Weekend Beyers

[rastajenk]

Anybody got a personal hotline into the secret Beyer Basement where all this alchemy is conjured up? I'm particularly anxious to see Lost In the Fog's, and the Vosburgh winning number. I also wonder if Borrego's number will match the visually impressive nature of his race; if I had to guess, I'd say probably not.

[cj]

Here are the ones from the leaderboard:


Lost In The Fog 114
Rock Hard Ten 112
Funfair 109
Sensation 98
Jitterbug Ball 96

The lack of Borrego's figure would imply that he received less than 110, though DRF isn't always punctual with adding horses, so we'll see. It also means the Vosburgh is less than 111.

Maybe the figure makers are flipping coins, we'll have to check with Karl. :cool:

[DerbyTrail]

Here are the ones from the leaderboard:

Lost In The Fog 114
Rock Hard Ten 112
Funfair 109
Sensation 98
Jitterbug Ball 96

The lack of Borrego's figure would imply that he received less than 110, though DRF isn't always punctual with adding horses, so we'll see. It also means the Vosburgh is less than 111.:cool:

CJ..

It will bode VERY well for Borrego to come in under 110... 107 or so.. That would be in line with his recent runs. He's averaged 107 in his last 5, and <1 on Thoro-Graph. He has been alternating tops with minor, slight reactions to those tops, and with 27 days between races could come back and run big again in the Classic.

I'm not going to be shy about rooting for him. Have been on this train since Oaklawn last winter. Granted it "left the station" about a year and a half late, but what can you do.

Have also been totally won over by the infectious Happy Ticket. Anxious to see her fig from the Beldame. If Espo had gone to the RH whip a few strides earlier, she could have gotten to Ashado. Now that he has a ride on her, and assuming he rides back at the end of the month, I think she has a BIG shot in the Distaff.

[GMB@BP]

Here are the ones from the leaderboard:


Lost In The Fog 114
Rock Hard Ten 112
Funfair 109
Sensation 98
Jitterbug Ball 96

The lack of Borrego's figure would imply that he received less than 110, though DRF isn't always punctual with adding horses, so we'll see. It also means the Vosburgh is less than 111.

Maybe the figure makers are flipping coins, we'll have to check with Karl. :cool:

there is a pretty good figure maker on another site that said it was a 99 with lots of route races to use he said it was an easy number, of course it will be broken out by Beyer, its to low of a big race like that. Again, like saint liams number in the woodward, it should be lower then it will be, and the massive acceleration was in fact due to the patheticaly slow running of the entire field.

[keilan]

Here are the ones from the leaderboard:


Lost In The Fog 114
Rock Hard Ten 112
Funfair 109
Sensation 98
Jitterbug Ball 96

The lack of Borrego's figure would imply that he received less than 110, though DRF isn't always punctual with adding horses, so we'll see. It also means the Vosburgh is less than 111.

Maybe the figure makers are flipping coins, we'll have to check with Karl. :cool:

Rock Hard Ten was very solid and I'll be taking a long look at him BC day.

One of the qualities I've noticed about LITF is his maturity and the professional manner he exhibits in the saddling area and post-parade. He is the "total package" and I think we all look forward to Oct 29th.

[The Hawk]

there is a pretty good figure maker on another site that said it was a 99 with lots of route races to use he said it was an easy number, of course it will be broken out by Beyer, its to low of a big race like that. Again, like saint liams number in the woodward, it should be lower then it will be, and the massive acceleration was in fact due to the patheticaly slow running of the entire field.

Borrego got a 110.

[cj]

there is a pretty good figure maker on another site that said it was a 99 with lots of route races to use he said it was an easy number, of course it will be broken out by Beyer, its to low of a big race like that.

I respect your opinion, but I'd have to question the figure maker on this one. Not the figure, though it seems low at first glance, but his basis of "a lot of routes isn't true. Belmont 1 1/4 races are like 1 1/2 turns, while all others are 1 turn. The Belmont 1 1/4 races have always proven very tricky, and you almost have to go by the horses previous figures more than the clock.

On top of that, the only other "route" was Ashado's win at 9f. The final time of the two races is actually quite similar speed figure wise. The difference was the pace was on the slowish side by Ashado, while quite fast for the JCGC.

If I had to put a figure on it right now after glancing at the card and the raw figs, I'd put it in the 107 range.

[Whirlaway]

Borrego's time of 2:02.86 was the slowest for the Jockey Gold Cup since it was moved to 10 furlongs in 1990. This on a day when the track was playing average or somewhat faster than average.

Borrego's Time: 2:02.86
Average Time Last 5 runnings of JGC: 2:00.60 Average Beyer: 116

Ashado's Time in Beldame: 1:48.88
Average Time Last 5 runnings of Beldame: 1:48.97 Average Beyer: 107

In Beyer terms, Borrego ran 18 points slower than average and Ashado ran 1 point faster than average. Give Ashado a 108 and Borrego gets a 98. Give Borrego a 110 and Ashado should get a 120. Compromise in the middle and give Ashado a 114, then Borrego gets a 104.

I thought Ashado looked unimpressive and is a favorite I'd like to bet against in the BC.

[classhandicapper]

Whirlaway,

The first turn of the 10F race "could" have been slower than the rest of the track and that would explain why the Ashado/Borrego figures that don't seem to jive. I know I don't believe Ashado ran a huge race Saturday and I have a hard time believing that Borrego could be that slow "only because" that would make Suave and Sun King (and others) too pathetic to believe.

The problem with my theory is that if you think the first turn of the 10F race was slower than the rest of the track, that means that the pace was even faster than it looks.

Hey wait a minute wouldn't that explain why Lava Man and Flower Alley were extremely pathetic. Hmmmmnnnnn

[kev]

This is why I buy fig's and not make my own.............this from Jerry Brown:

"One Variant Fits All ? (59 Views)
Posted by: TGJB (IP Logged)
Date: October 3, 2005 04:56PM


9/29 Belmont:

Race 1, track fast. Rain before race 2, then sealed,then opened again, for next dirt race (3). Then sealed again and showery for race 4. Opened again after the race, and harrowed before all remaining dirt races"

[The Hawk]

Borrego's time of 2:02.86 was the slowest for the Jockey Gold Cup since it was moved to 10 furlongs in 1990. This on a day when the track was playing average or somewhat faster than average.

Borrego's Time: 2:02.86
Average Time Last 5 runnings of JGC: 2:00.60 Average Beyer: 116

Ashado's Time in Beldame: 1:48.88
Average Time Last 5 runnings of Beldame: 1:48.97 Average Beyer: 107

In Beyer terms, Borrego ran 18 points slower than average and Ashado ran 1 point faster than average. Give Ashado a 108 and Borrego gets a 98. Give Borrego a 110 and Ashado should get a 120. Compromise in the middle and give Ashado a 114, then Borrego gets a 104.

I thought Ashado looked unimpressive and is a favorite I'd like to bet against in the BC.

Ashado got a 103, so they must have found themselves a way to split the variant.

[cj]

Ashado got a 103, so they must have found themselves a way to split the variant.

Again, there is no real reason NOT to split the variant in this case. I've made Belmont figures for a long time, and 1 1/4 mile races are very unique and you have to go by the horses in the race and the pace/final time relationship as much or more than the final time.

My best estimate is Borrego a very similar race to his Pacific Classic win.

[rastajenk]

That was my initial reaction, but it sure doesn't say much for the rest of the field. That would give Suave about a 103, which seems reasonable, and Sun King a 95 or so, which was where he was back in the spring....but the rest get garbage. Not that they deserve anything better, but mass regressions are usually intriguing, in a train-wreck sort of way.

[TOOZ]

Just a curious question, how do you figure guys apply the fact that Gomez knew the race was over and just slowed down Borrego, with a considerable amount of distance to go? Do you adjust the time? I would be very leary of any figure that horse received.

[cj]

While Gomez obviously didn't ask him for his best, I doubt that he slowed him down at all. I don't adjust for that at all, as many times those horses already had an ideal trip and probably aren't going to run any faster overall in the future.

I know one thing for sure, I'm not betting a deep closer at short odds in the BC Classic or any other race for that matter, Borrego included.

[Kreed]

WHY don't the pace-speed gurus publish their Variants? No doubt, the
variants are key. Also, why don't more geeks present HOW they use their
variants? HOW do you adjust the pace calls/final times with the Variant?
Only a few outline this stuff. What you do with what you got matters.

[classhandicapper]

Splitting the variant between 1 and 2 turn races makes perfect sense to me, but I think it's worth thinking about this a little more.

Assuming there's some sort of typical relationship between the 1 turn and 2 turn races on a uniform racetrack, when you split the variant it means the relationship didn't hold. There are several possible reasons for that. Wind is one. Another is that the speed of the track is not uniform...meaning that the first turn in this case (which is the only major difference between 1 turn and 2 turn races) is either faster or slower than the rest of the track. That would not be shocking because so few races a run around two turns at Belmont and the maintenace may not be 100% consistent.

But let's take that further.

If the track speed is not consistent and the first turn was slower than the rest of the track (as suggested), then the slower part of the track had a bigger impact on the early fractions than is typical also because that's where there were run. So what I am suggesting is that "maybe" that pace was even faster than it looked.

I can tell you for 100% certain that when I used to make pace figures for NY every day for every call, it was totally obvious to me that some parts of the track were faster than others (non wind or gate position related) and it became necessary to make seperate variants for MULTIPLE pace calls.

[Figman]

One often overlooked factor is that in New York the track is not groomed exactly the same after each race. These subtle grooming changes cause frequent variant changes as well. Combined with changing winds, split variants are often not only necessary but required.

[classhandicapper]

figman,

I agree completely. That's why I like to stress that even the best figure makers in the world can disagaree or make an occasional error in judgement. I think it's a mistake to take these figures too literally. They are "estimates" of reality.

No one can quantify the impact of pace, wind, track maintenace, moisture change, gate position, rail position (turf) etc.. on the speed of the track, speed of the race, or relationship between various distances exactly.

IMO, it's like I always say.

Between horses that look similar on quality, a big advantage in pace/speed figures is significant.

Between horses that look similar on pace/speed, a big advantage in quality is significant.

When you get conflicting information, you have a problem. ;)

[garyoz]

figman,

I agree completely. That's why I like to stress that even the best figure makers in the world can disagaree or make an occasional error in judgement. I think it's a mistake to take these figures too literally. They are "estimates" of reality....(snip)....a big advantage in quality is significant. .

Of course, "quality" is easy to measure.

[Valuist]

CH-

Some of those factors CAN be quantified. Obviously pace figures show how pace can be quantified. I know of one handicapper who quantifies bias into his figures. Its not easy but it can be done (despite what some high profile figure makers say).

[Bruddah]

But, how do you take positions against possible BC entrants, so early. I usually don't take my stands until 24hrs before the race. I found to have hard core opinions early, leads me to bankruptcy. (JMHO)

[classhandicapper]

Of course, "quality" is easy to measure.

LOL.

Yea, it can be difficult, but it's no more difficult to find a standout on quality than it is a standout on speed figures once you understand either or both. It's the similar horses that are tough.

[Valuist]

Bruddah-

I think there are instances when it can be done. Horses who've earned big figures w/favorable energy distributions (setting a soft comfortable pace, then drawing out) are often great bet againsts. I don't know if Leroidesanimaux's WO race had that but his previous race in NY saw him inherit the lead and earn a big figure. He's been quoted as a solid favorite in the Mile and I will look to beat him.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sometimes a little subjectivety examining the race between 2nd call and the end of the race can help. Some speed figures do not do use that.

[classhandicapper]

CH-

Some of those factors CAN be quantified. Obviously pace figures show how pace can be quantified. I know of one handicapper who quantifies bias into his figures. Its not easy but it can be done (despite what some high profile figure makers say).

I know that lots of people try to quantify these things (and a few do a great job) , but if you agree with my premise that even the best speed figure makers occasionally screw up on the easiest task (the speed figure), you would have to agree that screw ups are far more frequent with pace figures, bias, ground loss, and other more complex and subjective factors and formulas.

The big problem with math formulas is that if you are just a little off on the pace figure, a little off on the speed figure, a little off on the weight adjustment, a little off the on bias impact, a little off on the pace/final time formula, a little off on the ground loss etc.... at the end you could easily have a mess on your hands if many of the small errors tended to be in the same direction.

I used to use formulas like that. I'd input several factors and come up with a rating. I'd discuss the race with a friend and I'd show him that the horse ran an 80 speed figure, but after I adjusted it for pace, ground loss, and other factors it came to a 95. Then he would tell me that knew the pace was fast and that the horse didn't run his typical speed figure last out, but that the horse typically ran in the mid 90s so that's the way he rated him. So we got to the same answer different ways.

On other races, my formula would seemingly fail and produce a rating that I instinctively knew was either way too high or too low, but by looking at the horses overall record and simply knowing what his trip was my friend would have a very reasonable appraisal.

I'm not saying that trying to quantify these things exactly or creating formulas is a bad thing. I'm just trying to point out that there are some limitations in the accuracy department. There's often another way to make an appraisal of the performance without exposing yourself to those inaccuracies.

I found that just because I could produce ratings that often picked winners it didn't mean I was dealing with reality all the time. I suspect that back in those days I used to play a lot of top rated horses that I thought were big overlays that weren't overlays at all. It was just that my inputs and formulas were a tad off and my appraisal was wrong. In fact I'm sure I picked a lot of winners off an inaccurate appraisal too.

By the way, I don't have a solution to any of this other that trying to view races from multiple directions. I just like to point out the problems I have run into over the years. Maybe I can save someone some time or someone has something to offer back that can shed some light on the solutions.

[Valuist]

Yeah, I would probably agree with that. I've tried quantifying for bias but gave up; its extremely time consuming. I've seen some of your posts on the TG board and tend to agree w/most. Don't get too married to the number itself. A lot of those posters over there just simply are looking at numbers on a sheet. I predict right now after the Classic, they'll all say they were right on Borrego:

If he wins and runs huge, he "paired up".
If he runs a dud, he "bounced".

[classhandicapper]

Valuist,

They don't like me very much on the TG board. I guess sometimes I'm a little too opinionated and repetitive, but they really seem to have a very simplistic view of the game. Somtimes I say things I believe are handicapping 101 and get challenged and criticized from multiple directions. I enjoy lively debate and others contributing to my understanding, but on that board the more you know the less respect to get because it conflicts with the wishful thinking and simplicity of their philosophy.

[PaceAdvantage]

While Gomez obviously didn't ask him for his best, I doubt that he slowed him down at all.

I'm glad you said this. While i was watching the race, I couldn't help but wonder, "is Gomez pulling him up (he really didn't, he just didn't ask for anymore), or is Borrego shortening stride from fatigue?"

Will someone wiser than me answer this question?

[rastajenk]

I can't answer that, but I can offer up that a lot of folks who just read numbers but don't do them seem to think a jockey's actions in the final furlong can add or subtract a whole lot of speed points, be they Beyers, BRIS, or whatever. I, for one, don't think that's true. I know some folks think that Lost in the Fog is sitting on an eye-popping 130 just 'cause he's never been pushed much and can turn it up if he ever gets asked to; that's just crazy talk. Some horses run with a very efficient stride, and that leads some to believe they have a lot more in the tank. I believe that can be labelled "wishful thinking."

[The Hawk]

I can't answer that, but I can offer up that a lot of folks who just read numbers but don't do them seem to think a jockey's actions in the final furlong can add or subtract a whole lot of speed points, be they Beyers, BRIS, or whatever. I, for one, don't think that's true. I know some folks think that Lost in the Fog is sitting on an eye-popping 130 just 'cause he's never been pushed much and can turn it up if he ever gets asked to; that's just crazy talk. Some horses run with a very efficient stride, and that leads some to believe they have a lot more in the tank. I believe that can be labelled "wishful thinking."

Generally, this might be true, but every circumstance is different. I've seen races at Monmouth and the Meadowlands where Bravo is on a horse so much the best that the horse, quite literally, is pulled up almost to a walk at the wire. There is absolutely no doubt that these horses would have run much faster if asked.

[Tom]

Rock Hard Ten was very solid and I'll be taking a long look at him BC day.

One of the qualities I've noticed about LITF is his maturity and the professional manner he exhibits in the saddling area and post-parade. He is the "total package" and I think we all look forward to Oct 29th.

We're splitting this one, K-Man. I agree - RHT looked professional - I will really be looking closely at him. But LITF - never beaten a G1 horse, been picking on kids like a schoolyard bully. I'm leaving him totally out of exotics and hope he goes of 1-5! Hoping he will wilt when he has to run alongside someone as good as he is. I think it was a mistake not to challenge him before prom night - then again, I could be wrong!

[keilan]

We're splitting this one, K-Man. I agree - RHT looked professional - I will really be looking closely at him. But LITF - never beaten a G1 horse, been picking on kids like a schoolyard bully. I'm leaving him totally out of exotics and hope he goes of 1-5! Hoping he will wilt when he has to run alongside someone as good as he is. I think it was a mistake not to challenge him before prom night - then again, I could be wrong!


Very cool Tom - -

My philosophy for the best 3yo’s is to have them run only against the other best 3yo’s, It makes no sense to me to try and take on the best aged horses while they’re still developing in every aspect. The quickest way to sour or gut a horse is place them over their heads before they have gained the necessary experience and seasoning. The Breeders Cup is the exception because it is the biggest race this half of the year and the 3yo’s have a fighting chance against the tested and proven aged horses, if a colt/filly is good enough, that is the day to take a shot.

I stand behind my view of how LITF has been handled to date, whether he wins the sprint or not will not change my position. One thing that you can take to the bank though is “no horse in the field is going to challenge LITF on the front end and go on to win”. I want to see LITF draw outside of the other speed in the race and let’s see what happens.

Back to Rock Hard -- I look forward to examining his numbers and the rest of the field cause he really looked very good to me.

I could very easily be wrong about both these horse’s and will probably have more to say once the PP’s are out but I appreciate the stand up guys that discuss the horses before they run. You and I were equally wrong about War Emblem a few years ago and we’re both just about over it – aren’t we :cool:

[rastajenk]

I've seen races at Monmouth and the Meadowlands where Bravo is on a horse so much the best that the horse, quite literally, is pulled up almost to a walk at the wire. There is absolutely no doubt that these horses would have run much faster if asked.

May be, but the only reason horses earn speed ratings is for future use, so I'd have to ask whether these Bravo-ridden easy winners go on multi-race win streaks against, presumably, increasingly tougher competition, because they have something in reserve? If one of these earns an 88 Beyer, for example, and you feel like it could have easily been a 95, or better; do you handicap it as a 95 or better the next time, and do the results validate your projection? Maybe you can say yes, I don't know, but my observation over the years is that those scenarios are extremely rare.

[Valuist]

I can think of a couple horses who come to mind who were totally geared down then won their next few races. One is Devine Wind in the summer of 04 in New York, where Dominguez would measure the competition and he'd win ridden out, or almost handily, by a half or neck. Another is Funky Pirate, who would win geared down in Kentucky this past summer. He's put together a pretty solid streak. You tend to see this type of winner much more often in run of the mill claiming races than in stakes.

[Wiley]

I'm glad you said this. While i was watching the race, I couldn't help but wonder, "is Gomez pulling him up (he really didn't, he just didn't ask for anymore), or is Borrego shortening stride from fatigue?"

Will someone wiser than me answer this question?
I felt the same thing, though probably not any wiser. It looked to me Gomez just stopped on the horse and Borrego on his own went to a canter. Check out the reigns toward the wire they are not tight, at least to me they look loose, so Gomez is not pressuring the horse to slow down. His huge move on the turn had to take a lot out of the horse, I mean how long could he sustain that drive a 1/4 or 3/8's? Durkin's 'IN HAND' seemed out of hand.

[Zaf]

I don't think I have heard such an overdone call since Roger Huston called that 2500 claimer at the Meadows last Tuesday Night :rolleyes:

ZAFONIC

[kenwoodallpromos]

I like your avatar! I do not think Mr. Ed ever lost a race!

[garyoz]

May be, but the only reason horses earn speed ratings is for future use, so I'd have to ask whether these Bravo-ridden easy winners go on multi-race win streaks against, presumably, increasingly tougher competition, because they have something in reserve? ....Maybe you can say yes, I don't know, but my observation over the years is that those scenarios are extremely rare.

Well put. The Borrego victory was in mediocre time (for a grade I) against a field that was backing up and bouncing. Just like in so many races cheaper races following a muti-length win, the performance is difficult to gauge--and IMHO usually a good play against. When using a sheets type product I make a special notation for loose lead wins and for multiple length wins. I think the number is abnormally high. I hope the handicappers play the visual illusion and send it in on BC Day.

The one thing in Borrego's favor is that Belmont seems to me to be favoring closers on outside pathes right now.

[classhandicapper]

TG gave Borrego a -3 3/4. That's darn fast. I don't believe it. I think the race fell apart.

[cj]

I think he said he paired up Suave, or actually paired him to his lifetime top...I highly doubt that was his best lifetime race, or even close to it.

[Fastracehorse]

"That's why I like to stress that even the best figure makers in the world can disagaree or make an occasional error in judgement. I think it's a mistake to take these figures too literally. They are "estimates" of reality"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It probably is a mistake to take any aspect of handicapping TOO literally.

I'll say it again: The power of speed figures is often under-rated by none-users and over-rated by many enthusiasts.

The strength of any handicapping factor is measured by how often a player can gain a serious advantage. Speed figures are well worth the effort IMHO.

Remember, the % error between a Beyer of 120 and a Beyer of 110 is less that 10 %. Which really isn't that bad - especially considering - there are less races to make a comparative analysis at that level.

You can gain a 30 % advantage with a longshot in an event with speed figs. Even if there is a 10 % error in their validity are you going to let the longshot run without you????

fffastt

[Tom]

Keilan, I said WE would lose by over 30 lengths....I still got a couple years before I get over that one!

:faint:

[classhandicapper]

CJ,

When you update your BC figs, please let us know.

I thought JB's reasoning for both the Goodwood and JCGC were suspect even if he eventually turns out to be right. When you don't pay pttention to the pace and you are dealing with a lone "2 turn" race or a situation where the only other route was some lightly raced horses that never routed etc... you are going to misunderstand the result often enough to cause some problems in your figures. That mistake will then come back to bite you repeatedly if you tend to break out races all the time and pair up horses because you will start pairing up bad figures.

I'll wait to see the all the numbers, but right now I would have a tough time backing a deep closer like Borrego off two consecutive races where the pace may have helped him.

[The Hawk]

May be, but the only reason horses earn speed ratings is for future use, so I'd have to ask whether these Bravo-ridden easy winners go on multi-race win streaks against, presumably, increasingly tougher competition, because they have something in reserve? If one of these earns an 88 Beyer, for example, and you feel like it could have easily been a 95, or better; do you handicap it as a 95 or better the next time, and do the results validate your projection? Maybe you can say yes, I don't know, but my observation over the years is that those scenarios are extremely rare.

A good example is Chablis, who won the 10th race at Monmouth on September 10th. (If you can, check out the replay). I have no idea if he'll win next time, no matter who he faces. But when he returns, I'd look at the Beyer he earned there knowing full well he ran better than that figure indicates. How much better? Who knows? But given how much money is bet off speed figures, anytime you can get a line on a figure that may be off, for whatever reason, that can be considered an edge.

I don't try to quantity it with a number, and I do agree that they are rare instances. It's not just a horse that's "in hand", it's those instances where the jock is literally beginning to pull the horse up well before the wire that I'm referring to.

[classhandicapper]

I don't think I have heard such an overdone call since Roger Huston called that 2500 claimer at the Meadows last Tuesday Night :rolleyes:

ZAFONIC

I justed watched the replay and I have to agree. :D

When I watched the race at the track I thought he won very handily, but after watching the replay it looks like Gomez stopped riding the horse and just let him do what he was willing to do on his own. The horse seemed to visibly gear down itself at that point. It's hard to tell how much more he would have given if he was ridden out harder. Either way, I can't imagine it was "real lot" and I'm very willing to take a stand against this horse in the Classic barring the entry of some rabbits.

[rastajenk]

Hopefully the field will be full enough that no genuine rabbits can get in.

[xfile]

Borrego's time of 2:02.86 was the slowest for the Jockey Gold Cup since it was moved to 10 furlongs in 1990. This on a day when the track was playing average or somewhat faster than average.

Borrego's Time: 2:02.86
Average Time Last 5 runnings of JGC: 2:00.60 Average Beyer: 116

Ashado's Time in Beldame: 1:48.88
Average Time Last 5 runnings of Beldame: 1:48.97 Average Beyer: 107

In Beyer terms, Borrego ran 18 points slower than average and Ashado ran 1 point faster than average. Give Ashado a 108 and Borrego gets a 98. Give Borrego a 110 and Ashado should get a 120. Compromise in the middle and give Ashado a 114, then Borrego gets a 104.

I thought Ashado looked unimpressive and is a favorite I'd like to bet against in the BC.

He was in hand and on a gallop the last furlong. That explains his slow time. He was visually impressive and if you add that factor to the beyer he gets a 116. He looked alot better than Rock Hard Ten. His 110 beyer does not do him justice. Someone mentioned Ashado might be vulnerable and I agree with that. I'll be betting against her on BC day. :cool:

[rastajenk]

You don't get Beyers for being visually impressive; a good speed rating should tell you what you really did see, not what you think you saw.I don't intend to be mean or confrontational, but that comment suggests to me that you don't understand numerical ratings.

[xfile]

You don't get Beyers for being visually impressive; a good speed rating should tell you what you really did see, not what you think you saw.I don't intend to be mean or confrontational, but that comment suggests to me that you don't understand numerical ratings.

I understand them well. I don't believe in them. Big difference. :cool:

[rastajenk]

So why do you care what he gets? What's a few points one way or the other if they're all meaningless anyway?