’s 120 seemed to tower over anything any of the other contenders had done. A big key for making the play was knowing that BR and FA were more evenly matched.

As a post script, FA bounced badly in the Jockey Club, but a regression was to be expected. He earned a 0 in the Travers making it three tops in a row. There was no way he was going to repeat those efforts. I bet Sun King. 7-1 seemed pretty reasonable. Good recent form, and he had run a 4 as a two year old. He finished third. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. It’s getting value that counts.

[NYPlayer]

Believe it or not they often take wind measurement from a local airport.

Some airports are located very near ractracks. Aqueduct, for example is practically right across the street from JFK. Airport wind reports are posted hourly, and on most days the hourly reading are very similar to each other, so it's hard to imagine that dramatic changes in wind direction and speed occur during short time intervals.

[NYPlayer]

The effect of wind poses perhaps the most difficult problem for speed/pace handicappers, though my guess is that more than 95% of them are simply not aware of it.

Not that the 5% who may be aware can really do much about it.

Since, as you said, it would remain a mere guess, and IMO all our track variants would at best be "erroneous" or, at worst, be just "worthless" if the wind keeps on changing its direction and intensity in various parts of the track during different races on the same card.

To highlight the effect of wind, I would go to the extent of saying that, theoretically, if there was no wind, the best speed/pace handicappers in business would consistently strike the 40% mark and would always show decent profit, instead of struggling to touch the 30% mark and generally show a small long-term loss.

Wind, and its effect, I believe, have cremated more thoughts/ideas/theories of speed handicapping than any other single factor and exposed their proponents to ridicule.

Well, if Sheets are guessing about the wind, they're doing a damn good job. But here's an interesting study measuring wind speed effects on bicycling.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/wind.html Doesn't look like guesswork to me.

As for win %, using the sheets has kept me comfortably in the black for more than a year (400+ races), and I don't hit at 30%. Although I think with a bit more experience, and weeding out weak plays, I could get to 27%. Longshots are my most profitable plays over the long term.

[Tote Master]

NYPlayer
I promised a more detailed response about the Travers, so here goes. To me the race was one of the most simple and clear examples of how The Sheets and their methodology of interpretation are superior to the Beyer’s and their inconsistent and even illogical view of a horse’s form and abilities.

According to the tote board, the Travers was a three horse race between Bellamy Road, Roman Ruler, and Flower Alley. None of the other horses could be considered as serious contenders to win. My analysis, based on Sheets, had FA as more likely to win than BR. But the real key was that FA was a toss on both ability and form (negative pattern). Here are the numbers Sheets and Beyers side by side, keeping in mind that on the Sheets, lower is better:

BR:
May___9(derby)_______90
April__-¼____________120
March__4____________96

RR:
Aug___3 ¼__________107
Jun____3 ½__________104
Mar___ 20___________56

FA:
July____1/2_________112
June____3__________103
May___12 ¾(Derby)__89
April___5 ½________95
Mar____6 ¼________93
Feb____6 ¼________88

I tossed the Derby figures from my analysis because that race was just too bizarre. It did have some relevance for Bellamy Road however, because that race was the reason for his layoff since May. Two main questions were, how would Bellamy come back off the layoff and would Flower Alley bounce? Bouncing is always a bigger risk after a horse breaks through to a new top figure and Alley had just made two tops in a row. My thinking was that the tops did not represent any dramatic move forward, ie they were fairly gradual, and the horse was lightly raced for the year with each race reasonably spaced, so I thought another good effort was a reasonable expectation.

As for BR, my experience has been that when a good horse comes off a layoff, expect a very good effort. But given his spotty race record, I would not have expected another top effort. Bellamy had run a –3/4 in the Wood, but when you compared it to Flower Alley’s most recent race (1/2), the two were very similar, so I chose Flower Alley based on current form.

Roman Ruler’s figures were not as good as either BR or FA. The toughest question here was might he improve? Looking at the Beyer’s you might say that was reasonable, but on the sheets, his pattern was completely negative. His figures as a three year old had yet to surpass his two year old sprint numbers. In fact, his first race as a three year old was about as good as a claimer, and there was a huge gap between that 20 and the pair of 3's. Obviously, the horse had some physical difficulties, so he was really a toss. He went off at 2-1 in the Travers and finished a well beaten third.

FA was a fantastic overlay at 3-1 and BR was not a bad bet at 2-1. BR finished second by 2.5 lengths. No, the bet wasn’t any easy cinch, I had to reason my way to it and know something about patterns, but it was well worthwhile.

Looking at the Beyers you had two problems. First you could not have recognized the negative pattern on RR, and BR’s 120 seemed to tower over anything any of the other contenders had done. A big key for making the play was knowing that BR and FA were more evenly matched.

As a post script, FA bounced badly in the Jockey Club, but a regression was to be expected. He earned a 0 in the Travers making it three tops in a row. There was no way he was going to repeat those efforts. I bet Sun King. 7-1 seemed pretty reasonable. Good recent form, and he had run a 4 as a two year old. He finished third. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. It’s getting value that counts. A very nice analysis by the way! I know it’s always a bit easier to do after the race is over. If what you say and many others claim to be true by stating: “It’s getting value that counts.” (Which I totally agree with!). Then why waste your time on explaining (or even handicapping) such a simple (No Value) race like the Travers. Why not show the numbers for the race that followed. (Race #12). Now that might be a bit more interesting!

Since everyone is still talking about all these numbers and trying to show how fantastic they are (after the fact) I will also show you the numbers for the tote board analysis for both Race #11 (the Travers), and Race #12. To view, use the following link and hit the expansion button for better clarity:
http://www.tote-works.com/PublicImages/Saratoga_R11-12_8-27-05.jpg

The difference is that my numbers are documented and simply represent the entries that are being played in earnest (smart money) at various time intervals during each betting cycle. The last interval is usually about 6 mins. to post. I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone viewing these tables for the first time to understand the various betting patterns involved, or the significance of the Par location, or the odds continually dropping on the #1 entry. Realistically though, how difficult would it be to structure a bet (like a Triple or a Super for instance) around the (5) entries highlighted in Race #12? A race where any decent player could recognize that there's certainly a lot more value then a race like the Travers.

As I’ve mentioned before, we all know that the majority of players use every handicapping technique under the sun to arrive at some conclusion about the race they want to play. They do this of course by dissecting the PP’s of each animal and then trying to anticipate how the race will be run. This is all well and good, if the condition of each animal is a known fact, and we believe that each entry in the race is out to win. Granted, in most Stakes races we can at least assume the latter. However, I have yet to find ANY handicapping guru that can unequivocally certify (prior to a race) both the condition or the intention of any animal entered in the majority (95%) of all races run, by just analyzing the PP’s.

Lots of Luck!

[twindouble]

"As I’ve mentioned before, we all know that the majority of players use every handicapping technique under the sun to arrive at some conclusion about the race they want to play. They do this of course by dissecting the PP’s of each animal and then trying to anticipate how the race will be run. This is all well and good, if the condition of each animal is a known fact, and we believe that each entry in the race is out to win. Granted, in most Stakes races we can at least assume the latter. However, I have yet to find ANY handicapping guru that can unequivocally certify (prior to a race) both the condition or the intention of any animal entered in the majority (95%) of all races run, by just analyzing the PP’s."

Tote Master; I agree with above, by the same token neither can anyone that produces numbers of any kind. Common sense would tell anyone just getting into the game or experienced handicapper that nothing in horse racing comes "uneqivocally certified."

I feel like I'm back in the 50's when it comes to these new handicapping methods. I liked jazz and blues back then, then rock n' roll came about, had to adapt because popular music was what all the girls were into. This isn't about girls, it's about making money. Although they will latch onto a winner, so here I am 45 years later listing to what I concider the foundation of all popular music today, same goes for handicapping. At my age, I'm not about to attract any woman or want to. I guess old soldiers can just fade away, lot of truth to that. I'm not about to buck the trends in handicapping today, I'll just wait and see how it all falls out, if I live long enough. Anyway, here's to Muddy Waters, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Hawkins, and Thelonious Munk. Also to the future stars of handicapping who ever they may be, I'm sure their name will be attached to that winning program.


Good luck,

T.D.

[DJofSD]

...here's to...Hawkins...

Which one: Coleman or Screamin' Jay?

DJofSD

P.S. I didn't know your board handle meant you'd post each message twice! :D

[twindouble]

...here's to...Hawkins...

Which one: Coleman or Screamin' Jay?

DJofSD

P.S. I didn't know your board handle meant you'd post each message twice! :D

Coleman, but Screamin Jay is fine with me and one of my fav, Miles Davis. Many more of course. Had trouble posting, ( had to reset, page couldn't be displayed.) Maybe PA can delete one.

[Tote Master]

twindouble
I agree with above, by the same token neither can anyone that produces numbers of any kind. Common sense would tell anyone just getting into the game or experienced handicapper that nothing in horse racing comes "unequivocally certified." Well, I can agree with you to a point, but I was only referring to what I believe to be the (2) most critical aspects of any pre-race analysis: The animal’s Condition and the Intentions to win. The calculated numbers derived from the PP’s are simply an attempt to measure what an animal has previously accomplished (within the conditions or circumstances of prior races, as well as the competition its faced). As many can see from this thread alone, just evaluating the weight (or importance) of these numbers within the normal realm of handicapping is an exercise in itself. So what if these numbers and all those using them were always accurate? Well, I guess then everyone would be playing the same entries and everyone would be winning! Common sense also tells us that this just ain’t so! Why is that?

Well, IMO it’s because these numbers are simply one-dimensional. Those using them make a lot of presumptions. They apparently invoke much more then they're meant to when attempting to predict the outcome of a future event. Without an indication of an animal’s present condition or knowledge of the intentions of the connections, I believe the numbers simply offer a basic reference point. There are so many assumptions that can be drawn, and as a result each scenario provides a different outcome. Maybe that’s why this game has always been and always will be so opinionated.

So, I believe it comes down to whose opinion you’re going value most? Some public handicapper who has no accountability or a guy on a forum who talks a good game, but yet complains about the takeout, or about an on-line betting surcharge, or that he’s not getting enough comps. Give me a break! These are your typical low-end bettors, who are looking to squeeze out a meager existence in this game. Granted they might like the challenge and they're occasional big hit, but do you think for a minute that they’d be complaining if they were really winning and enjoying this game? I’ll base my numbers and my final selections on those who have a lot more at stake. They also have more direct insight into this game then many could ever imagine or give them credit for. They don’t just spew out verbal opinions or make insignificant wagers. They put their money where their mouths are, and as far as I’m concerned that’s good enough for me!

Best of Luck!

[twindouble]

"Well, I can agree with you to a point, but I was only referring to what I believe to be the (2) most critical aspects of any pre-race analysis: The animal’s Condition and the Intentions to win. The calculated numbers derived from the PP’s are simply an attempt to measure what an animal has previously accomplished (within the conditions or circumstances of prior races, as well as the competition its faced). As many can see from this thread alone, just evaluating the weight (or importance) of these numbers within the normal realm of handicapping is an exercise in itself. So what if these numbers and all those using them were always accurate? Well, I guess then everyone would be playing the same entries and everyone would be winning! Common sense also tells us that this just ain’t so! Why is that?

Well, IMO it’s because these numbers are simply one-dimensional. Those using them make a lot of presumptions. They apparently invoke much more then they're meant to when attempting to predict the outcome of a future event. Without an indication of an animal’s present condition or knowledge of the intentions of the connections, I believe the numbers simply offer a basic reference point. There are so many assumptions that can be drawn, and as a result each scenario provides a different outcome. Maybe that’s why this game has always been and always will be so opinionated."

Tote Master;

I wouldn't go as far as to say, "two most cridical," more inportant than many other factors yes. All else I agree with. The point I'll make isn't just being picky, just interesting when it comes to available information and the need to know. The expression, "on the in," is used in horse racing as well as the stock market. From my observation and experience they are two different worlds when it comes reliable information. Many good handicapper gambler's at some point will to want test the waters on the two points you mention, they think it's the answer to them finally breaking through to huge profits. Some I've known went to the extreme to hob nob with owners and trainers with that in mind, only to find out those sure things were few and far between and lost sight of what got them in the black to begin with. I came to the conclusion many years ago to much information from the barns is a serious pit fall playing the horses. We have to put limits on information to be successfull and not forget the basics.

As I've stated in other posts, I'm no longer have the drive to play the horses to the extent I did in the past but I still put my money where my mouth is with enough success to stay in the game and enjoy it along with talking horses here.

Good luck,

T.D.

[Tote Master]

twindouble
I came to the conclusion many years ago too much information from the barns is a serious pit fall playing the horses. We have to put limits on information to be successful and not forget the basics. I agree with your assessment 100%, but my “basics” are just a bit different then the majority of players. The basic common denominator for every aspect of this game as I see it is MONEY. ( I don’t know about anyone else, but I hate rewriting things, so I’ll just refer to some comments that were recently posted on another thread about the very same topic).
Originally Posted by Tote Master
By the way, I should clarify one thing and mention that both Tom Ainsle and Joe Takach are two authors that have provided some insight into the tote board activities.
Reply by Overlay
I'd like to be able to quote Ainslie verbatim (so I could be totally accurate), but I distinctly recall verbiage from either The Compleat Horseplayer or Ainslie's Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing to the effect that any race will contain multiple entries whose connections truly believe that "today could be the day", and that the way to slice through this confusion, and reliably separate contenders from non-contenders, is to handicap based on the fundamental principles such as distance, class, and form that Ainslie always espoused. One quote of his that I do remember exactly was, "Inside information is for the sparrows."
Repsponse by 46zilzal
EXACTLY after standing around the saddling enclosure one would think both Bid and Secretariat were in the contests listening to the connections.
My response:
"Inside information is for the sparrows." Truer words could not have been spoken, but unfortunately (as espoused here) not many traditional handicappers understand their “true” meaning! As an example, just look at the very next comment (by 46zilzal)

As far as I’m concerned, the “Word’s” of an insider hold very little water. But again I’m not searching for “Words” (as I assume other’s might be when trying to find answers among all those books and PP’s).

Perhaps you’ve also heard the expression, “Actions speak louder then Words”! For those that don’t get it, it simply means that the “action of betting” is far more meaningful then the “touting of an animal”. (I hope that doesn't require an explanation!) So I'll just add some more insight to Mr. Ainsile’s expression by saying “Inside information is for the sparrows, but Inside money is for the hawks”. And you can quote me on that too! IMO I believe this valid only because those betting substantial amounts are NOT doing it frivolously. I have to assume that they value thier money, and I believe their intent is to win other people's money. Empirically, I believe its valid because I've analyzed the betting before thousands of races and I've seen the results afterward.

Good luck to you also!

[twindouble]

"IMO I believe this valid only because those betting substantial amounts are NOT doing it frivolously. I have to assume that they value thier money, and I believe their intent is to win other people's money. Empirically, I believe its valid because I've analyzed the betting before thousands of races and I've seen the results afterward."

Tote Master; I still don't understand exacty what your doing. So a few questions would be in order.

When it comes to so-called smart money, don't you think that money can be bet in large pools and hardy be noticed on the tote with the exception the connections are dressed for a picture?

At the smaller tracks where the tote can be moved with modest sums, how do you know it's smart money?

When you check the possible payoffs in the DD, pick 3's and 4's and there's 4 horses within $18 of each other, where's the smart money?

When it comes to late money bet on two or more horses that went from 4-1 to 2-1 and 10-1 to 5-1 and 15-1 to 9-1, where's the smart money?

When an owner or trainer spreads his wager around through different books and also wagers much less at the track or online to maintain value, how do you find that smart money?

When the books lay off money at the track and effect the odds. Do you concider that smart money?

When a horses will pay less than $3.00 to win, when and how do you determin it's smart money, ESP when there's a 3 or 4 different connections that have horses in the race that look and act like they will have their picture taken? Online players can't see the the wardrobes.

I realize this is just one aspect of your overall handicapping and wagering strategy, just want to be clear about what your saying when it comes to smart money.

Thanks,

T.D.

[Tote Master]

Thanks for the interesting questions.
Many of them are answered in an FAQ section of my site. Based on my e-mail, I’m sure that there are others on this forum that would also like similar questions answered. But, for a number of obvious reasons (that I’ve mentioned before) I won’t go into any kind of discussion about my tote analysis on this forum. Apparently there's too great a void between those that follow the movement of the horse versus those like myself who follow the movement of money.
There’s old saying you might have heard (that I used to completely ignore) that goes, “Its Money that Makes the Mare Run”. I’ve since discovered that there’s a lot more truth to that expression then many other aspects of this game.

In response to your questions I’ve sent you a PM.

Best of Luck!

[kev]

It's so silly to say ( if you make your own figs ) to discount something unless you have test it yourself. I think it's funny to say about ground loss, well maybe sometimes it counts.....NO it counts all the time. The horse is covering more ground, ok some might say well the rail was deal or no room for the horse to go....that's fine( take your notes on this ) but the horse still covered more ground than the horses on the inside. Here:

"Rubin Boxer's "Engineering Analysis Of Thoroughbred Racing" explains in detail how to compute the extra distance traveled by horses running outside the rail position. To compute the extra distance a horse runs from the outside post:

Multiply the distance, in feet, to the turn from the starting gate by itself.
Multiply the distance, in feet, from the outside post to the rail by itself.
Add the two together and take the square root of the result.

Example:

4f. to the turn = 2640' x 2640 = 6969600
75' to the rail = 75' x 75 = 5625
6969600 + 5625 = 6975225
SqRt of 6975225 = 2641.07'

Position from the rail around a turn

1 = .94 lengths
2 = 1.88 lengths
3 = 2.83 lengths
4 = 3.77 lengths
5 = 4.71 lengths"

[cj]

Like I've said before, ground loss is probably overestimated, though it certainly is a factor. To some extent, horses running wider don't lose as much momentum as they doing running on the rail. It is not a pure distance traveled equation. And, it would vary according to the banking of the track, as most tracks are banked.

Second, ground loss on the first turn is not equal to ground lost on the 2nd turn in most cases. Losing ground is more damaging when a horse is running faster, as they usually are on the first turn of a route.

[Tom]

How do you use this information?

If I have a horse with a note 3 wide....do I increase his final figure by about 3 lengths?

What about adjusting a pace figure?

Wonder why they don't stagger the gate like they do in Olympic races?

Interesting stuff.

[twindouble]

How do you use this information?

If I have a horse with a note 3 wide....do I increase his final figure by about 3 lengths?

What about adjusting a pace figure?

Wonder why they don't stagger the gate like they do in Olympic races?

Interesting stuff.

I don't know for sure on the gate but horses have to come out of the gate in straight line, I would think it that would create a dangerous condition, coming out at an angle would crowd the the paths.

[ezpace]

I though the sheets we're reading CJ's performance numberz like a Chinaman from right to left looking for form cycles.... Ground loss ??...what the F......k .. however your doing ground loss CJ after this weekend at Keenland and ALL THE PAST DAYS since being made.....DON"T CHANGE A THING or else LOL LOL ... shaking my .head..what dee f_ _k , are these guyz mumbling bout...I thought Ragozin was a paceless 24/7 wine taster in the BronKs...and graphs we're sumptin with lots of PACE/MOMENTUM I use figuring out futures markets.. GEESH.. musta ..and whose Beyer? asprin?

[kev]

You all can keep running it, but Thorograph has been in biz from 1981 and Ragozin has been up and running for over 40 or 50 years......anybody else been around that long making and selling figs?? Are you going to be around that long son?? Oh what about the winner of the NTRA capping contest last year......let's see oh yes a Thorograph user along with many others that were in there with them. See it goes beyond just the fig's, you still have to have skill in reading form pattern's to make it all come together when dealing with sheet reading. Any Joe can say oh I make fig's and make them, but then what.........you have to put them in use some how.

[NYPlayer]

I though the sheets we're reading CJ's performance numberz like a Chinaman from right to left looking for form cycles.... Ground loss ??...what the F......k .. however your doing ground loss CJ after this weekend at Keenland and ALL THE PAST DAYS since being made.....DON"T CHANGE A THING or else LOL LOL ... shaking my .head..what dee f_ _k , are these guyz mumbling bout...I thought Ragozin was a paceless 24/7 wine taster in the BronKs...and graphs we're sumptin with lots of PACE/MOMENTUM I use figuring out futures markets.. GEESH.. musta ..and whose Beyer? asprin?

Great post! I just picked myself off the floor where I wound up after laughing so hard. Thought I might have to go to the ER.

If I were you, I'd stick with futures.

I knew a very, very good pace handicapper once. He'd tell me that such and such a horse was the fastest horse - to the half mile. Damn it! He was right so often! He'd be a millionaire if they only carded 4 furlong races.

E1 to the quarter, S4 at the half, dead last at the finish. Where is Cramer these days? Still hanging with Dick Mitchell?

[ezpace]

Apparently thee guy you refer to knew which of the fractions we're the pace call an that's about it. Was he from Queens that would explain much OOPS!!.

[cj]

You all can keep running it, but Thorograph has been in biz from 1981 and Ragozin has been up and running for over 40 or 50 years......anybody else been around that long making and selling figs?? Are you going to be around that long son?? Oh what about the winner of the NTRA capping contest last year......let's see oh yes a Thorograph user along with many others that were in there with them. See it goes beyond just the fig's, you still have to have skill in reading form pattern's to make it all come together when dealing with sheet reading. Any Joe can say oh I make fig's and make them, but then what.........you have to put them in use some how.

First, I am not your son, of that I'm sure.

I've never, ever said they weren't good numbers. You seem to get riled up when someone questions TG or The Sheets. Newsflash, they aren't perfect, as none are. Hell, even those two come up with vastly different numbers ALL THE TIME!

You tell us how ground is a must, and why. I dipsuted those notions and gave concrete reasons why. Instead of a good discussion, you come back with your childish rant.

By the way, think you may have overanalyzed the Spinster a bit? (I'm assuming you are the same Kev from the TG board, if not, my bad.) Here's a clue: If the top figure horse is 7-1, bet!

[kev]

First off I already place my bet down before it hit me what odds the horse was. I don't have to tell you why ground loss is major you do the math......your the one coming up with this BS about is more important in the first turn.......how's that....I guess you've ran some kind of test on this before uh?? Also my running it was not all toward you anyway's. I guess I should stop now, because it doesnt matter everyone has there own ways, you say pace,they say ground loss. Oh well. Let's not talk about each other capping skills. I've post many,many winners on Rag's board and not too much late, but in the past on TG boards. If you want to go there on just one race, which I did say the winner had a shot, but my dumb ass was locked in on the 4th place runner.

[the little guy]

Another blind sheet disciple I see. Did you know there is a class action suit representing horseplayers such as yourself who have been brainwashed into buying that " all ground loss is the same " BS?

I hope when you analyze races you don't make general assumptions of the same ilk.

[v_d_g]

Well, I can agree with you to a point, but I was only referring to what I believe to be the (2) most critical aspects of any pre-race analysis: The animal’s Condition and the Intentions to win.

So I take that you're out at the track every day watching them in the paddock and as they warm up. And that you keep 'condition' notes?

Probably not.

[v_d_g]

Like I've said before, ground loss is probably overestimated, though it certainly is a factor. To some extent, horses running wider don't lose as much momentum as they doing running on the rail. It is not a pure distance traveled equation. And, it would vary according to the banking of the track, as most tracks are banked.

Second, ground loss on the first turn is not equal to ground lost on the 2nd turn in most cases. Losing ground is more damaging when a horse is running faster, as they usually are on the first turn of a route.

Not sure I agree. How many wide trips win on the turf at Saratoga? (e.g.)

Ground loss is ground loss; doesn't matter where, in a general sense.

As a cyclist who races, I know that ground loss early, when I'm strong, is not as taxing as ground loss late, when I'm fatigued.

More important than ground loss, in my opinion, is the position a horse is in when the 'real running' takes place (if it ever does). Can/should a horse run well given his position in the race.

[kev]

As long as their number's keeping looking good to me, guess I'm down with them. I've tryed many, many capping tools over the years and I have come up with that sheet reading is best for me. Like I said before someone doesn't stay in biz. for over 20 years cause they have F-ed up number's and yes CJ all their number's isnt right, no ones is. They might not think pace is a big deal, but they do label for very slow paces in turf and very fast paces for dirt races to let you know. CJ, Sorry if I sounded a little rude early. If you think ground loss is big into the first turn, do you put that into your number's or let it be known?? They also make note of dead rail's, so the rail isn't always the best place to be, but the horse on the outside of him did cover more ground.

[cj]

Not sure I agree. How many wide trips win on the turf at Saratoga? (e.g.)

Ground loss is ground loss; doesn't matter where, in a general sense.

As a cyclist who races, I know that ground loss early, when I'm strong, is not as taxing as ground loss late, when I'm fatigued.

More important than ground loss, in my opinion, is the position a horse is in when the 'real running' takes place (if it ever does). Can/should a horse run well given his position in the race.

I agree, this is why I said earlier in most *dirt* races because on turf they run just as fast late most times as early, if not faster.

A horse only has so much energy. If he is expending more early than late, which on dirt is almost always the case, being wide he is expending even more energy early. Horses on the dirt that make a wide move on the second turn flatten out many times for sure, but horses that make a wide move on the first turn are usually buried way back in the field at the end.

[cj]

No problem Kev, it is all good. I've never said the numbers weren't good, just that I don't agree with everything, that is all.

I don't put ground loss in my numbers just to be clear. I just use the numbers and my judgement of the trip and current form, probably much like you do with your numbers, while keeping in mind the limitations they have when making decisions.

As long as their number's keeping looking good to me, guess I'm down with them. I've tryed many, many capping tools over the years and I have come up with that sheet reading is best for me. Like I said before someone doesn't stay in biz. for over 20 years cause they have F-ed up number's and yes CJ all their number's isnt right, no ones is. They might not think pace is a big deal, but they do label for very slow paces in turf and very fast paces for dirt races to let you know. CJ, Sorry if I sounded a little rude early. If you think ground loss is big into the first turn, do you put that into your number's or let it be known?? They also make note of dead rail's, so the rail isn't always the best place to be, but the horse on the outside of him did cover more ground.

[Suff]

Beyer has a Free column on DRF if anyone enjoys his read. Columnist's are usually for Past Performance subscribers only.

Subject is Maryland racing. Specifically the rebirth of Laurel.

[DJofSD]

It might be free but you still need to be a subscriber to the DRF online edition to read it.

No thanks.

DJofSD

P.S. Did any one else catch Bobby Frankel's comments about the DRF screwing up the PP's for his horse? The published PP's were suppose to have shown Australian races where the horse was on or very near the lead in all its races. Frankel's comments were "the Racing Form got it wrong." Apparently to horse comes from off the lead.

[Suff]

It might be free but you still need to be a subscriber to the DRF online edition to read it.

No thanks.

.

Damn diggity damn... answer the 4 questions and get a users name and password!

I have an old set I'd share with you but I'd need to see your Costco card before I did!

:lol: :lol:

[the little guy]

It might be free but you still need to be a subscriber to the DRF online edition to read it.

No thanks.

DJofSD

P.S. Did any one else catch Bobby Frankel's comments about the DRF screwing up the PP's for his horse? The published PP's were suppose to have shown Australian races where the horse was on or very near the lead in all its races. Frankel's comments were "the Racing Form got it wrong." Apparently to horse comes from off the lead." The Racing Form got it wrong " is different than saying DRF screwed up the pps. I realize it's a subtle, but important, difference, and this is the internet, where accountability is at a minimum.

Perhaps you are suggesting that Equibase/DRF should have ALL films from EVERY foreign racetrack, so that EVERY horse that comes from outside the US and Canada can have his races reviewed so that the pps/comments from foreign sources can be checked for accuracy. What exactly would you put those man hours at?

Having just come from Europe, and seen first hand the paucity of past performance data available over there, I have a much better idea of how good we have it here. And, seeing the information they give, makes it seem much more easy to know who " screwed up " those pps.

[DJofSD]

" The Racing Form got it wrong " is different than saying DRF screwed up the pps. I realize it's a subtle, but important, difference, and this is the internet, where accountability is at a minimum.

Perhaps you are suggesting that Equibase/DRF should have ALL films from EVERY foreign racetrack, so that EVERY horse that comes from outside the US and Canada can have his races reviewed so that the pps/comments from foreign sources can be checked for accuracy. What exactly would you put those man hours at?

Having just come from Europe, and seen first hand the paucity of past performance data available over there, I have a much better idea of how good we have it here. And, seeing the information they give, makes it seem much more easy to know who " screwed up " those pps.

I just repeated what I saw and listened to from the ESPN broadcast. I make no claims as to whether Frankel was right or wrong or misrepresenting the facts. I did not buy the DRF nor did I download any PPs for that race, so, I can not make any observations one way of the other.

I asked for some validation of what was claimed by Frankel not me.

I ain't suggesting anything. You can take your smug attitude to Frankel. I just asked the question.

DJofSD

[speculus]

Losing ground is more damaging when a horse is running faster,...

I think the reverse is true.

Almost without exception, I have noticed that faster the race is run, less the damage caused by loss of ground at the turn, and slower the race is run, more the damage caused.

Stated in other words, classier horses suffer less on account of ground loss at the turn (due to higher average speed of the race) than ordinary horses.

From betting point of view this fact can be sometimes used to make a killing. If a higher class horse negotiates the turn wide and wins, it may not necessarily be a great idea to follow it next time. But if the same feat is achieved by a lower class animal (or in a slow run race), such horse generally holds its own even against slightly better company next time.

[the little guy]

You altered Bobby Frankel's comments, for whatever reasons, and that was my problem with your post. If that is smug then so be it.

[DJofSD]

That could very well be true.

I still have the broadcast on my TiVo. I review it later today and try to quote the statements.

DJofSD

[First_Place]

Long live Beyer speed figures! As well as the rest of the magical, mystical (and subjective) numbers available from other vendors!

As long as the majority of 'players' (not parimutuel investors--like yours truly) continue to use them as the primary or sole basis of their betting decisions, I'm guaranteed to be able to earn (that's right, I work very hard at my craft) a very decent living via my thoroughbred investments.

Don't get me wrong, I don't ignore speed figs at all. They're just one factor to be considered--along with many others--whilst analysing a race yet to be run. For the umpteenth time: NO ONE HANDICAPPING FACTOR STANDS ALONE.

Also, I can't let this pass without commenting on it. I've seen Einstein's name mentioned more than a few times in this thread. Makes me want to vomit everytime I hear this shyster's name. Do yourself a favor and use the 'net to educate yourself rather than waste time downloading porn, participating in moot discussions regarding speed figs, and etc.. Do some research regarding this so-called superbrain. You'll be surprised what you'll find out about this phoney. Here's but a small taste of reality:

ALBERT EINSTEIN
Plagiarist of the Century

"As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik."

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Regards,

FP

[PaceAdvantage]

As long as the majority of 'players' (not parimutuel investors--like yours truly) continue to use them as the primary or sole basis of their betting decisions, I'm guaranteed to be able to earn (that's right, I work very hard at my craft) a very decent living via my thoroughbred investments.

Ummm....I don't mean to burst your bubble or anything like that, but how do you know that the majority of 'players' use speed figures as the primary or sole basis of their betting decisions?

[the little guy]

Ummm....I don't mean to burst your bubble or anything like that, but how do you know that the majority of 'players' use speed figures as the primary or sole basis of their betting decisions?

Steve told him?

[alysheba88]

The trap people fall into is misinterpreting what they actually mean. Speed figures tell you how fast a horse ran in the past. Thats it. Nothing more complicated. Where people get confused is thinking they are magical predictors of the future. And when a horse wins who didnt "figure" something is wrong with the figure. They tell you how fast a horse ran in the past, based on a set of circumstances that isnt likely to repeat. They do not tell you how fast the horse will run today based on a different set of circumstances. They are a useful tool, but again mostly misunderstood by those who use them or those who disparage them.

[46zilzal]

"As long as the majority of 'players' (not parimutuel investors--like yours truly) continue to use them as the primary or sole basis of their betting decisions, I'm guaranteed to be able to earn (that's right, I work very hard at my craft) a very decent living via my thoroughbred investments."

Me too..used them for about a week back in the early 80's and really found them wanting. Last time I even looked at them

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=v_d_g]
As a cyclist who races, I know that ground loss early, when I'm strong, is not as taxing as ground loss late, when I'm fatigued.
/QUOTE]
Huey Mahl all over again

[toetoe]

I agree, Zilzal. However, to the extent that wind is measurable in figures, it works in the opposite way. Wind hangs up the sprint speedball more at the beginning than the end. Crosswinds and two-turn-race winds, I have no clue about.

[DJofSD]

Is SteveR pack?

[JulieKrone]

Y'all can't seem to be able to have a meaningful discussion without quite a few Yahooligans losing their manners. What happens at your reunions? Do some of you stare at the ground and avert each others' eyes? Or do you bitch-slap each other?

I never fell for Beyer's figs(as with very little that the public goes gaga for) for quite a few resons; chief among them that he did not believe in pace(yes, I know he's since come around on that). Fast / slow pace puts final figs and variants into proper context. (From the point of view of the HTR thesis: slowing down one length early enables two length-faster late pace, as well the vice-versa) So say the gate placement for a particular distance was altered(for whatever the reason), causing a very fast or slow first part of a race. Now your 2/3 races for a particular distance are extra slow or fast without the variant having changed(or even having drifted in the opposite direction). While this mistaken dogma was swirling around Beyer's head years ago, Hopkins authored an article on how he gave two horses with identical final times from the same day(though different races) different figs, because one of them had run faster internal fractions.

How could one blindly trust people like these ever again? Mistaken dogmas, lying figs, who was in charge: did the left hand know what the right hand was doing? Did the left even care after so many Jack Daniels?

[PaceAdvantage]

I never fell for Beyer's figs(as with very little that the public goes gaga for) for quite a few resons; chief among them that he did not believe in pace(yes, I know he's since come around on that).

Who cares whether or not he believes in pace? They're Beyer SPEED figures. One can use SPEED figures and/or PACE figures in a mutually exclusive manner, or together. Doesn't make them anymore or less effective just because one includes or excludes the concepts of the other.

The power of a speed figure lies in the hand of the beholder. Plain and simple.

And who's asking you to blindly trust anyone? Why would you blindly trust any figure? ALL speed figures have a degree of uncertainty built into them as long as human beings have a hand in creating them.

It's wrong of you to classify them as "lying" or to characterize Beyer and his associates as being unorganized and out of control. You tend to sound like a "Yahooligan" when you succumb to this kind of mentality.

[JulieKrone]

Who cares whether or not he believes in pace? They're Beyer SPEED figures. One can use SPEED figures and/or PACE figures in a mutually exclusive manner, or together. Doesn't make them anymore or less effective just because one includes or excludes the concepts of the other.

The power of a speed figure lies in the hand of the beholder. Plain and simple.

And who's asking you to blindly trust anyone? Why would you blindly trust any figure? ALL speed figures have a degree of uncertainty built into them as long as human beings have a hand in creating them.

It's wrong of you to classify them as "lying" or to characterize Beyer and his associates as being unorganized and out of control. You tend to sound like a "Yahooligan" when you succumb to this kind of mentality.

And what kind of mentality have I succumbed to? I only stated facts as admitted in both newspaper and book print by the parties in question.
And why is it wrong to have an opinion? Especially when expressed in a civil manner too.
A final figure can be enhanced or the converse by an exaggerated pace, and whether pressured or the opposite. All that needs to be taken into account in determining how slow or fast the track was that day, and can begin to determine the validity of a particular projected figure-- which was the initial theme of this thread?

If you give a 1:42 Turf race a 104 Beyer, and the next turf race 56 minutes later in 1:42 a 106-- while admitting that the horses in question ran the exact same time and no conditions changed-- but that you did this because you wanted to award brownie points for a slightly faster internal pace-- and worse, all this while your boss has stated that pace doesn't affect final time!

You draw your on conclusions then. What's a reader to think of all that? Which one's the lying fig-- the 104 or the 106, or were both true?!!?

I have nothing against Beyer. I enjoyed his books from the 70's; and feel his present commentary, though it should be more prolific, is very beneficial to the industry. But I think I'll get my figs from another organization, thank you very much. I don't want to drink that Kool-Aid, but everyone else is free to do whatever they wish.

[the little guy]

We already knew that Krone doesn't like Beyer.

[JulieKrone]

We already knew that Krone doesn't like Beyer.
That's incorrect
I like him, just not in the way you do.

[the little guy]

Oh, and how is it that I like him?

[rastajenk]

Which one's the lying fig-- the 104 or the 106, or were both true?!!?



They're both the same...to anquish over a couple of points is completely unnecessary.

[thoroughbred]

Art or Science isn't the question. Science uses interpretation of data. I'm a scientist, and I interpret data, every day. The discussion between Beyer & Hopkins is simply two different interpretations of the same data.

Here is an addition to what you wrote.

It is generally accepted that Science requires the following:

1. - Hypothesize a theory.
2. - Run experiments to gather data to prove or disprove the theory.
3. - If data tend to prove the theory, make a prediction, using the theory as to the outcome of a future experiment that addresses some other issue other than the ones of the previous experiments.

Additionally, another requirement is that, anyone running the same experiments will get the same results.

Anything less than this is not Science.

[DJofSD]

2. - Run experiments to gather data to prove or disprove the theory.

You can only disprove a theory.

Stating a premis and formulating a model then seeing if the results of experiments fit into what the model predicts does not mean your hypothesis has been proved.

After rigorous testing a theory might become accepted. Doesn't mean its been proven.

[thoroughbred]

You can only disprove a theory.

Stating a premis and formulating a model then seeing if the results of experiments fit into what the model predicts does not mean your hypothesis has been proved.

After rigorous testing a theory might become accepted. Doesn't mean its been proven.

DJofSD,

You ignored the third step, i.e., the making of predictions. If the predictions turn out to be true, then for all practical purposes the theory is proven. For example, when Einstein formulated the theory of relativity, he, of course, used available data. BUT THE KEY to the acceptance of the theory was it's prediction about the motion of the planet Mercury, which, up until that time could not be explained. When the experiments were done, and the data showed that relativity was predicting the phenomenon correctly, it verified the theory. Another prediction of the theory was that a clock that is moving will go slower than one that is stationary. Measurements of clocks put in satellites showed that they kept time more slowly in EXACTLY the amount predicted by the theory.

Some day, it won't be able to explain something, and the theory will be enhanced or replaced by a more encompassing one. But that is the essence of science. As I said, when these conditions are met, for all practical purposes the theory is proven.

[PaceAdvantage]

And what kind of mentality have I succumbed to? I only stated facts as admitted in both newspaper and book print by the parties in question.
And why is it wrong to have an opinion? Especially when expressed in a civil manner too.

I smell something here. Can't quite put my finger on it yet, but it smells familiar.

Why do I smell something? Because:

a) I never said it was wrong to have an opinion.
b) You stated two supposed FACTS (one seems an awful lot like an opinion to me, but I'll give you credit for two) and drew them out to be all encompassing, instead of being isolated incidents -- especially the "lying figs" and "who was in charge" comments.

I hope this civil expression of an opinion sits well with you tonight. I try my best to be civil at all times.

[FUGITIVE77]

I've been making my own projected speed figures for the last 23 years. I think that anyone who learns to make their own numbers will have a superior tool over the Beyer figures. Especially when they keep to one track, one circuit, and construct them by watching the races. I know how long it takes to make good figures. How good can the figures be when someone is doing multi-tracks from three states away solely from the charts?

[JulieKrone]

I smell something here. Can't quite put my finger on it yet, but it smells familiar.

Why do I smell something? Because:

a) I never said it was wrong to have an opinion.
b) You stated two supposed FACTS (one seems an awful lot like an opinion to me, but I'll give you credit for two) and drew them out to be all encompassing, instead of being isolated incidents -- especially the "lying figs" and "who was in charge" comments.

I hope this civil expression of an opinion sits well with you tonight. I try my best to be civil at all times.
You know, my cats actually killed a rat and disposed of it beyond my reach. For many days I have had to endure the stench; it's not possible that you can smell that too from way over there?
Rest assured I am not a troll. In fact, I did not get hysterically defensive with you. I figured: from your point of view, and in light of past events, who knows who any new poster is here and what they are up to. From a new person's point of view, had I not read many past posts, I might have felt particularly singled out. But I realize this is not a typical forum with tons of mods. Some of those places are particularly irritating: mods will spend all day quashing anything slightly veering off-topic, while ignoring all manner of threats and insults.
Here's a toast to The Sound of Philly.

[traynor]

Tote Master wrote: <IMO I believe this valid only because those betting substantial amounts are NOT doing it frivolously. I have to assume that they value thier money, and I believe their intent is to win other people's money. Empirically, I believe its valid because I've analyzed the betting before thousands of races and I've seen the results afterward.>

That seems reasonable, but may not be so. Although you may believe that someone who wagers a specific amount attaches as much significance to it as you might, it is not necessarily true. There are a healthy number of people who wager anythere from $200 to $1000 a race, make occasinal windfalls, and can afford to keep doing it. The "loss" or "gain" of a few thousand more or less is not cause for either depression or elation.

That is not to say that people who wager substantial amounts are unfeeling; it is just that the amounts involved are not considered on the same scale as others might use.

I had the good fortune to play baccarat at the same table as Lyle Stuart on several occasions. His routine bet was $2000. When he wrote a book about his experiences, he mentioned the difficulty of explaining his actions to people to whom $2000 was a significant amount of money--to Stuart, it was viewed as others might view $50 or $100. More than pocket change, but not enough to get worked up about. Most of his readers couldn't process the amounts in the same way he did.

The assumption that everyone thinks about money the same is one that can lead you seriously astray, as it has many psychologists and entrepreneurs.
Good Luck

[traynor]

Thoroughbred wrote: <You ignored the third step, i.e., the making of predictions. If the predictions turn out to be true, then for all practical purposes the theory is proven.>

Semantic glitch. Theories and hypotheses are different. The "proven false" is exactly so--if the hypothesis cannot be proven false, then no amount of "predictions turning out to be true" is proof of the theory. The accepted format is stating two hypotheses; the first, the null, which must be capable of being proven false, and the second, that blah does or does not have measurable (and "statistically significant") effect.

The one issue that most science deals with is that of peer review; if the results obtained are not replicable by others, it goes in the Junk Science file. That, along with publication in peer-reviewed journals, generally keeps the science guys on their toes, and prevents the world from going off the deep end with clever little creations like cold fusion.

Lastly, the entire idea of "proving a theory" is usually misinterpreted, and is almost impossible to apply to horse racing. A key component of science--as well as any serious research project--is control of the independent variable. Unless control of one variable can be shown to have a corresponding effect on another variable, the only thing it shows is correlation. Not always bad, and sometimes profitable, but a long, long way from serious science, or even serious research. Observations, yes--research, no.
Good Luck

[karlskorner]

The Vet lady is back. If it looks like a duck, etc. etc.

[DJofSD]

What Traynor said is spot on. Even the semantic quibble.

And I agree, there's no scientific approach being applied to horse racing.

[Tom]

The Vet lady is back. If it looks like a duck, etc. etc.

Hey Raaaaalph!
We was right! :D

[46zilzal]

When I lecture to groups on single number speed ratings I give the example of the tortise and the hare. Which had the START TO FINISH higher speed rating? The tortise of course since they BOTH started at the same time and he fiished first. But do those numbers tell you much? NO

[PaceAdvantage]

The Vet lady is back. If it looks like a duck, etc. etc.

That's not exactly where I was going...and I think you're probably wrong on that conclusion.

[Tom]

Hey Raaaaalph!
We was right! :D

Hey Raaaaalph!
We was wrong! :rolleyes:

[karlskorner]

Not yet, my friend, not yet. Don't put you finger in the dyke

[JulieKrone]

I'm real disappointed in both you guys' handicapping skills-- a duck trying to sneak back in would NOT quack-- maybe moo, or something else? Why would someone such practically unmask themselves in their last reply to the moderator(if that was the case)? That's too obvious to be so, like betting on a favorite dropping down ten levels.
BTW I heartily approved(will always) of the banning you allude to; in fact it needs to be exercised way more often imho.
And please don't even think of brooking quarel with me, as I never speak ill of anyone in any community where I post. The very worst you could pin on me is a possible dishonoring thru stated opinion of some bigwig, and does a horseplayer exist not guilty of this?

[NoDayJob]

MYTHBUSTERS!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[BMeadow]

Some general comments on speed figures, from an article I wrote for the March 2002 edition of Meadow's Racing Monthly:

Crafting speed figures is hard work. But even with a solid method of creating figures, the whole business is fraught with traps. If you are going to get into the speed-figure game (either as a maker or a user), you might want to consider:

* Projections vs. pars. Sometimes the four best $20,000 claimers on the grounds get into the same race. When the final time of their race exceeds par, figure makers who are simply using a par chart may be misled into thinking the track is faster than usual when it was simply this particular field that was fast.

* Ground loss adjustments. A horse going four wide around the turn loses valuable ground and actually outran a horse who beat him by a nose but saved all ground. But was he four wide around the whole turn, or just part? And maybe the inside horses got dirt in his face most of the way around while the wide horse was in the clear.

* Troubled trips. A horse who broke three lengths behind the field or who had his momentum stopped as he was trying to close might need to be upgraded--or not, depending on other factors.

* Perfect trips. A horse who coasted on an easy lead, or who sat behind three duelers and sailed by them as they tired, will wind up with an inflated number.

* Chart errors. While the final margins may be accurate, pace margins are notoriously inaccurate. Was that horse four lengths back at the half or six? Could make a big difference to your numbers.

* Weight adjustments. Two horses run 1:11. One is carrying 107 pounds, the other 122. Should they be awarded equal ratings?

* Biases. Some days a bias keeps a front-runner going, or propels a closer. Some days the rail is the worst place to be. How does this enter into your figure-making?

* Fliers. The clocking of a race does not begin at the gate, but starts once the first horse passes an electronic beam. But if a flier got a two-length jump on the rest of the field in the first few yards, everyone’s times will be askew.

* Timing errors. Remember the flap at Gulfstream several years back when dozens of races were found to have been mistimed? Good luck depending on the hand times at summer fairs.

* Swirling winds. A tailwind will propel a horse and a headwind will sap his energy. Strange internal clockings often result.

* Big win. Here’s a problem that figure makers constantly face: A horse wins by eight lengths, with the rest of the field bunched. Did he run spectacularly well, or was everyone else dreadful? Do you start your analysis with the 1:10.1 run by the winner, or the 1:11.4 run by the second-place finisher?

* Off tracks. Some horses will glide over a wet track while others get mired in it. Worse, some tracks get faster or slower as the day progresses. How about mid-card rains and winds? You might need to make individual variants for each race rather than a single one for the day.

* Lack of samples. What if there’s only one route all day, and the pace was weird? Do you try to relate it to your sprint number? Use it as is? Throw it out altogether?

* Turf races. About distances, rails up or down, course is soft or firm, grass has been recently cut or not, strange pace situations--it's a complete mess.

* Pace. How does it affect the final time? Do you credit a horse for closing off a fast pace, downgrade him because he passed tired horses, or neither?

Perhaps the biggest problem with speed figures is their inherent nature: They measure what a horse has done under a particular set of circumstances. How likely is he to get that same set again? Usually, not very. While he might be in the same class or even face a few familiar opponents, he (and they) may be at a different phase in their form cycle. The posts will be different, the distance might be an extra furlong, the track may be harder or softer, etc. Predicting a change is the key component in being able to outwit the crowd.

And none of the above discussion includes such questions as what was the horse doing in the race, how did he appear in the paddock before the race, where was he in his form cycle, what has happened to him since that race, etc.

[classhandicapper]

Barry,

You did an excellent job of identifying all the problems.

Another thing I see happen from time to time is the rough start where from the head on shot you can see horses ping ponging off each other. That impacts how quickly they get up to speed.

I'll add something else to the list for consideration.

What do you do when you look at multiple sets of figures and they disagree by several lengths among the major contenders?

That happens to me all the time because I often have 3-4 sources of figures. I go back to the races in question and analyze them for myself (I have experience with pace and final time figures myself), but very often it's not very clear who is right - even after the fact. Many of things you identified are subjective in their impact even when we have accurate information to work with.

I've always felt that all else being equal, a large edge in speed figures is usually conclusive, but given similar numeric ratings, you are better off looking at other factors to seperate them.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I will add 1 more by this question- which finishers are going all-out at the wire and which ones are saving energy while holding their finishing position?
___________
Should the projected finish time for the place horse in Secretaritast's Belmont run be based on 1 length= 1/5 second, or 2 seconds faster at 1/7 second (about 2:28, an average Belmont winner's time)?

[46zilzal]

I will add 1 more by this question- which finishers are going all-out at the wire and which ones are saving energy while holding their finishing position?
_
Well since NO TWO races are the same, that is an individual situation

[kenwoodallpromos]

Correct! I belive Beyer when he says you have to consider some other variables along with speed figs. Figures get your horse in the ballpark often, but each race is different because horses are only human and not machines!

[TimesTheyRAChangin]

horses are only human!

???????

Sorry P.A.,I just couldn't let that go by!

[Brian Flewwelling]

Barry that was an excellent discussion of the problems of handicapping with Speed Figures.

Speed Figures should not, an mostly don't, make adjustments for anything but the average effect of the Track on the race time. Then it is up to the handicapper to decide how the factors you mention, and more, should be applied to those PAST performances, then attempt to determine what the speed, relative to the other entrants, will be today.

So there are issues with Speed Figures, and issues with Handicapping with Speed Figures.

[rastajenk]

I think anyone who's ever made their own numbers, or anyone with a working knowledge of how they're made, has encountered the kinds of things Mr. Meadow has listed. But you know what? If they are used with confidence and generate some success, it doesn't really matter. You take it in stride, because you realize it's a good template for making your initial decisions.

Lots of other "systems" round data into averages of one kind or another, like earnings per start, or internal fractions, or stretch gain/loss, all kinds of things, but they don't receive a fraction of the microscope time that speed figures get. I guess that means speed figs are doing pretty good to have so many people constantly chipping away at them.

[Overlay]

That daunting list of all the unknowns in speed-point calculation and interpretation from Barry Meadow makes it even more impressive to me that at least some sets of figures do a good job of maintaining a consistent record of predicting actual performance (as long as you consider them in terms of bulk, long-term probabilities, as opposed to a guarantee of how any particular horse will run in a specific race).

[Overlay]

That daunting list of all the unknowns in speed-point calculation and interpretation...

Of course, I meant speed-figure calculation. (I guess I've been looking at Steve Klein's book a bit too much in the last few days!)

[boxcar]

Barry that was an excellent discussion of the problems of handicapping with Speed Figures.

Speed Figures should not, an mostly don't, make adjustments for anything but the average effect of the Track on the race time. Then it is up to the handicapper to decide how the factors you mention, and more, should be applied to those PAST performances, then attempt to determine what the speed, relative to the other entrants, will be today.

So there are issues with Speed Figures, and issues with Handicapping with Speed Figures.

Bingo!!! Speed figs, like all other pieces of data require the "fine art" of interpretation. And since speed figs should not make adustments for anything, save for the lone exception stated above, I always favored par times over projected times. I always felt that if a time needed "projecting", I'd like to be the one to do that.

This might come as a real shocker to most here, but after years and years of making my own numbers (tedious work), and then after some more years of subscribing to a service, I took the advice of a very infrequent poster on the DL several years ago who very briefly touted the quality of TM's SRs and decided to give them a spin for a few hundred races. After the trial I was hooked on them. They served my purposes for evaluationg form cycles very well (read: good predictive value!) In fact, this is why I needed to run two race files though my program. I ran the el cheapo TM files strictly for their SRs and ITS files for all other data.

It appears there are still a few decent quality things you can buy at a low price.

Boxcar