PDA

View Full Version : Do you trust DRF's Beyer figs.


rufus999
02-22-2008, 09:10 AM
Forgive me if I ramble but I need to at times to get it all out I started making figs back in 1983 and quickly became a convert acheiving fair to middling to overwhelming success playing all types of bets. I kept my figs local and it greatly facilitated my ability to assess shippers coming in to NY... where I live and bet. I was fresh out of graduate school and soon found myself with a real job and plenty of scratch to blow. Then DRF made an about face and started publishing the figs. Well, that cut severly into my profit margin. So much so that I gave it up with the exception of a once a year office triple crown pool and an occasional pick 6. I always kept an eye on the situation and waited patiently for an opening to jump back in. On-line betting did it. It was perfect for me. I could tuck myself away in my special area and play indiscriminately al day long while taking care of other business.
So, heres the point. Do you feel the Beyer figs in DRF are accurate and/or reliable? I understand it was organized as a voluntary collective of contributers. Is it still done that way? And if so do you trust the projected track variants it no doubt relies on? Personally, when it comes to gambling and handicapping I won't risk my money on other peoples research. But I speak from over 20 years of experience. I keep my own par figs wherever I can and do my own projections in my head so I guess you could say I'm farther ahead on the bell curve than someone who came to it in the '90's. I'd be interested in hearing from the younger members of the forum, but of course, everyone is welcome to respond.:)

rufus

cj
02-22-2008, 09:51 AM
They are usually pretty good, but when they are not, there is money to be made. I would say I disagree with the figures by at least two lengths no more than 10% of the time on dirt.

On turf, the Beyers aren't really speed figures.

cj's dad
02-22-2008, 10:02 AM
They are usually pretty good, but when they are not, there is money to be made. I would say I disagree with the figures by at least two lengths no more than 10% of the time on dirt.

On turf, the Beyers aren't really speed figures.

How accurate have you found these #'s (Tomlinson's) to be ?

BTW- Remind me to tell you about Ron and Bob at the ARC De Triomphe 2 years ago re: Tomlinson Figs.:lol:

Robert Fischer
02-22-2008, 10:23 AM
As long as the track variant is accurate

and as long as the figs aren't adjusted a great deal due to projections or even subsequent performance,

the BSF does a good job at what it is. = An adjusted final time speed figure.

It is a relatively small bit of information that can be considered in combination with the wealth of information about each horse's past performance.

ny0707ny
02-22-2008, 10:24 AM
I remember once Lawyer Ron got this huge speed figure in one race which I still find hard to believe. I forgot what it was.

I hope they are good, that is all I use when I pick my races.

Bobzilla
02-22-2008, 10:47 AM
I absolutely trust BSFs. What Robert Fischer said was perfect, they're good at what they are meant to be, an adjusted final time speed figure. It's up to the individual handicapper to interpret the context of the figure.

I cannot remember if the Beyer Boys broke out the track variant for the Whitney at Saratoga that day. If I remember there were three races that day at a distance of ground on the main track. I felt they had overrated Ginger Punch's figure for the Go For Wand, as they went too slow past the pace call and into the later stages of the race, before she blasted home in the final stages. If the Beyer people had overrated her figure that day, then it's possible LR's number might have been too high. Having said that, I do remember thinking LR's performance was quite powerful, and there was nothing wrong with the clocking of the race.

Tom
02-22-2008, 11:04 AM
No matter how good a figure is, it is worthless if you do not how to use it and put it into perspective. It is what the horse that day, on that track, in that field, at that point in his form cycle, against that pace match up, with that rider, in his form cycle.....hopefully!;)

Read Speed to Spare for some real good pointers on using figs.
Read Beyer on Speed - How the Fig was earned chapter.

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 11:11 AM
I have stated here several times that I question many of the figs given out in the DRF. As it was pointed out to me, they are there, every day, in the public eye, and its easy to take shots.

I will say that I do see many occurances where th efigs just dont make sense at all. PYRO getting a 90 and Indian Blessing getting a 97 is just one.

Cheaper races also seem to be way out of wack at times and grass racing, at times, seems to cause major prolems for them.

I also notice that many times the figures change. I know this to be fact because I have seen it with my own horses.

John

oddsmaven
02-22-2008, 11:12 AM
I trust them to an extent, but I'm not sure what all goes into them...it seems like there is fairly strong adjustment for class/track...and if that's the case, why should a horse entered where he is dominant, get a lower number, seemingly automatically for beating a bad caliber?

Although, I saw what looked like an "exception" to that yesterday...at Aqueduct, Phil The Brit was coming off a triple digit victory at CT...considering the favorite was scratched, that he had the rail plus that terrific Beyer, he went off pretty tepidly bet at 5:2 (instead of say 3:2) and was nowhere...so, here it looked like the Beyer was suggesting this horse is so good, we won't penalize him for beating crappola, and yet the actual odds ended up saying that the horse's class was doubtful...only one example, but I found it curious.

Greyfox
02-22-2008, 11:19 AM
They are usually pretty good, but when they are not, there is money to be made. I would say I disagree with the figures by at least two lengths no more than 10% of the time on dirt.

On turf, the Beyers aren't really speed figures.

Two lengths could be almost 6 Beyer points in sprints. And if it's "at least" 2 lengths 10 % of the time that's a huge error. I wouldn't want my blood work at the lab based on that error.

phatbastard
02-22-2008, 11:21 AM
i use BSF as a proof sort of program, i do my capping sans the figs then check to see how they measure up....one major problem i have found--any dirt track figs from Delaware are usually grossly high...not sure of the reason and have no idea of finding out why

if i find major differences i will review my capping, and if i feel i am right, a nice wagering situation occurs

magwell
02-22-2008, 11:41 AM
I find over time the sheets are the best ....a must for grass races :cool:

Cangamble
02-22-2008, 11:47 AM
I've always disliked Beyers because they do sometimes go away from track variant. I've seen identical times a couple races apart have different Beyers associated with them, because they don't rate fillies as high as boys or they give extra points for classier races on occassion.
Aside from that, it is info that the majority of the betting public uses, so it takes away lots of edges.
I prefer making my own variant. I do this for around 3-5 tracks at a time depending on the time of the year.
When I don't have my own numbers I like the TSN ratings because they seem to be in line more with my numbers (I of course have a way of adjusting them so that I'm dealing with apples and apples).

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 12:06 PM
any dirt track figs from Delaware are usually grossly high...not sure of the reason and have no idea of finding out why



DRUGS

DEL is like a no holds barred MMA match. ....AND it used to be alot worse when you could fill out a claim slip adding an extra 50.00 charge to test and void a claim for a positive for EPO.

john

Norm
02-22-2008, 12:20 PM
if i find major differences i will review my capping, and if i feel i am right, a nice wagering situation occurs
Now there is the REAL value of BSFs, they give you a solid clue on how the general public is going to bet. Anytime your home-made figures go against the BSFs, you have a nice wagering situation indeed.

Tom
02-22-2008, 12:38 PM
I also notice that many times the figures change. I know this to be fact because I have seen it with my own horses.

John

They review the perfomrances of horses coming out of flagged races and make changes if they think they should. Also, track-to-track is reviewed periodically - I used to see cases where all sprints were increased by 2 points at FL for a two-three month period while routes were reduced by 1 point. At least, they used to do this - assume they still do. I picked up on this becasue I used to hand enter the Beyers from the PPs everyday when I got my Form. I would make a large list, then go to my DOS database and put them in - and would see some hade changed! Eventually, I figured out the time frames and values of the adjustments.
Man, all that hand-entry.....just tired me out thinking about :cool:it!

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 12:46 PM
They review the perfomrances of horses coming out of flagged races and make changes if they think they should. Also, track-to-track is reviewed periodically - I used to see cases where all sprints were increased by 2 points at FL for a two-three month period while routes were reduced by 1 point. At least, they used to do this - assume they still do. I picked up on this becasue I used to hand enter the Beyers from the PPs everyday when I got my Form. I would make a large list, then go to my DOS database and put them in - and would see some hade changed! Eventually, I figured out the time frames and values of the adjustments.
Man, all that hand-entry.....just tired me out thinking about :cool:it!

Tom,

I have been known to change a fig, less than 1 % of the time however. These figs seem to change MUCH more than that.

John

jotb
02-22-2008, 12:53 PM
I trust them to an extent, but I'm not sure what all goes into them...it seems like there is fairly strong adjustment for class/track...and if that's the case, why should a horse entered where he is dominant, get a lower number, seemingly automatically for beating a bad caliber?

Although, I saw what looked like an "exception" to that yesterday...at Aqueduct, Phil The Brit was coming off a triple digit victory at CT...considering the favorite was scratched, that he had the rail plus that terrific Beyer, he went off pretty tepidly bet at 5:2 (instead of say 3:2) and was nowhere...so, here it looked like the Beyer was suggesting this horse is so good, we won't penalize him for beating crappola, and yet the actual odds ended up saying that the horse's class was doubtful...only one example, but I found it curious.

Hello Oddsmaven:

Tom's post is a perfect example of what he said. Phil the Brit's was overrated against the bunch he faced yesterday. He was actually stepping up in class, trying the surface for the first time and lastly he was running 3 turns at CT vs 2 turns yesterday. Phil was certainly overbet yesterday and only because of his Beyer's. The 2 horses that ran 1,2 came out of a 35k which is better than the opt25k he was in at CT.

Joe

Murph
02-22-2008, 12:53 PM
I trust them to an extent, but I'm not sure what all goes into them...it seems like there is fairly strong adjustment for class/track...and if that's the case, why should a horse entered where he is dominant, get a lower number, seemingly automatically for beating a bad caliber?

Although, I saw what looked like an "exception" to that yesterday...at Aqueduct, Phil The Brit was coming off a triple digit victory at CT...considering the favorite was scratched, that he had the rail plus that terrific Beyer, he went off pretty tepidly bet at 5:2 (instead of say 3:2) and was nowhere...so, here it looked like the Beyer was suggesting this horse is so good, we won't penalize him for beating crappola, and yet the actual odds ended up saying that the horse's class was doubtful...only one example, but I found it curious.AQU 5th race yesterday is an excellent example of
how Thorostats speed figure ratings are designed to work. The top 3 last race figures scored a trifecta box. This was predictable because each of those runners showed an improving figure history and those figs were earned at the same or higher class level. Improving figures combined with a class jump point to fit and ready runners. Declining figures combined with a class drop points me to runners I will avoid.

I noted right away that the top rated overall is the only runner in the field to have eclipsed a par figure in each of his last three races. This is often shown by horses who are capable of multiple wins and jumps in class. The race is extremely betable because of the situation with the favorite. His class and speed figures show that he is clearly in at a level over his head in this race.

This all adds up to an extremely good time to enter a serious wager on the top rated Thorostats runner in this race. The confidence level for this play is very high and better the lower in odds the favorite goes. I do not tip plays of this nature to anyone.

http://www.drf.com/drfPDFChartRacesIndexAction.do?TRK=AQU&CTY=USA&DATE=20080221&RN=5

For comparing the Thorostats speed ratings to Beyer figs - I parted ways with his method at the point of spreading the class levels so much and projection of par times. The differences are in the mechanics and theory on par time
relations.

I hope everyone enjoys looking over the attached example.

Murph

njcurveball
02-22-2008, 12:57 PM
These figs seem to change MUCH more than that.


From what I know of the DRF figures, they use a database and the slightest change in variant can be propagated through hundreds of horses. As horses run back, they revise variants and as horses ship to other tracks, they revise the track to track adjustments. It has been a while since I spoke with someone doing them, so things may have changed?

This is also a smaller problem with the Tomlinson figures which can be very low for a horses first few turf starts and then much higher after they have won a few times. As horses win the database updates the sire figures and the horse figures change accordingly.

Jim

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 01:11 PM
Hello Oddsmaven:

Tom's post is a perfect example of what he said. Phil the Brit's was overrated against the bunch he faced yesterday. He was actually stepping up in class, trying the surface for the first time and lastly he was running 3 turns at CT vs 2 turns yesterday. Phil was certainly overbet yesterday and only because of his Beyer's. The 2 horses that ran 1,2 came out of a 35k which is better than the opt25k he was in at CT.

Joe

Joe,

I would add that, BRIT was facing a pace scenario that was definitely different then what he was seeing at CT. Also, Beattie seems to have that lttle something special at CT that he can't/won't necessarily give in NY.

John

ny0707ny
02-22-2008, 01:22 PM
Just a small tip which I probably will add on my site since it is an important one. Pay attention to the comments that are in the DRF for each race the horse has been in. These are important if you didn't see the race. You can tell if a horse is into racing by them along with other things. I know when I started following horse racing I never read them. They give so much important information about the horse and race.

But there is nothing like watching the race. I can tell from seeing a horse if he likes to race or not.

War Pass now is a perfect example of a horse that loves racing and will try 110% no matter what. If I never saw him race, I would never know that from the paper. I don't know if others can tell that, but I can by looking at the horse.

When Hard Spun was around, I knew this horse would give his all. He came in 2nd in Derby and was my pick. Very few people took him or gave him a chance.

BombsAway Bob
02-22-2008, 01:23 PM
Tom,

I have been known to change a fig, less than 1 % of the time however. These figs seem to change MUCH more than that.

John
Every year, it seems, at Saratoga, a 2YO will crush a field and get a BIG Beyer for the effort....by the end of the meet, those coming out of the race will all be be bet back hard & show little...& with little fanfare, that magic 89 Beyer that the winner had will be cut down to an 84 (or lower)!
I forget the exact race in 2007, but it became an edge to bet AGAINST the horses coming out of it. If my short-term memory isn't completely fried, I believe Andy and the guys @ Siros made a point of informing the public about the bogus fig!
Do you think it's unbridled enthusiasm for finding the next "Big Hoss", or just an unwitting NY Bias towards NYRA's big meet?

cj
02-22-2008, 01:27 PM
Two lengths could be almost 6 Beyer points in sprints. And if it's "at least" 2 lengths 10 % of the time that's a huge error. I wouldn't want my blood work at the lab based on that error.

I am well aware of the scale. I was basing that on 6f, or 5 points. So, 90% of the time, we are within 4 points. The other 10%, I'm sure sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes the Beyer guys are wrong, and other times both are. Making figures for tons of races at all the tracks, I would imagine you would never get any two figures to agree much more than 90% of the time. This is especially true given the poor data we have today.

cj
02-22-2008, 01:30 PM
Every year, it seems, at Saratoga, a 2YO will crush a field and get a BIG Beyer for the effort....by the end of the meet, those coming out of the race will all be be bet back hard & show little...& with little fanfare, that magic 89 Beyer that the winner had will be cut down to an 84 (or lower)!
I forget the exact race in 2007, but it became an edge to bet AGAINST the horses coming out of it. If my short-term memory isn't completely fried, I believe Andy and the guys @ Siros made a point of informing the public about the bogus fig!
Do you think it's unbridled enthusiasm for finding the next "Big Hoss", or just an unwitting NY Bias towards NYRA's big meet?

That happened two years ago when Belmont began carding 5f races. There was no basis to go on. The distance was new and the horses had no form. They did the best they could and fixed it when the error was obvious. Every year? Can you name even one from last year?

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 01:35 PM
Every year, it seems, at Saratoga, a 2YO will crush a field and get a BIG Beyer for the effort....by the end of the meet, those coming out of the race will all be be bet back hard & show little...& with little fanfare, that magic 89 Beyer that the winner had will be cut down to an 84 (or lower)!
I forget the exact race in 2007, but it became an edge to bet AGAINST the horses coming out of it. If my short-term memory isn't completely fried, I believe Andy and the guys @ Siros made a point of informing the public about the bogus fig!
Do you think it's unbridled enthusiasm for finding the next "Big Hoss", or just an unwitting NY Bias towards NYRA's big meet?

I beleive there are over 1/2 dozen folks doing the figs at different ckts, that has got to add to the inconsistency accross different circuits.

John

WhyWhyWhy
02-22-2008, 01:54 PM
Forgive me if I ramble but I need to at times to get it all out I started making figs back in 1983 and quickly became a convert acheiving fair to middling to overwhelming success playing all types of bets. I kept my figs local and it greatly facilitated my ability to assess shippers coming in to NY... where I live and bet. I was fresh out of graduate school and soon found myself with a real job and plenty of scratch to blow. Then DRF made an about face and started publishing the figs. Well, that cut severly into my profit margin. So much so that I gave it up with the exception of a once a year office triple crown pool and an occasional pick 6. I always kept an eye on the situation and waited patiently for an opening to jump back in. On-line betting did it. It was perfect for me. I could tuck myself away in my special area and play indiscriminately al day long while taking care of other business.
So, heres the point. Do you feel the Beyer figs in DRF are accurate and/or reliable? I understand it was organized as a voluntary collective of contributers. Is it still done that way? And if so do you trust the projected track variants it no doubt relies on? Personally, when it comes to gambling and handicapping I won't risk my money on other peoples research. But I speak from over 20 years of experience. I keep my own par figs wherever I can and do my own projections in my head so I guess you could say I'm farther ahead on the bell curve than someone who came to it in the '90's. I'd be interested in hearing from the younger members of the forum, but of course, everyone is welcome to respond.:)

rufus

The Beyer figures are actually extremely flawed, but it took twenty years for that to matter, because before they hit the DRF, they were still much better than what else is being used. That is no longer the case.

The key ingredient to the Beyers is the Beyer-Kovitz beaten lengths chart. You don't need any other calculation used by Beyer to make your numbers, as you could use the projection method without final times to rate each race.

The notion of a "track variant" is also suspect, because track condition changes during the day, even from race to race. Moreoever, you have many situations where pace, class, or some other factor can offset the variant and throw the calculation out of whack. A race's projection can suffice for its figure just as easily as an adjusted final time, and with a lot less gymnastics.

Beyer's numbers are decent speed figures, but as a performance rating, they take almost nothing into account. Look at Smarty Jones's Belmont Stakes loss if you want to see the difference between running against one good horse who isn't trying to beat you, and four good horses who are willing to give their lives so that one will accomplish it. The Beyers don't even consider that.

On the upside, Beyer often adjusts his figures retroactively, based on future performance, which tends to make a horse's back figures more accurate than they might appear in the here and now (or here and then).

Like the DRF itself, you might not win with the Beyer numbers outright, but without them, you probably won't do as well.

jotb
02-22-2008, 02:13 PM
Joe,

I would add that, BRIT was facing a pace scenario that was definitely different then what he was seeing at CT. Also, Beattie seems to have that lttle something special at CT that he can't/won't necessarily give in NY.

John

Absolutely John the pace scenario was much different for Phil the brit yesterday.

Joe

HUSKER55
02-22-2008, 02:37 PM
Sometimes I go against the numbers. I don't think any one factor stands by itself. But when I do go against the numbers I make sure I know why. It works for me in the end.

I think Beyer Figs are a tool. No tool is the panacea for everything, everytime. If it does not look right it probably isn't. That is why I use other data to verify my picks.

Beyer Figs are good enough to trust if you think your way thru, IMHO.

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 02:39 PM
The notion of a "track variant" is also suspect, because track condition changes during the day, even from race to race. Moreoever, you have many situations where pace, class, or some other factor can offset the variant and throw the calculation out of whack. A race's projection can suffice for its figure just as easily as an adjusted final time, and with a lot less gymnastics.




This is one of the better posts I have read here regarding this very topic. I have stated it several times and it was met with disbelief and ill-informed criticism as well.

If you are using one variant for the day, good luck to you. If you are splitting routes and sprints, thats beeter. One turn vs. two, better still. But, if you are NOT assuming that conditions can and do change and the track speed is a dynamic phenomenon, the figs will be erratic, inconsistent, and not reflect reality.

Kudos to you WHYWHYWHY, I think you see things as they are.

John

Cratos
02-22-2008, 02:43 PM
Forgive me if I ramble but I need to at times to get it all out I started making figs back in 1983 and quickly became a convert acheiving fair to middling to overwhelming success playing all types of bets. I kept my figs local and it greatly facilitated my ability to assess shippers coming in to NY... where I live and bet. I was fresh out of graduate school and soon found myself with a real job and plenty of scratch to blow. Then DRF made an about face and started publishing the figs. Well, that cut severly into my profit margin. So much so that I gave it up with the exception of a once a year office triple crown pool and an occasional pick 6. I always kept an eye on the situation and waited patiently for an opening to jump back in. On-line betting did it. It was perfect for me. I could tuck myself away in my special area and play indiscriminately al day long while taking care of other business.
So, heres the point. Do you feel the Beyer figs in DRF are accurate and/or reliable? I understand it was organized as a voluntary collective of contributers. Is it still done that way? And if so do you trust the projected track variants it no doubt relies on? Personally, when it comes to gambling and handicapping I won't risk my money on other peoples research. But I speak from over 20 years of experience. I keep my own par figs wherever I can and do my own projections in my head so I guess you could say I'm farther ahead on the bell curve than someone who came to it in the '90's. I'd be interested in hearing from the younger members of the forum, but of course, everyone is welcome to respond.:)

rufus

It is not whether you trust the Beyer figures or any other figures; it is whether a single point estimate (the speed figure) is representative of the non-linear performance curve.

Fastracehorse
02-22-2008, 02:47 PM
I have stated here several times that I question many of the figs given out in the DRF. As it was pointed out to me, they are there, every day, in the public eye, and its easy to take shots.

I will say that I do see many occurances where th efigs just dont make sense at all. PYRO getting a 90 and Indian Blessing getting a 97 is just one.

Cheaper races also seem to be way out of wack at times and grass racing, at times, seems to cause major prolems for them.

I also notice that many times the figures change. I know this to be fact because I have seen it with my own horses.

John

Isn't it possible good horses run slower than par TIMES too??

Noone knocks the teletimer.

fffastt

Fastracehorse
02-22-2008, 02:49 PM
I trust them to an extent, but I'm not sure what all goes into them...it seems like there is fairly strong adjustment for class/track...and if that's the case, why should a horse entered where he is dominant, get a lower number, seemingly automatically for beating a bad caliber?

Although, I saw what looked like an "exception" to that yesterday...at Aqueduct, Phil The Brit was coming off a triple digit victory at CT...considering the favorite was scratched, that he had the rail plus that terrific Beyer, he went off pretty tepidly bet at 5:2 (instead of say 3:2) and was nowhere...so, here it looked like the Beyer was suggesting this horse is so good, we won't penalize him for beating crappola, and yet the actual odds ended up saying that the horse's class was doubtful...only one example, but I found it curious.

Its natural for tb's to top-out and then regress.

I don't think it means the prior mesurement is bad.

fffastt

Fastracehorse
02-22-2008, 02:51 PM
Two lengths could be almost 6 Beyer points in sprints. And if it's "at least" 2 lengths 10 % of the time that's a huge error. I wouldn't want my blood work at the lab based on that error.

It isn't a huge error if the horse has a 3 length advantage and is a nice price.

fffastt

Fastracehorse
02-22-2008, 02:52 PM
i use BSF as a proof sort of program, i do my capping sans the figs then check to see how they measure up....one major problem i have found--any dirt track figs from Delaware are usually grossly high...not sure of the reason and have no idea of finding out why

if i find major differences i will review my capping, and if i feel i am right, a nice wagering situation occurs

1 reason Del has high BSF's could be Scotty Lake.

fffastt

Fastracehorse
02-22-2008, 02:55 PM
They review the perfomrances of horses coming out of flagged races and make changes if they think they should. Also, track-to-track is reviewed periodically - I used to see cases where all sprints were increased by 2 points at FL for a two-three month period while routes were reduced by 1 point. At least, they used to do this - assume they still do. I picked up on this becasue I used to hand enter the Beyers from the PPs everyday when I got my Form. I would make a large list, then go to my DOS database and put them in - and would see some hade changed! Eventually, I figured out the time frames and values of the adjustments.
Man, all that hand-entry.....just tired me out thinking about :cool:it!

That's why U are goooodah Tom.

fffastt

rastajenk
02-22-2008, 03:05 PM
I started making figs back in 1983 and quickly became a convert acheiving fair to middling to overwhelming success playing all types of bets. I kept my figs local and it greatly facilitated my ability to assess shippers coming in to NY... where I live and bet. I was fresh out of graduate school and soon found myself with a real job and plenty of scratch to blow
I could have written this intro nearly word for word, from that particular point in time to keeping circuit-bound figs to having disposable jack and some measure of success. So I built up a faith in the methodology over time that carried over when the Form starting including Beyers. My family position changed about then, so I pretty much stopped making my own at that point. For my purposes the published Beyers are reliable, consistent and trustworthy.

As to the notion that adjusting the numbers after the fact is a negative, I disagree completely. I don't see any virtue in stubbornly clinging to a result that may turn out soon enough to be misleading. The whole idea of the system is to be forward-looking, a predictive tool; not merely bestowing an award (or its opposite) on a horse for its output on a given day. They don't get to hang a shingle in their stalls saying, "I'm a 93." That's a backward-looking position. Anybody who's ever made figs has encountered races that are real head-scratchers, where the only thing to do is remember that it's an anomaly and move on. So when the Beyer Guys do adjustments, they're just relieving the user of the obligation to remember that anomaly. Not only is it not a negative, to me it's like a value-added service. In a way.

Fastracehorse
02-22-2008, 03:07 PM
The Beyer figures are actually extremely flawed, but it took twenty years for that to matter, because before they hit the DRF, they were still much better than what else is being used. That is no longer the case.

The key ingredient to the Beyers is the Beyer-Kovitz beaten lengths chart. You don't need any other calculation used by Beyer to make your numbers, as you could use the projection method without final times to rate each race.

The notion of a "track variant" is also suspect, because track condition changes during the day, even from race to race. Moreoever, you have many situations where pace, class, or some other factor can offset the variant and throw the calculation out of whack. A race's projection can suffice for its figure just as easily as an adjusted final time, and with a lot less gymnastics.

Beyer's numbers are decent speed figures, but as a performance rating, they take almost nothing into account. Look at Smarty Jones's Belmont Stakes loss if you want to see the difference between running against one good horse who isn't trying to beat you, and four good horses who are willing to give their lives so that one will accomplish it. The Beyers don't even consider that.

On the upside, Beyer often adjusts his figures retroactively, based on future performance, which tends to make a horse's back figures more accurate than they might appear in the here and now (or here and then).

Like the DRF itself, you might not win with the Beyer numbers outright, but without them, you probably won't do as well.

The Beyer simply measures the horse going from point A to point B - adjusted for variant.

You cannot blindly bet them; no factor is tested in a vaccumm.

About the variant changing throughout the day: So what? It is still better than a fixed time measurement and at least the variant is evaluted daily.

fffastt

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 03:21 PM
Isn't it possible good horses run slower than par TIMES too??

Noone knocks the teletimer.

fffastt

Fast,

is this a trick question....:p

I don't use par times. If you are asking if good horses run sub-optimal races or worse than they "typically" run when fit, absolutely. Why would you think I stated somethjing counter to this ?

John

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 03:32 PM
As to the notion that adjusting the numbers after the fact is a negative, I disagree completely. I don't see any virtue in stubbornly clinging to a result that may turn out soon enough to be misleading. The whole idea of the system is to be forward-looking, a predictive tool; not merely bestowing an award (or its opposite) on a horse for its output on a given day. They don't get to hang a shingle in their stalls saying, "I'm a 93." That's a backward-looking position. Anybody who's ever made figs has encountered races that are real head-scratchers, where the only thing to do is remember that it's an anomaly and move on. So when the Beyer Guys do adjustments, they're just relieving the user of the obligation to remember that anomaly. Not only is it not a negative, to me it's like a value-added service. In a way.

Ras,

I agree that re-visiting races that were margininal in nature (mostly due to changing track speeds, bizarree outliers, or races with unusual pace scenario's), and adjusting them after the results have proven them to be flawed is something that absolutely has to happen. My point is that the percentage of the adjustments should not be a high. Less than 1% of all races for sure, otherwise, it becomes chasing your tail/retrofitting and thats not right. Besides, whatever methodology you use should have checks and balances.

John

rastajenk
02-22-2008, 03:42 PM
True that. I think we agree in principle. I don't know that there's any extra value in assigning a threshold, though. One percent for you; maybe for my purposes, five, ten, even up to 15 percent being readjusted might be all right. As long as they get it right, or close to it, eventually.

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 03:44 PM
About the variant changing throughout the day: So what? It is still better than a fixed time measurement and at least the variant is evaluted daily.

fffastt

Fast,

This may not be obvious so I will break it down.

Lets assume that due sto temperature, wind, track maintenance, the running of races over the surface, watering, and another few hundred factors, the racing surface gets more compacted throught the day, thereby tightening it up and making it such that quicket times are produced.

Lets assume for the sake of this discussion that the variants for the 5 6f races run in races 1-3-5-7-9 on a 9 race card look like this.

slow 1, fast 1, fast 3, fast 5, fast 7

if you were to AVERAGE (a 4 letter word to a good figure maker) these
you'd get a fast 3 "variant for the day". you woul dthen assign a numerical value to each race by adjusting its running time based on the "variant for the day".

in effect what you are doing is PENALIZING races 1 & 3 and flattering races 7 & 9.

to answer your question of "so what?", this is what will happen when horses come back to run in a subsequent start. lets ASSUME that race 1 was a 25 claimer for older males and race 9 was a 16k claimer for older males. horses come out og each of these two races and compete in a 20k claimer 3 weeks from now. by using the "so what" approach to determining track speed. the horse coming out of race 9 (the 16k claimer) will look faster than the horse coming out of race 1 (25k claimer). switch the claiming prices around, it doesn't matter, thae sdame premise holds.

in essence, you asked a very good question and it allowed me to give a very specific answer as to why it matters to detect changing track speeds, and that is the foundation of a good figure maker.

thanks,
john

The Bit
02-22-2008, 03:44 PM
This discussion always ends up lively no matter what forum it takes place.

I think the methology behind the Beyers is sound, but many factors can affect an individual figure, a track variant, or a whole card.

I do my own figures for Laurel Park and the pace of the races can have an extreme affect on final times and make figure making very difficult. I use a method based up the Beyer projection method but not fully dependent and fully understand the flaws and nuances of them. But understanding those things allow me to use the figures in the context I want.

Why was Pyro getting a 90 and Indian Blessing a 97 flawed? He ran a full second slower and from what I read ( I didn't do figures for the card ) that card came up pretty straight forward if using the Beyer method. The pace of the race dictated that 90 and Beyer figures don't take pace into consideration. I'd rather know that Pyro can run a 90 after following the slow pace than some projection based upon what he might have done with a reasonable pace infront of him.

Experience has told me that individual variants for each race is probably more accurate than full card variants. If you don't think a track changes from race to race go to a warm weather track during and watch the water truck between races.

On another note, I knew a guy who made figures and would look at how much mud was stuck the horses when they came back so he could judge the track? Didn't seem practical to me but whatever works I guess.

oddsmaven
02-22-2008, 03:53 PM
Hello Oddsmaven:

Tom's post is a perfect example of what he said. Phil the Brit's was overrated against the bunch he faced yesterday. He was actually stepping up in class, trying the surface for the first time and lastly he was running 3 turns at CT vs 2 turns yesterday. Phil was certainly overbet yesterday and only because of his Beyer's. The 2 horses that ran 1,2 came out of a 35k which is better than the opt25k he was in at CT.
Joe

Joe,
I agree the horse looked "way" up in class; I was just shocked that his Beyer number was that high from CT...they usually would give a measely # regardless of the time for facing such a cheap field, but not this one for some reason... and then the linemaker who is generally extremely adroit at assessing the tote action, pegged him at a highly respectable 3:1, and after the scratch of Silver Prospector (5:2 line), that meant he expected him to be a much bigger favorite then he ended up...I felt the tote ended up screaming that the horse was overmatched despite being favored a bit, since the Beyer & Donovan were ranking him so well & that he had the good old rail on the Inner.

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 03:55 PM
This discussion always ends up lively no matter what forum it takes place.

I think the methology behind the Beyers is sound, but many factors can affect an individual figure, a track variant, or a whole card.

I do my own figures for Laurel Park and the pace of the races can have an extreme affect on final times and make figure making very difficult. I use a method based up the Beyer projection method but not fully dependent and fully understand the flaws and nuances of them. But understanding those things allow me to use the figures in the context I want.

Why was Pyro getting a 90 and Indian Blessing a 97 flawed? He ran a full second slower and from what I read ( I didn't do figures for the card ) that card came up pretty straight forward if using the Beyer method. The pace of the race dictated that 90 and Beyer figures don't take pace into consideration. I'd rather know that Pyro can run a 90 after following the slow pace than some projection based upon what he might have done with a reasonable pace infront of him.

Experience has told me that individual variants for each race is probably more accurate than full card variants. If you don't think a track changes from race to race go to a warm weather track during and watch the water truck between races.

On another note, I knew a guy who made figures and would look at how much mud was stuck the horses when they came back so he could judge the track? Didn't seem practical to me but whatever works I guess.


Bit,

You see what happens to me when they cancel all these cards, its like a vacation.. (FG is sloppy, GP races are horrible....)

I agree that LRL does pose a few interesting problems, I'll let you in on something, pay particular attention to race number one at LRL....;)

As for PYRO, a pace times effect final times. The pace was a fraud in the Risen Star. Therefore the final time was a fraud. You are left with two pices of information. The race dynamic and the horses inthe race, thats all.
Put PRO in a race vs. Indian Blessing in a few weeks, regadless of the pace setup, I'll take PYRO 9 times out of ten.

John

Secretariat
02-22-2008, 03:55 PM
The Beyer figures are actually extremely flawed, but it took twenty years for that to matter, because before they hit the DRF, they were still much better than what else is being used. That is no longer the case.

The key ingredient to the Beyers is the Beyer-Kovitz beaten lengths chart. You don't need any other calculation used by Beyer to make your numbers, as you could use the projection method without final times to rate each race.

....

On the upside, Beyer often adjusts his figures retroactively, based on future performance, which tends to make a horse's back figures more accurate than they might appear in the here and now (or here and then).

Like the DRF itself, you might not win with the Beyer numbers outright, but without them, you probably won't do as well.

The retroactive changing of Beyers numbers can make research on them difficult.

I wonder why the DRF doesn't list the changes from the original posted Beyer. For example, if a 95 is changed to an 88. I'd like to see these changes. And if one horse is changed I assume all horses in that race are changed as well.

But I'd still like to see those changes and the number of them.

Premier Turf Club
02-22-2008, 04:03 PM
I think the Beyer figures are pretty good, certainly better than BRIS figures (or any other purely computer generated figures). John's figures are as much art as they are science and are very good, IMHO better than the Beyer's on the circuits John covers. Yes, maybe they'll both point to the same "fastest" horse nine times out of ten. But it's that one of ten where there's money to be made. And what other "public" handicapper do we know that gave out an $80 horse on top like John did at TAM a few weeks back?

Of course it was before we had the TAM signal so it didn't do me a damn bit of good but that's a story for another time...

Tom
02-22-2008, 04:03 PM
Lets assume that due sto temperature, wind, track maintenance, the running of races over the surface, watering, and another few hundred factors, the racing surface gets more compacted throught the day, thereby tightening it up and making it such that quicket times are produced.

But, it is not only the track that produced fast or slow times. Pace does too. And wind. And jockey tactics, and other factors. Suppose your Slow 1 R1 was run at the end of the card and still came back Slow 1? Or what if it went Fast 4? Is a sample size of two really enough to say anything about the variant?
My old rule of thumb when I made my own was that the assumption was there was no variant unless I could find overwhelming evidence that there was.

Fastracehorse
02-22-2008, 04:06 PM
Fast,

is this a trick question....:p

I don't use par times. If you are asking if good horses run sub-optimal races or worse than they "typically" run when fit, absolutely. Why would you think I stated somethjing counter to this ?

John

No, I don't believe U think the above - I was making the point that a horse may have recieved a lower-than-expected Beyer simply because he ran a slow race - not because the Beyer formulation is flawed.

fffastt

The Bit
02-22-2008, 04:08 PM
John,

I agree. With Laurel and the Big A closed as well as the Meadowlands tonight I need to do something.

I've been doing Laurel figures for 4 years or more now and have never noticed anything with the first race, but I'll have to pay some more attention. I do know that the way the races are ridden and the pace can make the process of figure making difficult. You really have to make some decisions as far as how you are going to treat those races with extreme ( slow or fast versus rest of card instead of average ) paces. The jockeys tend to ride Laurel differently, due to the tiring nature of the surface in my opinion.

As far as Pyro v. Indian Blessing. Like I said previously, I'd rather treat the final times the same and take the pace into consideration down the road than try to project what he might have done with a real pace infront of him. So, I guess if I made the figures, I would have given Pyro his 90 and Indian Blessing her 97 but also realize that I think Pyro is the better horse and could possibly run much better/faster than that 90 given a different pace scenario.

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 04:16 PM
But, it is not only the track that produced fast or slow times. Pace does too. And wind. And jockey tactics, and other factors. Suppose your Slow 1 R1 was run at the end of the card and still came back Slow 1? Or what if it went Fast 4? Is a sample size of two really enough to say anything about the variant?
My old rule of thumb when I made my own was that the assumption was there was no variant unless I could find overwhelming evidence that there was.

Tom,

Great Question !!!

That would mean that the difference between the last two races on the card would have been fast 7 - slow 1. I'd need to look into that because there should be evidence to support such a swing of eight lengths (bad horses, wierd pace, breakdown etc...)

John

Fastracehorse
02-22-2008, 04:17 PM
Fast,

This may not be obvious so I will break it down.

Lets assume that due sto temperature, wind, track maintenance, the running of races over the surface, watering, and another few hundred factors, the racing surface gets more compacted throught the day, thereby tightening it up and making it such that quicket times are produced.

Lets assume for the sake of this discussion that the variants for the 5 6f races run in races 1-3-5-7-9 on a 9 race card look like this.

slow 1, fast 1, fast 3, fast 5, fast 7

if you were to AVERAGE (a 4 letter word to a good figure maker) these
you'd get a fast 3 "variant for the day". you woul dthen assign a numerical value to each race by adjusting its running time based on the "variant for the day".

in effect what you are doing is PENALIZING races 1 & 3 and flattering races 7 & 9.

to answer your question of "so what?", this is what will happen when horses come back to run in a subsequent start. lets ASSUME that race 1 was a 25 claimer for older males and race 9 was a 16k claimer for older males. horses come out og each of these two races and compete in a 20k claimer 3 weeks from now. by using the "so what" approach to determining track speed. the horse coming out of race 9 (the 16k claimer) will look faster than the horse coming out of race 1 (25k claimer). switch the claiming prices around, it doesn't matter, thae sdame premise holds.

in essence, you asked a very good question and it allowed me to give a very specific answer as to why it matters to detect changing track speeds, and that is the foundation of a good figure maker.

thanks,
john

In otherwords U didn't have to go into an explanation - I really meant, "so what?"

The animal's speed figure may be influenced only marginally in a situation that U describe. The actual speed # is a powerful method to discern winners but it is not the only method - and as you know, it would be unwise to treat it as such.

fffastt

rufus999
02-22-2008, 04:37 PM
And I thought I posted a simple question. Must be the weather.:confused:

rufus

john del riccio
02-22-2008, 05:15 PM
In otherwords U didn't have to go into an explanation - I really meant, "so what?"

The animal's speed figure may be influenced only marginally in a situation that U describe. The actual speed # is a powerful method to discern winners but it is not the only method - and as you know, it would be unwise to treat it as such.

fffastt

Fasst,

I get it, I'll check out now.

John

alysheba88
02-22-2008, 05:48 PM
I cant believe how misunderstood they continue to be.

They are a tool.

They are a tool that try to quantify how fast a horse ran in the past.

That is it. Nothing more.

People bring up pace, running wide, and all kinds of stuff. Beyers do not try to quantify that. People try to make them something they arent.

The biggest mistake people make (and after making the mistake will rail against "Andy Beyers") is using the speed figure to say thats how fast the horse will run today. They do not purport to say how fast a horse will run today. They give you an idea how fast they ran yesterday. Not today.

People will make inferences about today and then when they lose blame "Andy Beyers".

A horse will run a bad race and people will say "see that Beyer from last race was a phony". Its such nonsense. In what other sport do we do this? If Tom Brady plays a bad game do we go back and say his QB rating from his last start was a "phony"? No, we say he had a bad game. But people continue thinking horses are predictable machines and speed figures tell all

cnollfan
02-22-2008, 06:07 PM
I cant believe how misunderstood they continue to be.

They are a tool.

They are a tool that try to quantify how fast a horse ran in the past.

That is it. Nothing more.

People bring up pace, running wide, and all kinds of stuff. Beyers do not try to quantify that. People try to make them something they arent.

The biggest mistake people make (and after making the mistake will rail against "Andy Beyers") is using the speed figure to say thats how fast the horse will run today. They do not purport to say how fast a horse will run today. They give you an idea how fast they ran yesterday. Not today.

People will make inferences about today and then when they lose blame "Andy Beyers".

A horse will run a bad race and people will say "see that Beyer from last race was a phony". Its such nonsense. In what other sport do we do this? If Tom Brady plays a bad game do we go back and say his QB rating from his last start was a "phony"? No, we say he had a bad game. But people continue thinking horses are predictable machines and speed figures tell all

I think the Brady comparison is more apt than that. If it is not windy and there is no pressure from the defensive line, that's an "easy trip" for Brady and he will likely score a lot of points, i.e. generate a big fig. The next week if he is playing the Giants and they are in his face the whole game, that's going to be a tougher trip and his figure will be lower. It doesn't mean the previous good fig was phony, but if it was achieved under optimal circumstances that are not likely to be repeated, neither is the big fig.

jonnielu
02-22-2008, 06:09 PM
Forgive me if I ramble but I need to at times to get it all out I started making figs back in 1983 and quickly became a convert acheiving fair to middling to overwhelming success playing all types of bets. I kept my figs local and it greatly facilitated my ability to assess shippers coming in to NY... where I live and bet. I was fresh out of graduate school and soon found myself with a real job and plenty of scratch to blow. Then DRF made an about face and started publishing the figs. Well, that cut severly into my profit margin. So much so that I gave it up with the exception of a once a year office triple crown pool and an occasional pick 6. I always kept an eye on the situation and waited patiently for an opening to jump back in. On-line betting did it. It was perfect for me. I could tuck myself away in my special area and play indiscriminately al day long while taking care of other business.
So, heres the point. Do you feel the Beyer figs in DRF are accurate and/or reliable? I understand it was organized as a voluntary collective of contributers. Is it still done that way? And if so do you trust the projected track variants it no doubt relies on? Personally, when it comes to gambling and handicapping I won't risk my money on other peoples research. But I speak from over 20 years of experience. I keep my own par figs wherever I can and do my own projections in my head so I guess you could say I'm farther ahead on the bell curve than someone who came to it in the '90's. I'd be interested in hearing from the younger members of the forum, but of course, everyone is welcome to respond.:)

rufus

BSR's are no more reliable or significant then time, his notion of track variant is lunacy, but, I guess most like the sound of it all.

jdl

classhandicapper
02-22-2008, 06:20 PM
Bit,

As for PYRO, a pace times effect final times. The pace was a fraud in the Risen Star. Therefore the final time was a fraud. You are left with two pices of information. The race dynamic and the horses inthe race, thats all.
Put PRO in a race vs. Indian Blessing in a few weeks, regadless of the pace setup, I'll take PYRO 9 times out of ten.

John

I think there's a legitimate debate about what kind of figure a handicapper should want in circumstances like the Risen Star.

Do you want the slow pace figure and resultant slow final time that reflect the reality of what happened in that race which you then need to adjust subjectively for pace?

Do you want a performance figure that measures the actual ability of the horses in that race adjusted for the very slow pace?

I think the key is that you better know what you are working with because if the figure maker is making subjective judgements about the impact of pace on final time and building that into his figures, it's going to get double counted if you do it too.

Cratos
02-22-2008, 06:23 PM
I cant believe how misunderstood they continue to be.

They are a tool.

They are a tool that try to quantify how fast a horse ran in the past.

That is it. Nothing more.

People bring up pace, running wide, and all kinds of stuff. Beyers do not try to quantify that. People try to make them something they arent.

The biggest mistake people make (and after making the mistake will rail against "Andy Beyers") is using the speed figure to say thats how fast the horse will run today. They do not purport to say how fast a horse will run today. They give you an idea how fast they ran yesterday. Not today.

People will make inferences about today and then when they lose blame "Andy Beyers".

A horse will run a bad race and people will say "see that Beyer from last race was a phony". Its such nonsense. In what other sport do we do this? If Tom Brady plays a bad game do we go back and say his QB rating from his last start was a "phony"? No, we say he had a bad game. But people continue thinking horses are predictable machines and speed figures tell all

Good, keep believing that dialogue

cj
02-22-2008, 07:21 PM
BSR's are no more reliable or significant then time, his notion of track variant is lunacy, but, I guess most like the sound of it all.

jdl

You should try stand up.

Let us have a little contest. I'll take the horse with the highest last race Beyer, and you take the horse with the fastest last race final time adjusted for distance. How much do you want to lose?

Doc
02-22-2008, 07:26 PM
In response to the initial question of this thread, my answer is yes, I do trust the Beyer speed figs. And I've never delved in too deeply to try and dissect the reasons why a certain horse got a certain number. Maybe it's because I've been using them for so long, and even when presented with different figs from Brisnet or any other service/handicapping tool, I always revert back to the Beyers. They have served me well over the years.

Doc :ThmbUp:

cj
02-22-2008, 07:27 PM
I think there's a legitimate debate about what kind of figure a handicapper should want in circumstances like the Risen Star.

Do you want the slow pace figure and resultant slow final time that reflect the reality of what happened in that race which you then need to adjust subjectively for pace?

Do you want a performance figure that measures the actual ability of the horses in that race adjusted for the very slow pace?

I think the key is that you better know what you are working with because if the figure maker is making subjective judgements about the impact of pace on final time and building that into his figures, it's going to get double counted if you do it too.

People that elevate slow race performances are asking for trouble. We both know one popular figure maker that does this. The biggest problem is you boost the also rans to look much better than they are.

If I jog 50 meters next to an Olympic sprinter, then we run the last 50, he'll win by about two seconds. If we sprint the full 100 meters, he wins by five seconds. Not only did we not really "race" 100 meters, I had much more left in the tank for the distance we did "race" and thus could stay closer.

In the first example, what do you give the Olympic sprinter on a speed figure scale? The pathetic rating he would deserve and just remember the circumstances, or boost him to his "usual" race. If you do that, suddenly it looks like I could hang with top class female Olympians, which I certainly cannot.

alysheba88
02-22-2008, 08:00 PM
I think the Brady comparison is more apt than that. If it is not windy and there is no pressure from the defensive line, that's an "easy trip" for Brady and he will likely score a lot of points, i.e. generate a big fig. The next week if he is playing the Giants and they are in his face the whole game, that's going to be a tougher trip and his figure will be lower. It doesn't mean the previous good fig was phony, but if it was achieved under optimal circumstances that are not likely to be repeated, neither is the big fig.

Agreed. Also, every race is unique. The conditions of one race will never ever be replicated again.

The Bit
02-22-2008, 08:01 PM
I think there's a legitimate debate about what kind of figure a handicapper should want in circumstances like the Risen Star.

Do you want the slow pace figure and resultant slow final time that reflect the reality of what happened in that race which you then need to adjust subjectively for pace?

Do you want a performance figure that measures the actual ability of the horses in that race adjusted for the very slow pace?

I think the key is that you better know what you are working with because if the figure maker is making subjective judgements about the impact of pace on final time and building that into his figures, it's going to get double counted if you do it too.

This was my point.

I'd rather have the raw time figure stand as it is, even given the pace scenario that I would a figure that guess as to what might have happened if the pace was legit.

People use pace, ground loss, bias, etc. to knock they Beyer figures yet Beyer himself says that his figures don't take those things into consideration. A Beyer fig is a Beyer fig no matter the pace, wind, bias, surface condition, ground loss etc. If you believe those things can be quantified and the affect they have upon a race respresent effectively than perhaps Beyer figs aren't for you.

alysheba88
02-22-2008, 08:02 PM
Good, keep believing that dialogue

What am I believing? Just curious.

What do you think I am saying and what do you disagree with?

Do you think I am "anti-Beyer"? If so couldlnt be further from the truth. Will wait to see your response before saying more. Dont want to assume anything.

jonnielu
02-22-2008, 10:41 PM
You should try stand up.

Let us have a little contest. I'll take the horse with the highest last race Beyer, and you take the horse with the fastest last race final time adjusted for distance. How much do you want to lose?

You can take both, I said BSR's are no more reliable OR significant then time. Should I type slower?
jdl

Cratos
02-23-2008, 02:35 AM
What am I believing? Just curious.

What do you think I am saying and what do you disagree with?

Do you think I am "anti-Beyer"? If so couldlnt be further from the truth. Will wait to see your response before saying more. Dont want to assume anything.

My reference wasn’t whether you are for or against the BSF methodology, but to your assertion: “People bring up pace, running wide, and all kinds of stuff. Beyers do not try to quantify that. People try to make them something they aren’t.”

The methodology itself attempts to make the race time statistic, the BSR normal by adjusting it with a variant. Therefore if one adjust the race time statistic, the BSR with “pace, running wide, and all kinds of stuff” they are not making the BSR something that they are not, but better of what they purport to be and that is a normalized statistic.

cj
02-23-2008, 05:49 AM
You can take both, I said BSR's are no more reliable OR significant then time. Should I type slower?
jdl

They are much more reliable than unadjusted time.

How would I know how fast you type? Could have taken an hour for that post for all I know.

jonnielu
02-23-2008, 07:57 AM
They are much more reliable than unadjusted time.

How would I know how fast you type? Could have taken an hour for that post for all I know.

Is time, adjusted or not, reliable? What about the adjustments? If they are off, how could reliable figures be made from them?
jdl

Pell Mell
02-23-2008, 09:09 AM
I'm not a big figure guy but the one thing I'm sure of, there is no reliable way to transfer spd figures from one distance to another.

alysheba88
02-23-2008, 10:11 AM
My reference wasn’t whether you are for or against the BSF methodology, but to your assertion: “People bring up pace, running wide, and all kinds of stuff. Beyers do not try to quantify that. People try to make them something they aren’t.”

The methodology itself attempts to make the race time statistic, the BSR normal by adjusting it with a variant. Therefore if one adjust the race time statistic, the BSR with “pace, running wide, and all kinds of stuff” they are not making the BSR something that they are not, but better of what they purport to be and that is a normalized statistic.

I am not being a smart ass. I dont understand what you are saying

Who is "they"?

I am going to guess at what you might be saying. I could be way off so I apologize in advance. If you are saying handicappers should account for pace, running wide, etc in their handicapping then I agree 1000%. If you are saying that other number based programs do attempt to quantify pace, running wide, etc I have no reason to disagree. I am just saying thats not what Beyers do. If people want to tinker with them, go ahead. But people seem to criticize Beyers for NOT taking those things into consideration when it was never the intent to do so. Its like saying One Base Percentage doesnt take into consideration ballparks. Well they arent designed too. But others have. Which is fine and good. Doesnt mean OBP is "wrong" just means someone has taken it to a different level

rufus999
02-23-2008, 10:22 AM
It is not whether you trust the Beyer figures or any other figures; it is whether a single point estimate (the speed figure) is representative of the non-linear performance curve.

I'm assuming you prefer pace over speed. The non-linear argument guys usually do. All I really want to know is do you use the figs in DRF or not. Sorry, but there is no door prize for ingenuity on this thread. Maybe next time.:cool:

rufus

Foolish Pleasure
02-23-2008, 10:59 AM
Good, keep believing that dialogue


Keep believing you going to out objectify the Croat.

He spends millions a year on simulation and runs the tote prices,

I would guess he is familiar with pace, speed figures basically anything that is readily available and easily objectfied.

BOL linearly or otherwise getting around that 1000lb gorilla in the corner.




It is everyone vs him. Game plans should be made accordingly.
This is not an intellectual classroom exercise, it is abt who can make the most money most efficiently.

rufus999
02-23-2008, 11:03 AM
I guess I'll do a little more rambling on this Beyer thing because it seems to stir people up so. As my intro to this thread stated I have been at it for 25 years . But that was by far not the beginning for me. I was introduced to the game through my grandfather and uncle when I was , I guess, about seven years old. They had a bookie that lived next door and he would come to the house in the morning to take their wagers. The guy was named Red and he was a real colorful character, well on in years and in a wheelchair. He had the local neighborhood handle. My grandfather would bet Hialeah and then listen to the race replays on the radio later in the day, so I got used to hearing race calls even though I had no idea what was going on most of the time. The first book I read on the subject was Ainsle's Guide to Thoroughbred Racing and things became clearer. When I was ten, my uncle took me to Aqueduct for the first time and I bet two bucks on Buckpasser to show. I made .10 cents.
I learned the old methods of handicapping first and still stick by most of them. The mathematics of the game were too cryptic for me, so I didn't stress it. I do have a mathematical mind so when I finally decided to take the plunge I bought Beyers 'Picking Winners' and I discovered a system which I felt was based on pure logic therefore giving it a greater measure of validity than any other system I had previously encountered. I feel the longevity and universal acceptance of the system is proof enough of its efficacy but it takes years to truly understand how it can be used to maximize profit. This thread is proof enough of the many different schools of thought on Beyer figs and speed in general. One thing we can all agree on is that Beyer figs continue to evolve and generate interest.;)

rufus

Foolish Pleasure
02-23-2008, 11:05 AM
Beyer makes numbers and buys and sells horses.
his numbers largely set the value of the horseflesh.
That is conflict of interest.

Plus he is a sell out.

Speed figs or using comparitive times fr the same day were the nuts before this guy sold out.


BTW I am sure there are 100 +1 guys here who can run the data,
and will find out BEyer numbers do no better than the old form + variant numbers in ROI of last out highest number, best number last 30days, et al.

Capper Al
02-23-2008, 11:05 AM
I trust Beyer figures. I also trust BRIS speed figures.

alysheba88
02-23-2008, 11:16 AM
FP,

Yeah the guy is a jerk for sharing what he learned with others. How dare he.

cj
02-23-2008, 11:21 AM
Beyer makes numbers and buys and sells horses.
his numbers largely set the value of the horseflesh.
That is conflict of interest.



Now there is a new one. Please, enlighten us. What horse has Beyer bought and/or sold recently? Just one please as I'm sure the list must be long.

alysheba88
02-23-2008, 11:24 AM
Keep believing you going to out objectify the Croat.

He spends millions a year on simulation and runs the tote prices,

I would guess he is familiar with pace, speed figures basically anything that is readily available and easily objectfied.

BOL linearly or otherwise getting around that 1000lb gorilla in the corner.




It is everyone vs him. Game plans should be made accordingly.
This is not an intellectual classroom exercise, it is abt who can make the most money most efficiently.

Another post I cant understand. What are you saying?

Who am I trying to "out objectitify"? Who is saying anything bad about "the Croat"?

Feels like a Twilight Zone Episode.

Who is saying betting Beyers is the road to riches?

Who is saying there isnt a better approach to quantify past performance?

Most importantly who is saying they are the way to predict who will win today?

alysheba88
02-23-2008, 11:29 AM
Now there is a new one. Please, enlighten us. What horse has Beyer bought and/or sold recently? Just one please as I'm sure the list must be long.

Exactly. And as a follow up provide specific examples of how the speed figures of horses he owns and manipulated? Ie; how the figures on horses he owns are inconsistent on a comparative basis with other speed figure calculators.

WhyWhyWhy
02-23-2008, 01:28 PM
The Beyer simply measures the horse going from point A to point B - adjusted for variant.

The Beyer is an incomplete performance rating, not a complete time rating. Time is one element of performance. Say a horse is caught 12-wide on both turns and loses by a nose. Its Beyer number will equal the horse that beat it, even if you know from the ground loss that it was vastly superior.

Then there are races like the 2004 Belmont, where four slightly inferior horses went on kamikaze pace missions to deflate Smarty Jones's figure.


You cannot blindly bet them; no factor is tested in a vaccumm.

In stats, factors are tested in a vacuum called "other factors being equal." You can blindly bet any number if it's good enough.


About the variant changing throughout the day: So what? It is still better than a fixed time measurement and at least the variant is evaluted daily.

The DRF SR/TV number is "better than nothing." That doesn't mean it should be used. The point is that the variant is a lazy way of trying to account for the inherent speed of a surface for all races, when that is but one of a dozen or more factors that impact the raw time rating.

If four horses run six points apart, and they have figures of 90 to 84 as their norms, I don't need to calculate a variant to know that the winner probably earned a 90. I don't even need the final time, just the beaten-lengths chart.

The real trick to solving this is to factor out Beyer's work and go back to where Kovitz (a genuine mathematician) left off. Beyer began messing up Kovitz's work the second he tried to evolve it. One could have taken Kovitz's beaten-lengths calculation and built an entirely different speed-figure/performance-rating method from it. In the 1970s, no one noticed because few were making figures ta all, but in today's game, these flaws are exploited by those with better math skills than Beyer.

WhyWhyWhy
02-23-2008, 01:43 PM
This is one of the better posts I have read here regarding this very topic. I have stated it several times and it was met with disbelief and ill-informed criticism as well.

If you are using one variant for the day, good luck to you. If you are splitting routes and sprints, thats beeter. One turn vs. two, better still. But, if you are NOT assuming that conditions can and do change and the track speed is a dynamic phenomenon, the figs will be erratic, inconsistent, and not reflect reality.

Kudos to you WHYWHYWHY, I think you see things as they are.

John

I can see why people don't think this way, especially if they are used to using the variant to make their figs. I just asked myself one day why (why why) I was using what happened in say the 8th race to adjust the rating for what happened in the second. If this is flawed on "extreme" days, then it's flawed every day, just to a lesser extent.

The variant is just a convenient, blanket adjustment that, more often than not, is more useful than not using one, but that doesn't mean there aren't better approaches, like the "race variant" that would also include pace (by definition as there is no normalization for pace as with a daily variant) instead. With a "race variant" a horse who closes off a :44 half split time is going to have its rating deflated naturally for pace, since the resulting time rating is going to be much higher than it should be.

A "horse variant" will usually stand out, like when a horse runs 86 three times with a normal pace, and then a 98 when it gets the dream closing-into-a-fast-pace trip.

john del riccio
02-23-2008, 01:53 PM
I can see why people don't think this way, especially if they are used to using the variant to make their figs. I just asked myself one day why (why why) I was using what happened in say the 8th race to adjust the rating for what happened in the second. If this is flawed on "extreme" days, then it's flawed every day, just to a lesser extent.

The variant is just a convenient, blanket adjustment that, more often than not, is more useful than not using one, but that doesn't mean there aren't better approaches, like the "race variant" that would also include pace (by definition as there is no normalization for pace as with a daily variant) instead. With a "race variant" a horse who closes off a :44 half split time is going to have its rating deflated naturally for pace, since the resulting time rating is going to be much higher than it should be.

A "horse variant" will usually stand out, like when a horse runs 86 three times with a normal pace, and then a 98 when it gets the dream closing-into-a-fast-pace trip.

WWW,

You know, I am extremely impressed with your insight. You see it, not many folks do. Individual race variants are unique, I use them, its orthoganal to what the masses use. The world is not flat !

I may have found someone to make hand variants for the other 15 tracks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good Luck,
John

the little guy
02-23-2008, 01:54 PM
Now there is a new one. Please, enlighten us. What horse has Beyer bought and/or sold recently? Just one please as I'm sure the list must be long.


I love these guys.

cj
02-23-2008, 02:01 PM
WWW,

You know, I am extremely impressed with your insight. You see it, not many folks do. Individual race variants are unique, I use them, its orthoganal to what the masses use. The world is not flat !

I may have found someone to make hand variants for the other 15 tracks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good Luck,
John

There are plenty of days where the variants (route and sprint separate) stay standard across the day. It is easy to see, especially when you are also evaluating the pace of the races while making the variants. There are days, however, where making separate race variants make sense as well.

Both can get you in trouble over time. You have to be versatile and adapt on the fly to be successful.

cj
02-23-2008, 02:05 PM
I love these guys.

It is entertaining, that is for sure. Some people must just dream up stuff to pass the time.

the little guy
02-23-2008, 02:48 PM
It is entertaining, that is for sure. Some people must just dream up stuff to pass the time.

I really laugh trying to figure out where this kind of hilarity even comes from. I honestly wish all these people who say these crazy things about Beyer knew him even a little bit. I'm sure they could find things to criticize him about, as other than me nobody's perfect, but none of them are even close to the plethora of loony things people claim on the internet.

Fastracehorse
02-23-2008, 02:58 PM
I think the Brady comparison is more apt than that. If it is not windy and there is no pressure from the defensive line, that's an "easy trip" for Brady and he will likely score a lot of points, i.e. generate a big fig. The next week if he is playing the Giants and they are in his face the whole game, that's going to be a tougher trip and his figure will be lower. It doesn't mean the previous good fig was phony, but if it was achieved under optimal circumstances that are not likely to be repeated, neither is the big fig.

:D

fffastt

Tom
02-23-2008, 03:12 PM
This is a lot of nutso stuff...everyone KNOWS Andy Beyer only buys and drives HARNESS HORSES!

His new book is titled Beyer on Bikes! :rolleyes:

alysheba88
02-23-2008, 03:15 PM
This is a lot of nutso stuff...everyone KNOWS Andy Beyer only buys and drives HARNESS HORSES!

His new book is titled Beyer on Bikes! :rolleyes:


lol, great pic. No doubt milkshakes them too

rufus999
02-23-2008, 03:18 PM
His new book is titled Beyer on Bikes! :rolleyes:


And I thought it was 'The Surrey with no Fringe on Top."

classhandicapper
02-23-2008, 04:48 PM
People that elevate slow race performances are asking for trouble. We both know one popular figure maker that does this. The biggest problem is you boost the also rans to look much better than they are.

If I jog 50 meters next to an Olympic sprinter, then we run the last 50, he'll win by about two seconds. If we sprint the full 100 meters, he wins by five seconds. Not only did we not really "race" 100 meters, I had much more left in the tank for the distance we did "race" and thus could stay closer.

In the first example, what do you give the Olympic sprinter on a speed figure scale? The pathetic rating he would deserve and just remember the circumstances, or boost him to his "usual" race. If you do that, suddenly it looks like I could hang with top class female Olympians, which I certainly cannot.

I agree with you totally.

Figure makers often find themselves in the uncomfortable position of choosing whether to assign a very slow final time figure to race that was impacted by an extreme pace or not.

They realize that many of their customers won't understand the situation well if they assign the slow figure and some may even complain about it because they know the horses are better than that.

However, tinkering causes other problems (like you identified).

It's good to have informed customers. ;)

Cratos
02-23-2008, 05:56 PM
I am not being a smart ass. I dont understand what you are saying

Who is "they"?

I am going to guess at what you might be saying. I could be way off so I apologize in advance. If you are saying handicappers should account for pace, running wide, etc in their handicapping then I agree 1000%. If you are saying that other number based programs do attempt to quantify pace, running wide, etc I have no reason to disagree. I am just saying thats not what Beyers do. If people want to tinker with them, go ahead. But people seem to criticize Beyers for NOT taking those things into consideration when it was never the intent to do so. Its like saying One Base Percentage doesnt take into consideration ballparks. Well they arent designed too. But others have. Which is fine and good. Doesnt mean OBP is "wrong" just means someone has taken it to a different level

I apologize for the lack of clarity in my earlier retort to you, but I was using the word “they” as a euphemism for your word “people.” However I do not use BSFs, but I have found in reading books and articles by Andy Beyer far more informative than the BSRs. I believe his statement (and I am paraphrasing): “there is class within class” is a thoughtful and provocative insight into handicapping horses at a perceived class level.

Cratos
02-23-2008, 06:03 PM
I'm assuming you prefer pace over speed. The non-linear argument guys usually do. All I really want to know is do you use the figs in DRF or not. Sorry, but there is no door prize for ingenuity on this thread. Maybe next time.:cool:

rufus

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t use the BSFs, the DRF figures, or anyone’s else figures, all of my quantitative analysis come from myself. However I do use raw data inputs from Equibase and the DRF.

Cratos
02-23-2008, 06:15 PM
I feel the longevity and universal acceptance of the system is proof enough of its efficacy but it takes years to truly understand how it can be used to maximize profit. This thread is proof enough of the many different schools of thought on Beyer figs and speed in general. One thing we can all agree on is that Beyer figs continue to evolve and generate interest.;)rufus

Phil Bull of the Timeform and a mathematician presented a figure methodology long before Beyer and Ray Taulbot, the former managing editor of American Turf Monthly blazed a trail in figure making with his pace calculator before the BSFs.

Grits
02-23-2008, 06:31 PM
I don't know who gets more ink at this place, God or Andy Beyer.

Evolution and BSFs.

Both draw pages upon pages. It's endless.

I'm glad I'm neither one.

rufus999
02-23-2008, 06:54 PM
Phil Bull of the Timeform and a mathematician presented a figure methodology long before Beyer and Ray Taulbot, the former managing editor of American Turf Monthly blazed a trail in figure making with his pace calculator before the BSFs.

I was aware of pace handicapping back in the '60's. I wasn't all that impressed or thrilled by it, but heck, I was only 10 years old at the time.:)

rufus

alysheba88
02-23-2008, 07:04 PM
I apologize for the lack of clarity in my earlier retort to you, but I was using the word “they” as a euphemism for your word “people.” However I do not use BSFs, but I have found in reading books and articles by Andy Beyer far more informative than the BSRs. I believe his statement (and I am paraphrasing): “there is class within class” is a thoughtful and provocative insight into handicapping horses at a perceived class level.

Dont understand what you are saying in regard to class. Cant follow

Do agree that his books are more illuminating

WhyWhyWhy
02-23-2008, 07:06 PM
There are plenty of days where the variants (route and sprint separate) stay standard across the day.

Or merely appear to. That +10 change in the variant can be hidden if the pace of the later races is a "-10 pace variant." There are plenty of WEEKS where the track variant doesn't change, but I wouldn't recommend using a weekly variant either. I'm speaking theoretically here of course, against using an unrelated event (another race), which if it is "related" by a variant, that's just by chance.

The upside for CJ (and Beyer) is that, on *many* days, he will get some insight by comparing a race to others on the card, but for that to occur, the track condition has to remain constant from mid-day to sundown and through the work of a track crew. John uses the same approach I saw Russ Harris using, where everything used to make the figures is contained in one race.

A lot of it has to do not with disputing the validity of the variant concept, but rather final time itself. In Europe, a track variant would be difficult to construct the "American" way because they don't care about time over there. I'm beginning to think American horsemen don't care about time either.

CJ uses a projection method to make his numbers. If he's like Beyer, he'd look down on someone who used par times for variants, even though one could make the same arguments that he makes for using projections and a daily variant in that the pars are less precise. A variant is going to be less preciese than a race-based approach for the same reason, i.e., the variant is a shortcut, just like the par time is a short-cut, and both allow the handicapper to skip a more complex task. I think the most notable aspect of the comparison is that CJ's figures would be much more difficult to make if the races weren't timed, whereas John (or me) would barely be affected.



It is easy to see, especially when you are also evaluating the pace of the races while making the variants. There are days, however, where making separate race variants make sense as well.

The use of pace figures is race-based, so CJ is incorporating race-specific factors. His speed figures are actually useful in that they show the mistakes the public is likely to make, since that's how public figures are done. CJ isn't publishing a "grand unification number" (a performance rating), but he is calculating one if he adjusts his speed figure through his pace figure. His wagering advantage is likely sufficient that it's not worth the risk to search for greater precision, as that could backfire if the new idea doesn't work out.

Just as a speed figure can be modified by race-specific factors, you can also do this vertically by examining the history of the horse (or even the connections). For example, if Kiaran McGlaughlin debuts a horse finishing second with a Beyer of 44, I don't care what the pace figure or anything else was, I know it'll run a 97 second time out and win by thirteen lengths at 5-2.

Both can get you in trouble over time. You have to be versatile and adapt on the fly to be successful.

I don't see how race-variants are such a problem, since they inject not only pace, but class, into their numbers. I may not know that some horse earned a 105 in the sixth race when I'm rating the fifth race, but if I know that no horse in the field has broken 85 ever before, and the class par is 79, something is probably wrong with the 105, and if I use a variant for the day, I could mess up not only that race, but all the others on the card.

That Beyer doesn't know (or didn't publish) how to do this doesn't mean that it is not required to win in this more competitive era. You didn't have to throw into double-coverage in the NFL thirty years ago either, but now you can get cut from the team if you don't know how.

Red Queen 101

cj
02-23-2008, 07:16 PM
Or merely appear to. That +10 change in the variant can be hidden if the pace of the later races is a "-10 pace variant."

I thought I said I consider pace, but maybe not. I make speed figure variants based on the other horses and the other races for each race. I then a make a pace variant. I then go back and look at the speed figure variants for each race again with the pace figures alongside. Sometimes I adjust them again, and sometimes not.

One example was War Pass in the BC Juvenile. Given how Pyro and him had run previously, it was easy to see how he could be given him a huge speed figure, and I initially did. However, when I then saw the pace figure, I knew it was simply not possible that the horses ran that fast. So, that race was considered alone.

There are times it makes sense to adjust all races, sometimes only races of a certain distance, and sometimes only one race.

To me, it doesn't make sense to disregard the other races as a possible source of information. I'm not saying you must use them, but most times they help. Making figures is a very complicated process, so the more information you have,the better.

WhyWhyWhy
02-23-2008, 07:21 PM
People that elevate slow race performances are asking for trouble. We both know one popular figure maker that does this. The biggest problem is you boost the also rans to look much better than they are.

Only if you us a linear figure method that always gives the winner a higher performance rating than the also-rans. That too is flawed, as no two horses are running the same race. The beaten-lengths chart assumes equal trips, which also never occurs, and is another "blanket adjustment" that is used for convenience.

The best example of this is the 1978 Jockey Club Gold Cup. Does anyone really think Exceller's "speed figure" should have been higher than Seattle Slew? Maybe his figure should be, but not his performance rating. The same could be said if you're comparing Sham's 1973 Belmont to Twice a Prince.

The calibration guy talked about the "high quit" horses (that was Ragozin's innovation, btw) have very high pace figures but pack it in, then improve. That pace figure can be merged with the speed figures to create a performance figure that makes the "improvement" next out expected. If the high-quit race proved the horse's superior ability, any figure that doesn't reflect that ability in the race it supposedly appeared is working with a flawed figure method. We can make these adjustments subjectively, but we can also make variants subjectively, yet we don't. Guys like Beyer (and CJ) force other guys to delve deeper into these mathematics in order to get an edge.



If I jog 50 meters next to an Olympic sprinter, then we run the last 50, he'll win by about two seconds. If we sprint the full 100 meters, he wins by five seconds. Not only did we not really "race" 100 meters, I had much more left in the tank for the distance we did "race" and thus could stay closer.

Actually his trainer bet $1,000 to show on you so the horse ran off the board.

Seriously, CJ just answered his own question by noting that the sprinter could have run faster. One would up the sprinter's figure and leave CJ's untouched, to reflect the superior runner more or less mailing it in. CJ will also have several other races without skewed pace scenarios to use as a backdrop.


In the first example, what do you give the Olympic sprinter on a speed figure scale? The pathetic rating he would deserve and just remember the circumstances, or boost him to his "usual" race. If you do that, suddenly it looks like I could hang with top class female Olympians, which I certainly cannot.

Why is CJ assuming I'm going to bump up both figures? Because Beyer told me I had to?

Any blanket adjustment is generally bad. Just because one could win with them in the past, doesn't make them theoeretically sound, and those looking for new frontiers of profitability are going to zero in on any weakness in order to exploit it. Track variants and pace figures, as well as blanket beaten-lengths adjustments, are three huge vulnerabilities that almost every number-crunching handicapper of this era has.

When they put finish lines up at the quarter and half-mile poles, I might begin using pace figures differently.

WhyWhyWhy
02-23-2008, 07:25 PM
They are much more reliable than unadjusted time.

So is the DRF's method.

Performance ratings are much more reliable than raw speed figures. All that's required to make a performance rating as a premise is that horses don't improve or decline drastically over time (except for predictable reasons). A group of 90s with a 70 speed figure can still be presumed to be 90s, even if Beyer's charts say otherwise for that race. They still competed. They're still the same horses, and they still got the same conditioning/class/whatever benefits from the race. And -- get this - the people who bet on them still won and lost the same amount of money, with the same purses paid.

The "different" pace is a minor difference at best.

WhyWhyWhy
02-23-2008, 07:29 PM
This is a lot of nutso stuff...everyone KNOWS Andy Beyer only buys and drives HARNESS HORSES!

His new book is titled Beyer on Bikes! :rolleyes:


Damn, Robert Duvall could so play him in a movie!

WhyWhyWhy
02-23-2008, 07:36 PM
I thought I said I consider pace, but maybe not. I make speed figure variants based on the other horses and the other races for each race. I then a make a pace variant. I then go back and look at the speed figure variants for each race again with the pace figures alongside. Sometimes I adjust them again, and sometimes not.

One example was War Pass in the BC Juvenile. Given how Pyro and him had run previously, it was easy to see how he could be given him a huge speed figure, and I initially did. However, when I then saw the pace figure, I knew it was simply not possible that the horses ran that fast. So, that race was considered alone.

There are times it makes sense to adjust all races, sometimes only races of a certain distance, and sometimes only one race.

To me, it doesn't make sense to disregard the other races as a possible source of information. I'm not saying you must use them, but most times they help. Making figures is a very complicated process, so the more information you have,the better.

I understand your methodology, but you don't mix the two ratings into a single performance rating, so you are doing what could be done automatically "by hand." Someone who looks at the teletimer is "considreing final time" but I wouldn't call them a speed handicapper. If you did, you wouldn't be saying "113 speed 88 pace" but instead that would convert to a single number. It does not.

Once you inject pace into speed figures, it would not make sense to use a linear, blanket adjustment for the entire field. Even though each horse's pace rating changes due to its unique trip, the "pace figure" itself is made with a blanket, just as the speed figure is. The two numbers you give are both accurate, but they also yield a third number, once one figures out the correct relationship between the two. In the 113/88 example above, what would that third number be?

I should add that I make pace ratings much differently, and they contain a very high class component.

cj
02-23-2008, 07:42 PM
I have to be honest, you are too vague for me to try to figure out what you are trying to say. It is 1:30 am and I'm about 2/3rds through a 12 hour shift, so maybe it is just me. I'll try to hit a few things then let it go for now.

The best thing about performance figures is that you can usually be more confident a horse is improving or declining with them than using speed figures alone.

In my example, I was saying it was tough to make a figure for a slow paced race. Sure, you can give the winner what you expect and use a different adjustment for the others. That makes sense...sometimes. What do you do when the horses have little or no history? If the Pyro race was a maiden special weight many of the horses had just a few races, maybe no routes, now what do you do? I prefer to give the horse exactly what I think they ran that day, not what the horse could maybe run if asked.

I don't get " The 'different' pace is a minor difference at best." Sometimes the pace is a minor factor, sometimes it is a huge factor. I'm sure you know this, just not sure what you are trying to say.

The biggest flaw with using only what happened in a specific race to make figures for that race is this...what do you do with the other races with little or no information to go on? Class pars? Please, those are one of the biggest frauds ever passed on to the public. I'd much rather use information from surrounding races than some made up par with no relevance to today's race.

Look at it all...the times of the race, the histories of the horses in the race, all the other races, track maintenance if available, weather changes, troubled trips, trainer changes, pressure, and so on. Then decide what is best. Most races aren't that tough, but some are. You have to do the work on those.

Cratos
02-23-2008, 07:42 PM
Dont understand what you are saying in regard to class. Cant follow

Do agree that his books are more illuminating


Simply stated and it is my understanding what Andy is saying is that in every class group there is the mediocre and the best in that class which is not easily discernable if you concluded class homogeneity. For instance a $25K claimer might dominate $20K claimers, but is at the bottom of the $25K claimers, but a bonafide $25K claimer nontheless at a particular racetrack; and with many bettors and handicappers this is not easily seen or understood.

cj
02-23-2008, 07:43 PM
I understand your methodology, but you don't mix the two ratings into a single performance rating, so you are doing what could be done automatically "by hand."


Ummm...yes I do. I thought you were familiar with my work, but I guess not. That clears up a lot.

Cratos
02-23-2008, 07:53 PM
I Once you inject pace into speed figures, it would not make sense to use a linear, blanket adjustment for the entire field. Even though each horse's pace rating changes due to its unique trip, the "pace figure" itself is made with a blanket, just as the speed figure is. The two numbers you give are both accurate, but they also yield a third number, once one figures out the correct relationship between the two. In the 113/88 example above, what would that third number be?

You appear to have an understanding of non-linear curve fitting.

WhyWhyWhy
02-23-2008, 08:28 PM
I have to be honest, you are too vague for me to try to figure out what you are trying to say. It is 1:30 am and I'm about 2/3rds through a 12 hour shift, so maybe it is just me. I'll try to hit a few things then let it go for now.

The best thing about performance figures is that you can usually be more confident a horse is improving or declining with them than using speed figures alone.

In my example, I was saying it was tough to make a figure for a slow paced race. Sure, you can give the winner what you expect and use a different adjustment for the others. That makes sense...sometimes. What do you do when the horses have little or no history? If the Pyro race was a maiden special weight many of the horses had just a few races, maybe no routes, now what do you do? I prefer to give the horse exactly what I think they ran that day, not what the horse could maybe run if asked.

I don't get " The 'different' pace is a minor difference at best." Sometimes the pace is a minor factor, sometimes it is a huge factor. I'm sure you know this, just not sure what you are trying to say.

The biggest flaw with using only what happened in a specific race to make figures for that race is this...what do you do with the other races with little or no information to go on? Class pars? Please, those are one of the biggest frauds ever passed on to the public. I'd much rather use information from surrounding races than some made up par with no relevance to today's race.

Look at it all...the times of the race, the histories of the horses in the race, all the other races, track maintenance if available, weather changes, troubled trips, trainer changes, pressure, and so on. Then decide what is best. Most races aren't that tough, but some are. You have to do the work on those.

A "performance figure" that only uses speed and pace is still incomplete, but it's way better than a speed figure.

On your other post you said you combine your speed/pace figures, but I hadn't seen you express it as a single number.

A true "performance figure" has to take everything that influences it into account, and if it doesn't, the results will show that, as whatever is not being taken into account will keep messing up its predictions, such as with the extreme example of fixes, which can't be taken into account, and which mess up all of tis.

Each variable, if it's pace or class or whatever, can be quantified. That we don't quantify everything doesn't mean it can't be done, only that we haven't done it yet. If someone has figured out how to do race-variants without getting tripped up, their numbers will blow away those of someone who uses daily variants, etc. Someone who has learned to inject class into their performance numbers gets ahead, and so forth.

The original question was about the Beyers, and Beyer's methodology, while a quantum leap in its day, has many holes in it, which lots of us have pointed out.

Tom
02-23-2008, 09:02 PM
Well, actually lots have expressed an opinon, but no real facts or data to verify the ideas. CJ, on the other hand, has been putting out proof of his method daily and many people are cashing regularly using them. Talk is cheap - pony up some examples. CJ already has.

DanG
02-23-2008, 11:12 PM
Andy Beyer…

The best pure writer in our business that could have written on any subject and been a major success. Agree with him or not…we should all be thankful a man with his national credentials has chosen to continuously take at bats for horseplayers.

Speed Figures...

If you’re making them yourself / buying them or stealing from an unsuspecting OTB drunk…you should want them as pure as possible.

It’s a large reason I went away from ‘the sheets. When speed is measured, I want just that…speed. Don’t give me subjective measurements, ground loss, wind, pace adjustments etc…Those can be extremely valuable, but there a separate computation / that should be a completely separate rating (I.e. HTR’s PER rating), but let us know what is involved so were not mixing Apples and Kumquat’s. (Or actual speed and “performance”)

HUSKER55
02-24-2008, 12:12 AM
If you are making track variants or race variants I have a couple of questions.

1. How would you ever develop a variant of any kind for Santa Anita or any other track out in CA. Between the rains, artificial track and the Santa Anita mess I have no idea how you would create a number that had value.

2. Creating a variant requires proper maintenance on the track. Between races, does that harrow go 1" in the ground, 3" in the ground or does it just skim the surface. How would you know? Does the track maintenance team sweep the track between each race or not?

3. If the track is too dry, do they add water or just let nature take its course. If it is too wet, do they work it every day to dry it out or do they let nature take its course. (Let us assume the drainage system works.) How would you know?

4. If you didn't have a variant number for each track that each horse has been at and a variant number for each horse, then what value would a variant be for "just the ones that you had".

If I decide to bet on a horse and his beyer is 69 and the horse next to him has a beyer of 79 rest assured I will know the reason why I am doing that.

Just my HO

Thank you for your comments

Cratos
02-24-2008, 03:38 AM
I want just that…speed. Don’t give me subjective measurements, ground loss, wind, pace adjustments etc…Those can be extremely valuable, but there a separate computation / that should be a completely separate rating (I.e. HTR’s PER rating), but let us know what is involved so were not mixing Apples and Kumquat’s. (Or actual speed and “performance”)


Speed is distance traveled divided by the time of travel where both time and distance is measured in acceptable increments (e.g. seconds, minutes, feet, miles, etc)

Pure speed involves environment conditions not unless you are in a vacuum and not to account for ground loss you will not have pure speed, but approximate speed based on a fixed distance which is a nebulous statistic at best.

First_Place
02-24-2008, 03:53 AM
Rufus999 asked:

"Do you feel the Beyer figs in DRF are accurate and/or reliable? "

Beyer's speed figures are, like Dick Schmidt likes to say: "good enough" numbers. Ditto for other 'cheap' (i.e. price-wise) numbers/figures available from TSN, Equibase, etc.

Since you brought this topic up, let me add my two cents: Speed figures are ONLY one component used in analyzing a race. You have to use other tools in addition (to speed figs) if you want to make money consistently at this endeavor.

FP

WhyWhyWhy
02-24-2008, 05:31 AM
Well, actually lots have expressed an opinon, but no real facts or data to verify the ideas. CJ, on the other hand, has been putting out proof of his method daily and many people are cashing regularly using them. Talk is cheap - pony up some examples. CJ already has.

Actually, CJ and the rest of us have all pointed out that the BSF by itself needs a little help. We just approach that different ways. As long as what we do turns a profit we don't have to look further. If we all had a contest, we might each get an ROI of like $1.10 or whatever, and some yokel who can't read a form will use a consensus on the picks to double his money.

How many times have you and another sharp horseplayer argued about one horse against another only to have them duel to the wire for a triple-digit exacta? Different points of view are to be respected. One thing I know for sure is that the percentage-players often catch "underpriced" winners on supertrainers that the raw numbers never seem to like as much.

WhyWhyWhy
02-24-2008, 05:34 AM
Speed Figures...

If you’re making them yourself / buying them or stealing from an unsuspecting OTB drunk…you should want them as pure as possible.

It’s a large reason I went away from ‘the sheets. When speed is measured, I want just that…speed. Don’t give me subjective measurements, ground loss, wind, pace adjustments etc…

Subjective because the universe is random?

The Beyer number is a raw final time adjusted for distance and surface.

Think of a race as you would a NYC subway car: everyone is going somewhere different, for different reasons, and on a different timetable.

Do you really think the horse who beat Volponi in that Meadowlands race just prior to the BC deserved a better performance figure? Is it so hard to fathom that you might have to add twenty points to one horse's Beyer, subtract ten from another, add six to another, and so forth, to get accurate performance ratings? In Volponi's case, if you assume it's a prep and give points for that, the BC win isn't such a "surprise." Multiply that by the hundred or so horses a day who are rated under "blanket" numbers and there's a lot of room under that blanket to mess around.

WhyWhyWhy
02-24-2008, 05:37 AM
The bottom line is this: the Beyer Speed Figure is a numerical building block that can be used to make a much more comprehensive performance rating that is expressed as a Beyer speed rating.

If there are no adjustments (which never happens), then the BSF is the performance rating, but that is very rare. The more adjustments necessary to convert the Beyer figure into a performance rating, the more likely the public, or the one-dimensional figuremakers, are going to get the number wrong, and that is where the modern number-cruncher finds value.

Is a 78 earned in the debut while running up the track in an MSW at Churchill the same as a 78 earned while destroying a group of MCL $10k at Mnr? If not, how many points is one superior to the other? The Beyers are NOT universal by a longshot.

DanG
02-24-2008, 09:01 AM
Pure speed involves environment conditions not unless you are in a vacuum and not to account for ground loss you will not have pure speed, but approximate speed based on a fixed distance which is a nebulous statistic at best.
I understand what you’re saying, but lets be clear. All of the measurements we are discussing are “approximations”. If someone is selling you speed data and attaches the word “absolute” to their ratings, then the snake oil is flowing.

If you’re saying you need ground loss in order to improve accuracy, I agree in theory and disagree in my own experience.

I put effort into recognizing the occasional path biases and I would rather apply that local knowledge to a “pure” speed rating, rather than one that has been adjusted for path, weight, wind, or jockeys breakfast etc…

In the quest for accuracy many of us at least applying some shading to raw numbers being it a fig we don’t trust, tricky variant, extreme ground loss etc…But; the more information injected into the time of the race (other then beaten length and variant) just adds more ‘noise to the equation.

Now…before the sheet players load their weapons, I’m not in ANY way disparaging their excellent products. I used them for years and a member of our group swears by TG. I am saying I would love an unadjusted fig along with their more complex version to so I could apply more subjective data as I see fit.

These are just my views of course…Regardless of how someone wants to apply numbers it’s fair game and the only real measurement is the edge they give you at the windows.

Murph
02-24-2008, 11:27 AM
If you are making track variants or race variants I have a couple of questions.As an expert figure maker with more than 15 years experience in this area, I would like to give my answers to your questions individually, Husker. Thanks for the opportunity.

1. How would you ever develop a variant of any kind for Santa Anita or any other track out in CA. Between the rains, artificial track and the Santa Anita mess I have no idea how you would create a number that had value.I cannot create an accurate track variant for this meeting. The best I can do for my customers is to make them aware (if they are not already) of the situation. Handicappers have some interesting decisions awaiting them in the very near future. I'm anxiously awaiting the opportunities sure to be present. Folks who have watched and played this meeting may have information that's valuable. I do not know at all if I do yet or not.

2. Creating a variant requires proper maintenance on the track. Between races, does that harrow go 1" in the ground, 3" in the ground or does it just skim the surface. How would you know? Does the track maintenance team sweep the track between each race or not?I recommend that you ignore such details that result in changes of less than a full second from pace and/or the final time par for the race in question.

3. If the track is too dry, do they add water or just let nature take its course. If it is too wet, do they work it every day to dry it out or do they let nature take its course. (Let us assume the drainage system works.) How would you know?Track maintenence supervisors do what ever they want to the track surface at all hours of the day and night, sometimes for no apparent reason to handicappers. I rely on the difference in the running times to point to situations when the track condition is significantly different, as above.

4. If you didn't have a variant number for each track that each horse has been at and a variant number for each horse, then what value would a variant be for "just the ones that you had".I would describe this as a bad situation for putting a high confidence level in any speed figures for shippers and evaluating their effect on the race today. After years of research I have settled on 90 tracks to collect and distribute par times for. I can do more or less tracks but the current Thorostats track list is going to be the final set for awhile.

I rely on our consistent method of collecting this data for the 90 tracks to help equalize the highs and lows of track surface and class variance changes. My hope is that the types of changes generated by your question list will be reflective of the true track speed over time. As races are added to our database the par differences will be accounted for in the speed rating generated for the race your are handicapping.

This is the point that I accept my speed rating as "good enough". I am currently doing research that will innovate a track to track speed adjustment and apply this to a proper form that will allow me to selectively eliminate certain races considered for making a variant (NOT for making a par time).

If I can prove my theory out, I am going to ask Tony to progam this into our par creator tool for users to be able to select and apply track variant information in a manner that's flexible enough to allow for an individual's preferred use for the info. Exciting stuff for me.

I am saying I would love an unadjusted fig along with their more complex version to so I could apply more subjective data as I see fit.
Dan, you've described the relationship between thorostats speed rating and power rating in a nutshell. The speed ratings are essentially unadjusted. I hope you know you are welcome to review our data at any time. I would certainly welcome any thougths or comments you might be inclined to make in the forums here or privately.

Once again thanks to everyone for a very lively and relevant thread, this is some really good stuff in this one.

Murph

HUSKER55
02-24-2008, 11:41 AM
I just started handicapping last july and I am constantly trying to improve my skill level. Your input was greatly appreciated and I thank you.

:)

Murph
02-24-2008, 11:48 AM
I just started handicapping last july and I am constantly trying to improve my skill level. Your input was greatly appreciated and I thank you.

:)You BET, man!
That's what I'm talking about,
anytime.

RXB
02-24-2008, 12:17 PM
Speed is distance traveled divided by the time of travel where both time and distance is measured in acceptable increments (e.g. seconds, minutes, feet, miles, etc)

Pure speed involves environment conditions not unless you are in a vacuum and not to account for ground loss you will not have pure speed, but approximate speed based on a fixed distance which is a nebulous statistic at best.

Here are some of the questions that I have regarding adjustments for ground loss:

If the rail is dead, what good does saving ground do?

If a closer consistently runs wide on the turn, why should he get extra credit for ground loss?

Speed horses tend to save more ground than closers. Is it a good idea to penalize early speed horses in dirt races?

As you mentioned, there are environmental conditions at work. But these apply to standardized formulae for ground loss, too.

Cratos
02-24-2008, 01:57 PM
Here are some of the questions that I have regarding adjustments for ground loss:

If the rail is dead, what good does saving ground do?

If a closer consistently runs wide on the turn, why should he get extra credit for ground loss?

Speed horses tend to save more ground than closers. Is it a good idea to penalize early speed horses in dirt races?

As you mentioned, there are environmental conditions at work. But these apply to standardized formulae for ground loss, too.

If the rail is dead, what good does saving ground do?
Remember you are not calculating speed resistance (that what a dead rail or any part of the track that is abnormal would respond too). You are calculating speed and as I said speed is distance over an increment of time. Therefore in the horse race you would want he shortest distance at minimum time, but as you alluded too, a "dead rail” could impact speed.

If a closer consistently runs wide on the turn, why should he get extra credit for ground loss?
If a horse that has a closer running style consistently runs wide it should be apparent to the handicapper that the horse is covering more ground and if you normalized the horse’s effort with its competitors in a given race there might be a horse in that race which might exploit the closer’s going wide tendency.

Speed horses tend to save more ground than closers. Is it a good idea to penalize early speed horses in dirt races?
Speed horses tend to run truer routes in terms of distance because they are often alone on the lead or near the front of the pack. No, speed horses should not be penalized because what you are referring too is inherent running style.

As you mentioned, there are environmental conditions at work. But these apply to standardized formulae for ground loss, too.
In part you are correct, but it is difficult to standardize the formulae for ground loss because the size and different geometry in the various track design layouts.

Murph
02-24-2008, 03:38 PM
Here are some of the questions that I have regarding adjustments for ground loss:

As you mentioned, there are environmental conditions at work. But these apply to standardized formulae for ground loss, too.Except the dynamics of ground loss and distance traveled are a function of the field in competition.

Leave the collection of averages alone as much as possible.

Apply the factors you mention to a variable adjustment that is utilized in relation to the actual performance you want to benefit with your variant.

What do you think?

Murph

Tom
02-24-2008, 03:39 PM
I disagree with ground loss.
The only distance that matters is between the gate and wire.
If you keep giviing a wide closer an adjustment for goin wide and he never goes inside, you make his history better than it is. I prefer just the speed from gate until the winner hits the wire. Anything after that is a torn ticket.

George Sands
02-24-2008, 05:41 PM
Tom,

Using figures that adjust for ground loss does not always get the user a torn ticket. Sometimes it gets him a 3-million-dollar Pick 6 payoff. Yes, as you say, giving a habitual wide closer credit for going wide will make his figure-history better. However, you should also be projecting today's ground loss and adjusting the figures accordingly, which eliminates the problem you describe. Every serious sheet player I know does this.

chickenhead
02-24-2008, 07:09 PM
I'd like to have a set of figs with ground loss for all but the final turn factored in.

WhyWhyWhy
02-25-2008, 01:37 AM
I'd like to have a set of figs with ground loss for all but the final turn factored in.

Ground loss is a minor consideration when it comes to adjusting figures. Several other factors, most notably class, have a greater influence.

An 80 up against a group of 65s is going to give up ground on the turns to avoid traffic because it is superior, whereas against a group of 80s that would be suicide.

Horses who go wide get a clear run in the lane, and they don't have to corner as sharply.

dav4463
02-25-2008, 04:28 AM
Do I trust the Beyer figs?

The way I use them?


YES, ABSOLUTELY....they work for me.


I find races where I can throw out the top four Last Race Beyer figure horses and concentrate on one or two longshots with a chance.......it is paying off $$$ . I love the Beyers!

onefast99
02-25-2008, 08:49 AM
I trust them in NY and thats it.

chickenhead
02-25-2008, 10:21 AM
Ground loss is a minor consideration when it comes to adjusting figures.

I use figures that don't adjust for ground loss and do just fine, so I agree. But if something else were to be factored in, I'd want it to be ground loss.




An 80 up against a group of 65s is going to give up ground on the turns to avoid traffic because it is superior, whereas against a group of 80s that would be suicide.

In both cases, it would have a probable negative impact on his final time. That is why it would be suicide against his own "class". The fact he may still beat a group of weaker horses after going wide on the first turn really doesn't change the focus from being on the ground loss effecting his performance, rather than "class", no?


Horses who go wide get a clear run in the lane.

Part of the reason I wouldn't include the final turn, or not at equal weights, at least. There is often good that comes from going wide for part of the final turn. There is rarely, if ever, any good from going wide in any of the other turns. It is a decided negative, by my lights at least.

WhyWhyWhy
02-25-2008, 10:44 AM
I use figures that don't adjust for ground loss and do just fine, so I agree. But if something else were to be factored in, I'd want it to be ground loss.

I wouldn't. See my class example (78 against MSW at CD up the track versus 78 at Mnr in a 10 MCL winning or finishing second).

[/quote]In both cases, it would have a probable negative impact on his final time. That is why it would be suicide against his own "class". The fact he may still beat a group of weaker horses after going wide on the first turn really doesn't change the focus from being on the ground loss effecting his performance, rather than "class", no? [/quote]

Problem is with the winning horse, you never really know how fast it could have run. Remember War Emblem's "easy" win on the front-end in the 2002 Illinois Derby? So easy he paid 6-1, and so easy he repeated.

nobeyerspls
02-25-2008, 11:48 AM
I waited until now to reply to Rufus's original question because I thought several others would come up with the answer. He asked if people thought that the beyer speed figures in the Form were accurate and reliable.
Others touched on the point that they are often changed after the fact. If the Form had two coulumns, one for the original and one for the revised, those that use them could make a judgement about their accuracy. For example, if the tolerance was plus or minus 10% over a wide sample someone would look at a 75 and view it as a possible 68 or 82.
As for me, ignoring two columns would be just as easy as not looking at one.

George Sands
02-25-2008, 11:53 AM
Before the fact: Yes, there's a decent chance that a wide closer will get a clean run while a ground-saving closer will get stopped at some point.

But the thing is, speed figures are made after the fact. Therefore, why not adjust for ground loss and then make a separate note of any trouble the horse encountered. That way you will avoid the dreaded double errors in cases where horses raced wide AND got stopped, and in cases where they saved ground and DIDN'T get stopped.

chickenhead
02-25-2008, 12:02 PM
I wouldn't. See my class example (78 against MSW at CD up the track versus 78 at Mnr in a 10 MCL winning or finishing second).

I think the pace component captures nearly all of the difference in that case.


as for ground loss...if you had the data, and while incorporating it found your performance figures less predictive and less profitable...then obviously you'd have to rethink things. Its not like you'd be making these changes in the dark. But I do think there is incrementally useful information there...that could be incorporated to good effect. Its academic at this point tho.

WhyWhyWhy
02-25-2008, 10:36 PM
I think the pace component captures nearly all of the difference in that case.


as for ground loss...if you had the data, and while incorporating it found your performance figures less predictive and less profitable...then obviously you'd have to rethink things. Its not like you'd be making these changes in the dark. But I do think there is incrementally useful information there...that could be incorporated to good effect. Its academic at this point tho.

ANY factor that you fail to account for in your performance ratings will continually hurt your ROI until you account for it. Simple example: Dutrow off the claim. Say you were blind to that and didn't project your figure based on an improvement over say JOHN CANDLIN as the previous trainer. You'd go along, merrily rating horses as if the two barns were equal, and your numbers would be wrong until you fixed it.

For any factor, there is a correct adjustment, whether or not we happen to have found it yet, or even recognized the adjustment's existence.

There are theories that go into performance ratings that are extremely counterintuitive and are the product of approaches which go well beyond numbers and pace. The goal of all of this is to predict what the horse will do in its NEXT race anyway, so whether you get to that destination through pace, trainers, pedigree, etc. doesn't matter as much, as when one factor carries a horse, it usually carries the other along with it, if it is worth wagering on in the first place.

In that context, ground loss isn't much of a concern of mine, and I don't see any equation that would change that. There's just too many offsetting considerations that make normalization of a wide trip extremely difficult, and several that call into question whether or not it should be done at all, beyond the occasional subjective adjustment in extreme situations.

chickenhead
02-25-2008, 11:43 PM
ANY factor that you fail to account for in your performance ratings will continually hurt your ROI until you account for it. Simple example: Dutrow off the claim. Say you were blind to that and didn't project your figure based on an improvement over say JOHN CANDLIN as the previous trainer. You'd go along, merrily rating horses as if the two barns were equal, and your numbers would be wrong until you fixed it.

You are talking about what I would call a power rating, rather than a performance rating, as you're no longer trying to describe a past performance, you're making a projection of what will happen in the future (today). So far as I understood the thread, we've been talking about describing something that happened in the past. Making a power rating is a subject I'm very much interested in...but that isn't what we've been talking about.

The Bit
02-26-2008, 12:52 AM
It amazes me how long these Beyer Figure discussions go on for and how intense they get.

People trying to make them what they aren't, crucifying others for using or not using them and some sharing opinions that don't really pertain to what was originally asked.

I wonder how many of these post actually answer the question do you trust Beyer Figures and the effort they make to represent a horses previous performance? Not too many!

Good reading though.

rufus999
02-26-2008, 10:10 AM
If nothing else this thread has shown me that there is no shortage of verbose members on this forum. It has also shown me that formulas for calculating speed are still quite popular. I honestly didn't expect such a passionate response to a simple question. My own skepticism led me to post it. I had no intention of gauging the collective knowledge of the group. However, for having helped me assess the knowledge base that exists here, I thank you all.:cool:

rufus

Foolish Pleasure
02-26-2008, 11:24 AM
Now there is a new one. Please, enlighten us. What horse has Beyer bought and/or sold recently? Just one please as I'm sure the list must be long.


You are welcome.
Didn't know Andy owned horses?
You can go find them yourself or we can bet on it.

I am not your googler.


Earning money via racing is abt beating the other guy,
not abt beating the races.


Choosing to ignore in this thread alone:

1)beyer numbers are no better or worse than any other reasonable objective speed figure

2)the croat who sets the prices is 95% or more objective based-beating him is not going to be done by out objectifying him, he lubes his machine with millions of dollars of money every single year.

3)pace matters until it doesn't,

I stopped reading on page 6 but I am sure there is another dozen and half things it is easier to just ignore.


Stop trying to solve the problem of horse racing and start trying to solve the problem of how I am going to beat people who are dramatically out gunning me.

BTW Aly that is the definition of a sell out, someone who has knowledge who chooses to sell it vs use it.

Foolish Pleasure
02-26-2008, 11:36 AM
btw CJ feel free to ask yourself,

how is it that this very public guy who makes the numbers that determine the value of the breed can own horses and I not know abt it?


could have something to do with the conflict of interest being so embarassingly obvious? a cynic would guess that.

Tom
02-26-2008, 11:39 AM
Beyer makes numbers and buys and sells horses.
his numbers largely set the value of the horseflesh.
That is conflict of interest.

And you don't even know the name of one of them, huh? :lol::lol::lol:

DanG
02-26-2008, 11:40 AM
I am not your googler.

We have reached the...
http://www.davidjschow.com/limits/images/people_head.jpg

njcurveball
02-26-2008, 11:54 AM
As much as I hate jumping into this long and confusing thread, I have to add I queried my database and did not find any horses for Andy Beyer. I also thought I was a good "googler" and could not find any info on him being a partner, member of a syndicate, owner of a horse farm, etc.

If anyone knows of an "Advanced Beyer Search" Googling class, please let me know.

Dave runs lots of good classes, so maybe he could add one for this? :jump:

Jim

btw: Do you think he means Jerry Brown who makes TG figures and has partnerships?

the little guy
02-26-2008, 11:05 PM
btw CJ feel free to ask yourself,

how is it that this very public guy who makes the numbers that determine the value of the breed can own horses and I not know abt it?


could have something to do with the conflict of interest being so embarassingly obvious? a cynic would guess that.


Foolish Pleasure was a marvelous horse. He does not deserve to have his good name besmirched by the likes of you.

Could you please change your name to something more appropriate......perhaps, just to keep part of your former moniker, Foolish Poster?

WhyWhyWhy
02-27-2008, 05:03 AM
You are talking about what I would call a power rating, rather than a performance rating, as you're no longer trying to describe a past performance, you're making a projection of what will happen in the future (today). So far as I understood the thread, we've been talking about describing something that happened in the past. Making a power rating is a subject I'm very much interested in...but that isn't what we've been talking about.

Performance ratings are the basis for power ratings. Two sides of the same coin.

Same with figures earned in the debut. Whether you call it a handicapping adjustment for next time out or a performance adjustment this time out, it's pretty much the same thing.

WhyWhyWhy
02-27-2008, 05:06 AM
I think the pace component captures nearly all of the difference in that case.

(Regarding the example of the 78 beyer at widely different class settings)

Sure, the "pace component" will capture it, but so will the "class component." CJ might give the race a high pace figure, while I might give it a high class figure, and we might arrive at the same conclusion.

The key calculation is always going to be what figure a horse will earn NEXT time out, which is why all methods of analyzing the past have limitations.

The real question is, if we all figured this stuff out, how would any of us still win? After a while "bingo night econimcs" kick in. The mutuel pools aren't a bottomless pit.

Murph
02-27-2008, 07:51 AM
Hello tlg,

You didn't reply in the thread before or after the AQU race last week:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=490690&postcount=39

That's a speed figure issue I had asked you about. Would you care to share your thoughts? What you said to Foolish Pleasure might apply here as well.

Tsunamic was a marvelous horse. He did not deserve to have his good name besmirched by the likes of you.

the little guy
02-27-2008, 09:03 AM
So, some guy telling lies on the internet equates, in your mind, to someone giving his pre-race opinion about a race that turns out to be wrong?

That's quite an analogy Murph.

cj
02-27-2008, 09:35 AM
He was wrong about a 5 to 2 shot...oh the horror. Come on man, this other guy is just making crap up about Beyer owning horses. The two are hardly comparable.

DanG
02-27-2008, 09:49 AM
There is a punchers chance ‘Foolish Pleasure is actually Beyer from home; sitting in his Harvard monogrammed pajamas laughing hysterically.

cj
02-27-2008, 10:05 AM
Only if a "puncher's chance" equals no chance.

Murph
02-27-2008, 10:17 AM
So, some guy telling lies on the internet equates, in your mind, to someone giving his pre-race opinion about a race that turns out to be wrong?

That's quite an analogy Murph.We were handicapping that contest in the forum on the day of the race. You had a chance to reply to the thread before any of us had taken any risk on your opinion. Tsunamic was a key to handicapping that race.

I still don't know why you posted such a negative opinion on that horse.

Murph

WhyWhyWhy
02-27-2008, 10:21 AM
He was wrong about a 5 to 2 shot...oh the horror.

ALL wrong opinions are horrors!

DanG
02-27-2008, 10:24 AM
Only if a "puncher's chance" equals no chance.
Yes; It’s a weak attempt at rhetorical humor CJ…I think we realize it has a better chance of originating from Bellview.

cj
02-27-2008, 10:30 AM
We were handicapping that contest in the forum on the day of the race. You had a chance to reply to the thread before any of us had taken any risk on your opinion. Tsunamic was a key to handicapping that race.

I still don't know why you posted such a negative opinion on that horse.

Murph

I can't speak for TLG, but generally, backing deep closers in maiden races at 5 to 2 isn't a very prudent play. Of course they still win sometimes.

the little guy
02-27-2008, 10:38 AM
We were handicapping that contest in the forum on the day of the race. You had a chance to reply to the thread before any of us had taken any risk on your opinion. Tsunamic was a key to handicapping that race.

I still don't know why you posted such a negative opinion on that horse.

Murph


I offered my opinion of the race. I turned out to be wrong. If I turned out to be right I certainly wouldn't have expected a garland of roses. The very fact that you are bringing it up, in another thread, weeks later as well, speaks volumes about you.

Foolish Pleasure
02-27-2008, 10:40 AM
Come on man, this other guy is just making crap up about Beyer owning horses.


Do either you or any other shill(Tom maybe) want to bet 10 dimes on it?

the little guy
02-27-2008, 10:50 AM
Do either you or any other shill(Tom maybe) want to bet 10 dimes on it?


I do. You tell me where to meet and I'll be there, with Beyer.

Just be sure to bring the ten dimes.

cj
02-27-2008, 10:55 AM
I do. You tell me where to meet and I'll be there, with Beyer.

Just be sure to bring the ten dimes.

I'm sure, in his world, ten dimes is actually a dollar.

the little guy
02-27-2008, 10:58 AM
I'm sure, in his world, ten dimes is actually a dollar.

In that case, it better be somewhere I can walk to in less than ten minutes in Manhattan.

chickenhead
02-27-2008, 11:05 AM
Performance ratings are the basis for power ratings. Two sides of the same coin.

Same with figures earned in the debut. Whether you call it a handicapping adjustment for next time out or a performance adjustment this time out, it's pretty much the same thing.

I'd make the distinction because a performance rating of a single race is just one of many factors that go into a power rating....so talking about them like they are the same thing is a bit confusing. I don't keep adjusting on a single performance figure to get to a power rating, I know that some people do...so your way of looking at them makes more sense if that's the case.

But I agree of course...all that matters at the windows is the end result of the entire process, an odds line, or its equivalent opinion expressed in some other usable way.

Foolish Pleasure
02-27-2008, 11:06 AM
I'll take that as a no.

I am sure you are a lifetime loser at the windows
so guess that makes us even.

the little guy
02-27-2008, 11:08 AM
I'll take that as a no.

I am sure you are a lifetime loser at the windows
so guess that makes us even.


I said yes.

Let's make it easy....we can meet at the Pace Advantage get together at Saratoga this summer.

You'll have no problem finding me.....I'll be the guy walking away with your ten dimes.

Murph
02-27-2008, 11:58 AM
I can't speak for TLG, but generally, backing deep closers in maiden races at 5 to 2 isn't a very prudent play. Of course they still win sometimes.I sort of pointed this out when I asked for tlg's reasoning in the face of a superior speed number and acceptable form. I saw his opinion as way more of a tip OFF Tsunamic than on any play. I've asked repeatedly now to debate the subject since it was broached publicly here.

I don't see the problem with my question. tlg, you decided to ignore me in the relevant thread but I thought the question was worth persuing. Since you've chosen not to share any additional insight on the subject, I'm happy to drop it now.

I kind of resent your retort for simply asking the question again.

Murph

WhyWhyWhy
02-27-2008, 12:06 PM
I'd make the distinction because a performance rating of a single race is just one of many factors that go into a power rating....so talking about them like they are the same thing is a bit confusing. I don't keep adjusting on a single performance figure to get to a power rating, I know that some people do...so your way of looking at them makes more sense if that's the case.

But I agree of course...all that matters at the windows is the end result of the entire process, an odds line, or its equivalent opinion expressed in some other usable way.

I find that math is great for perfectly answering your questions without telling you if you're asking the right ones.

I view a speed figure as an incomplete performance rating, and a performance rating as the default basis for the power rating. Once you adjust the final time at all, you're getting into "power rating" territory because you can just say the horse ran 1:11.2 for 6F and that's that.

It's a slippery slope.

Seems like the rats are finding the cheese too!

Fastracehorse
02-27-2008, 03:51 PM
The Beyer is an incomplete performance rating, not a complete time rating. Time is one element of performance. Say a horse is caught 12-wide on both turns and loses by a nose. Its Beyer number will equal the horse that beat it, even if you know from the ground loss that it was vastly superior.

Then there are races like the 2004 Belmont, where four slightly inferior horses went on kamikaze pace missions to deflate Smarty Jones's figure.




In stats, factors are tested in a vacuum called "other factors being equal." You can blindly bet any number if it's good enough.




The DRF SR/TV number is "better than nothing." That doesn't mean it should be used. The point is that the variant is a lazy way of trying to account for the inherent speed of a surface for all races, when that is but one of a dozen or more factors that impact the raw time rating.

If four horses run six points apart, and they have figures of 90 to 84 as their norms, I don't need to calculate a variant to know that the winner probably earned a 90. I don't even need the final time, just the beaten-lengths chart.

The real trick to solving this is to factor out Beyer's work and go back to where Kovitz (a genuine mathematician) left off. Beyer began messing up Kovitz's work the second he tried to evolve it. One could have taken Kovitz's beaten-lengths calculation and built an entirely different speed-figure/performance-rating method from it. In the 1970s, no one noticed because few were making figures ta all, but in today's game, these flaws are exploited by those with better math skills than Beyer.

Re: "The Beyer is an incomplete performance rating, not a complete time rating."

I don't know why why why you switch time for performance in the latter. Yes, the Beyer, CAN be an incomplete time/variant rating; but it also CAN be complete! Racing is contextual, not run in a vacuum.

I have an accurate adjustment for lost ground.

Re: 'Blindly betting stats.' Again contextualize:ie, is the stat relevant to today?? There are an infitissimal amount of examples why this is true.

The variant used to calcualte the Beyer is good enough, and the other inherent factors that affect it are negligible, and, I am lazy. But my adjusted speed figure is accurate.

The problem with horse racing is that most races are competitive; and, horses OFTEN do not repeat their prior perfromance; so, speed figures are like any other factor: They are most effective when they have the largest advantage. I love them as many horses, because of the natural tendencies of horse racing, can perform - to use your word - significantly better than their un-adjusted rating.

Re: Kovitz/Beyer.

With the risk of sounding like a know-it-all the math is rather simple. There is no genius in calculating adjusted speed figures, Beyer and probably Kovitz would tell U this. But I will tell U one thing, as a springboard to developing high quality adjusted speed figures - the Beyer is flippin' awesome.

fffastt

Fastracehorse
02-27-2008, 03:54 PM
It amazes me how long these Beyer Figure discussions go on for and how intense they get.

People trying to make them what they aren't, crucifying others for using or not using them and some sharing opinions that don't really pertain to what was originally asked.

I wonder how many of these post actually answer the question do you trust Beyer Figures and the effort they make to represent a horses previous performance? Not too many!

Good reading though.

I trust them The Bit.

PaceAdvantage
02-28-2008, 03:22 AM
I'll take that as a no.

I am sure you are a lifetime loser at the windows
so guess that makes us even.I think you missed a crucial reply or two. You were taken up on your offer. My guess is, you conveniently won't be back in this thread....

gm10
02-28-2008, 04:04 AM
This is one of the better posts I have read here regarding this very topic. I have stated it several times and it was met with disbelief and ill-informed criticism as well.

If you are using one variant for the day, good luck to you. If you are splitting routes and sprints, thats beeter. One turn vs. two, better still. But, if you are NOT assuming that conditions can and do change and the track speed is a dynamic phenomenon, the figs will be erratic, inconsistent, and not reflect reality.

Kudos to you WHYWHYWHY, I think you see things as they are.

John

In Beyer's defense, it has to be said that Beyer Speed Figures only measure speed. They were never meant to measure class or pace, or take into account any bias.

Take Beulah from yesterday. There was a 25/1 winner which was perfectly bettable. Why? His last race had been on Jan 29. Anyone who kept notes for that day of racing @ BEU will have noted a spectacular rail bias. Yesterday's winner had run a very good race AGAINST the rail bias, yet the Beyer was moderate. I think this is fair enough. Ideally, you would want a track variant for every race for every lane of course. But I don't think this is doable just yet.

gm10
02-28-2008, 04:43 AM
In Beyer's defense, it has to be said that Beyer Speed Figures only measure speed. They were never meant to measure class or pace, or take into account any bias.

Take Beulah from yesterday. There was a 25/1 winner which was perfectly bettable. Why? His last race had been on Jan 29. Anyone who kept notes for that day of racing @ BEU will have noted a spectacular rail bias. Yesterday's winner had run a very good race AGAINST the rail bias, yet the Beyer was moderate. I think this is fair enough. Ideally, you would want a track variant for every race for every lane of course. But I don't think this is doable just yet.

(I didn't bet that 25/1 horse btw, I only noticed it when it was too late.)

BlueShoe
02-28-2008, 08:39 PM
With the much discussed nightmare that the current Santa Anita is having,just how can any person,no matter how skilled,construct accurate figures?Making pace and par charts would seem to be impossible with the huge swings in track speed during the meet.Claimers that were gong 43 and change on the way to a 1:07 and change win earlier,last week were losing after running lines three seconds slower.Hats off to those can make good numbers out of this mess.

NYPlayer
02-28-2008, 11:28 PM
With the risk of sounding like a know-it-all the math is rather simple. There is no genius in calculating adjusted speed figures, Beyer and probably Kovitz would tell U this. But I will tell U one thing, as a springboard to developing high quality adjusted speed figures - the Beyer is flippin' awesome.

fffastt

It's true. Calculating the BSFs isn't exactly nuclear physics, yet initially Beyer may have had some difficulty in arriving at the correct formula: he gives credit to Kovitz in his books.

I don't trust the Beyer figs. Before I used the Rag sheets, I found that I could get value by second guessing the BSF, and take the chance that a particular race was faster or slower than suggested by the Beyer fig.

The Sheets surprised me in that they proved to be right where Beyer was often wrong, so those are the numbers I use and trust. My betting action and confidence have grown significantly, and I see the game from a whole new point of view. It's a lot of fun.

Fastracehorse
03-03-2008, 04:02 PM
If U look at Beyers for pure quantitative derivation then I would agree with you; but you can't.

Remember, the first aspect in determining their effectiveness is to understand what they are measuring. Once you understand this, you can use them to analyze the ability of horses, and unearth overlays.

Used appropriately, BSF's rival formidably the best tools in the game, including sheets.

fffastt

Foolish Pleasure
03-04-2008, 11:03 AM
Bad guess.


I didn't miss a post,
I don't respond to trolls.


CJ is a real person, you are a real person,
just tell me you want the action and we have a bet.

DanG
03-04-2008, 11:07 AM
Bad guess.


I didn't miss a post,
I don't respond to trolls.


CJ is a real person, you are a real person,
just tell me you want the action and we have a bet.


My guess is you won't be responding to this thread again.
This is a little alarming that it took you this long to scrape up a buck.

Don’t limit this bet to a couple men FP…you will get plenty of action is you really want it.

Foolish Pleasure
03-04-2008, 11:09 AM
Took so long to scrape up a buck?
WTF are you talking abt?
I have better things to do than post in internet forums.
137 posts in 6yrs should tip you off.

Beyer owned and/or owns race horses.

Any real person that wants to step up and lose money,

I am here.


Just speak up.

DanG
03-04-2008, 11:19 AM
Beyer owned and/or owns race horses.

Any real person that wants to step up and lose money,

May I ask one question my good man…

Under what name are these ownerships listed?

Foolish Pleasure
03-04-2008, 11:43 AM
I do not know the answer to that question.

But I know for a fact he and his wife have owned interest in a handful of cheap horses within the last 10yrs. I have no idea whether that is still the case or not but it was the case at one time.

cj
03-04-2008, 12:15 PM
Let us assume that is true. Here is your original statement:

Beyer makes numbers and buys and sells horses.
his numbers largely set the value of the horseflesh.
That is conflict of interest.


Do you really equate the two?

HUSKER55
03-04-2008, 12:31 PM
Beyer himself says that if his top rated horse has a 3 point advantage over the balance of the field, then you have a 29% chance of winning. He also says that if you bet the top rated horse in every race you produce a 7.5% loss. That was after 10000 races.

Beyer figs use only final time and final time only, according to Joe Cardello, with a variant taken into consideration.

Beyer also says it is absurb to look at his figures out of the context that they were earned. Depending on how a race develops the swing can go from 60 to 80.


It is in the book "Speed to Spare" by Joe Cardello.

Hope this helps.

:)

Fastracehorse
03-05-2008, 05:58 PM
Good post.

That is the swing of the un-adjsuted figure ( 60-80 ) - the adjusted figure can swing much more dramatically and hence, give the player some potential for excellent over-lays.

fffastt

cj
03-05-2008, 06:47 PM
Beyer himself says that if his top rated horse has a 3 point advantage over the balance of the field, then you have a 29% chance of winning. He also says that if you bet the top rated horse in every race you produce a 7.5% loss. That was after 10000 races.

:)

There is no way the bolded part is true today.

Cratos
03-05-2008, 08:58 PM
Good post.

That is the swing of the un-adjsuted figure ( 60-80 ) - the adjusted figure can swing much more dramatically and hence, give the player some potential for excellent over-lays.

fffastt


I don’t know about your “adjusted” and “unadjusted” speed figure calculations, but if you take the 4,164 par values used in the BSFs you will find their distribution normally distributed and at 3 Sigma the value from the mean is 43.48.

Tom
03-05-2008, 11:32 PM
What do mean the 4164 "par" values?

Cratos
03-05-2008, 11:49 PM
What do mean the 4164 "par" values?

If you look at the data base you will find a "par" value for every race classification. For instance take a look at Arlington Park at female horses 3yo&Up and one is a Maiden Claimer and the other is a Claimer and the difference in the “pars” are 18 points

AP 3yo&Up MCL 21,000 - 34,000 Dirt 66

AP 3yo&Up CLM 21,000 - 34,000 Dirt 78

Cratos
03-06-2008, 12:30 AM
If you look at the data base you will find a "par" value for every race classification. For instance take a look at Arlington Park at female horses 3yo&Up and one is a Maiden Claimer and the other is a Claimer and the difference in the “pars” are 12points

AP 3yo&Up MCL 21,000 - 34,000 Dirt 66

AP 3yo&Up CLM 21,000 - 34,000 Dirt 78


correction

rastajenk
03-06-2008, 08:16 AM
Beyer himself says that if his top rated horse has a 3 point advantage over the balance of the field, then you have a 29% chance of winning. He also says that if you bet the top rated horse in every race you produce a 7.5% loss. That was after 10000 races.

I have a little trouble with this paragraph, since Beyer produces ratings, but he doesn't actually rate them. What is a "top rated horse?" Last out? Highest lifetime number? Highest average last three? Last four? There are so many ways to interpret it that it becomes a nearly meaningless statement.

classhandicapper
03-06-2008, 09:12 AM
I think it might be interesting to study the Beyer figures using a handful of very basic rules that would make the test more logical.

Do we really want to consider the "top Beyer" a horse that just earned his figure at 12F on the grass if today's race is 7F on dirt?

Do we really want to consider the "top Beyer" a horse that earned his figure 8 months ago and is coming back off a layoff today?

Do we really want to penalize a horse that consistently runs faster if his last race was clearly on the wrong surface?

CJ tests his own figures using "4 Rules". I'm not sure if he would want to elaborate on them here or if we could even test the Beyers that way, but I think just using "top figure last out" is bound to produce poor ROI results with most figures.

HUSKER55
03-06-2008, 09:34 AM
When I wrote Beyer On Speed in 1993 the Daily Racing Form analyzed 10,000 races and found that horses with an edge of three or more points over their opposition won 29 percent of the time, but betting them all produced a 7.5 percent loss.


That is from Andrew Beyer in the book. I interpret that to mean if you bet his top rated horse under those terms you will lose 7.5% of your money.

How else would you interpret that?

I have no idea if those numbers hold up five years later. CJ says no.

:)

Semipro
03-06-2008, 11:07 AM
I trust them to an extent, but I'm not sure what all goes into them...it seems like there is fairly strong adjustment for class/track...and if that's the case, why should a horse entered where he is dominant, get a lower number, seemingly automatically for beating a bad caliber?

Although, I saw what looked like an "exception" to that yesterday...at Aqueduct, Phil The Brit was coming off a triple digit victory at CT...considering the favorite was scratched, that he had the rail plus that terrific Beyer, he went off pretty tepidly bet at 5:2 (instead of say 3:2) and was nowhere...so, here it looked like the Beyer was suggesting this horse is so good, we won't penalize him for beating crappola, and yet the actual odds ended up saying that the horse's class was doubtful...only one example, but I found it curious.Don't say class here you start a subject even more tired and boring than this thread.

kenwoodallpromos
03-06-2008, 12:53 PM
When I wrote Beyer On Speed in 1993 the Daily Racing Form analyzed 10,000 races and found that horses with an edge of three or more points over their opposition won 29 percent of the time, but betting them all produced a 7.5 percent loss.


That is from Andrew Beyer in the book. I interpret that to mean if you bet his top rated horse under those terms you will lose 7.5% of your money.

How else would you interpret that?

I have no idea if those numbers hold up five years later. CJ says no.

:)
Too bad DRF did not analzed based on dirt or turf, distance, and track variant (speed of the track).

Fastracehorse
03-06-2008, 05:15 PM
I think U are right that testing a factor, blindly ( ie without context ), is a poor way to measure its efficacy. However if for example, one could find the cut-off point (minimum top Beyer point advantage) where a guaranteed + ROI could be obtained, it would be of some utility.

I really believe the important aspect of the Beyer is to find situations where the Beyer is low; but the performance is good.

I have a measurement of horses going dirt to turf or sprint to route. In these situtations U have to take context into serious consideration. Having said this, there are nice overalys in many areas of the game, and not all concern the Beyer.

fffastt

Fastracehorse
03-06-2008, 05:19 PM
How else would you interpret that?



:)[/QUOTE]

I thought you were to the point.

There are some factors that are still 'money in the bank' even if they show a - ROI betting every race.

fffastt

Fastracehorse
03-06-2008, 05:27 PM
I don’t know about your “adjusted” and “unadjusted” speed figure calculations, but if you take the 4,164 par values used in the BSFs you will find their distribution normally distributed and at 3 Sigma the value from the mean is 43.48.

The un-adjusted Beyer agrees with your statistical assertion.

Because, most horses that a win a race do so with a clean trip, or because they were much the best. Hence, the Beyer, averaged with other BSF's at the same level over time, will be reprentative of their class and henceforth, your distribution.

The key for adjusted figures is to find those charges that did not trip well; based on many different circumstances, including being over-matched and finding themselves at a new level.

fffastt

classhandicapper
03-06-2008, 07:31 PM
I really believe the important aspect of the Beyer is to find situations where the Beyer is low; but the performance is good.
fffastt

I agree.

The flip side is also valuable because you get to bet against a poor favorite.

What I've also been doing lately is concentrating more of my energy on finding very legitimate excuses for a horse's last race (or even last 2 races) that aren't very obvious. There are some race development excuses I've come up with lately that seem to be holding up fairly well. I can get an extra tick or two on the board because both class/form and numeric handicappers take the race at face value.

NYPlayer
03-06-2008, 11:02 PM
...I really believe the important aspect of the Beyer is to find situations where the Beyer is low; but the performance is good...


That's a contradiction in terms. If the Beyer is low, but the performance was good, then there must be something inherently wrong with the figure - something that could have been measured that wasn't like, say, ground loss. Take a sprint race in which a horse sets the pace along the rail and wins by a nose to a closer that ran four wide around the turn. On the Beyer scale the winner might have earned a 90, but they assign the same number to the horse that ran four wide. Mathematically, that can't be true.

The Beyers claim to tell you how fast a horse ran in the race given the conditions, and analysts use that number to evaluate not only the individual performance, but the overall quality of the horse. By saying that you can't take figures out of context or that you need good trip notes, your essentially admitting that the Beyer figs are substandard.

Tom
03-06-2008, 11:13 PM
The Beyers represent only speed. If a wide horse and a rail horse hit the wire together, in terms of speed, they ran the same. That is all they are supposed to measure.

The Bit
03-06-2008, 11:41 PM
That's a contradiction in terms. If the Beyer is low, but the performance was good, then there must be something inherently wrong with the figure - something that could have been measured that wasn't like, say, ground loss. Take a sprint race in which a horse sets the pace along the rail and wins by a nose to a closer that ran four wide around the turn. On the Beyer scale the winner might have earned a 90, but they assign the same number to the horse that ran four wide. Mathematically, that can't be true.

The Beyers claim to tell you how fast a horse ran in the race given the conditions, and analysts use that number to evaluate not only the individual performance, but the overall quality of the horse. By saying that you can't take figures out of context or that you need good trip notes, your essentially admitting that the Beyer figs are substandard.

This argument makes me laugh, but it is another that often comes up when the Beyer figure are discussed.

So your claiming that ground loss can be quantified in an accurate matter at all times? What is substandard to you is exactly what I'm looking for.

Here is my argument:

I know that the Beyer figure method takes nothing into consideration other than the time in which the race was run. I know that weight, ground loss, wind direction, whether or not the horse took a dump on the way to the gate, and whether or not the jockey took one before he mounted the horse, isn't considered.

So now, I have a number that represents the horses previous effort. It is now up to me, to decide how much that dump, or that ground loss affected the horses performance.

Sometimes, it isn't a detriment to be hung 4 wide. Often times at Philly Park, the outer paths are the place to be. Using your argument, that makes figures that take ground loss into consideration substandard doesn't it? Those figures that take such a thing into consideration are giving the horse extra credit for running in the preferred part of the track. Or reserve, say that rail is dead, and the same horse runs a big race along the rail, yet your figures don't give him the extra credit he deserves.

Meanwhile, with my trips notes, bias notes, etc. I can make my own assessment of how much that ground loss actually hindered the horses performance. I can decide who ran the better race and can have a non-static way of determining such things.

NYPlayer
03-07-2008, 12:17 AM
I know that the Beyer figure method takes nothing into consideration other than the time in which the race was run. I know that weight, ground loss, wind direction, whether or not the horse took a dump on the way to the gate, and whether or not the jockey took one before he mounted the horse, isn't considered.

So now, I have a number that represents the horses previous effort. It is now up to me, to decide how much that dump, or that ground loss affected the horses performance.

Sometimes, it isn't a detriment to be hung 4 wide. Often times at Philly Park, the outer paths are the place to be....

How do you know? Is that something you can measure?

Using your argument, that makes figures that take ground loss into consideration substandard doesn't it? Those figures that take such a thing into consideration are giving the horse extra credit for running in the preferred part of the track. Or reserve, say that rail is dead, and the same horse runs a big race along the rail, yet your figures don't give him the extra credit he deserves....

How do you know the rail is dead? To what degree can you modify the figure?

Meanwhile, with my trips notes, bias notes, etc. I can make my own assessment of how much that ground loss actually hindered the horses performance. I can decide who ran the better race and can have a non-static way of determining such things.

Your non-static methods are based on anecdotal observations of events that you imagine have a dramatic effect on a horse's performance. I would rather have mathematically accurate figures and let someone else do the guessing about a supposed bias. In the long run I expect the laws of mathematics to trump flawed observations.

Ground loss can be reasonably well measured. You can do it straight from the charts, but replays make it a lot easier.

As for weight, a jockey on a horse is all dead weight. The equivalent would be to take a 150 pound human runner and strap a 15 pound iron to his back. I'd bet there wouldn't be any new world records that day, whether he takes a dump or not! :D

NYPlayer
03-07-2008, 12:26 AM
The Beyers represent only speed. If a wide horse and a rail horse hit the wire together, in terms of speed, they ran the same. That is all they are supposed to measure.

That's wrong. Speed is the total distance relative to the time. If a horse covers 40 extra feet of ground in a race in the same time as the winner, that horse essentially ran faster. Using Beyer's chart 4 beaten lengths equals 10 points in a 6f race, so a horse that lost about four lenghs by going wide on the turn actually earned a 100 while his ground saving rival earned a 90.

The Bit
03-07-2008, 12:51 AM
How do you know? Is that something you can measure?

How do I know? By watching the racing and making determinations about what paths if any were preferred. No, it can't be measured but I'm not trying to quanfity it either. Merely using the determination I make about the track to upgrade/downgrade the figure.



How do you know the rail is dead? To what degree can you modify the figure?

I'm not modifying the figure, that was my point. I want a figure that only represents the time in which the horse. I'll make the rest of the determinations.



Your non-static methods are based on anecdotal observations of events that you imagine have a dramatic effect on a horse's performance. I would rather have mathematically accurate figures and let someone else do the guessing about a supposed bias. In the long run I expect the laws of mathematics to trump flawed observations.

While I might be wrong with my ground loss/bias information from time to time, atleast I know the figures are what they are. The face value of the figure is nothing more and nothing less than how the horse performed against the clock.



Ground loss can be reasonably well measured. You can do it straight from the charts, but replays make it a lot easier.

How could you rely on charts to measure ground loss? Some chart callers are very sharp while others are complacent at best.

As for weight, a jockey on a horse is all dead weight. The equivalent would be to take a 150 pound human runner and strap a 15 pound iron to his back. I'd bet there wouldn't be any new world records that day, whether he takes a dump or not! :D

So, every horse carries a jock. So, you are looking at about 1100 lbs, horse and jockey. Do you really believe, that an additional 3 lbs would have that much difference on the performance of that horse?

Tom
03-07-2008, 07:28 AM
That's wrong. Speed is the total distance relative to the time. If a horse covers 40 extra feet of ground in a race in the same time as the winner, that horse essentially ran faster. Using Beyer's chart 4 beaten lengths equals 10 points in a 6f race, so a horse that lost about four lenghs by going wide on the turn actually earned a 100 while his ground saving rival earned a 90.

Well, that's what it is. Go tell Beyer he's wrong. If you know a horse ran 40 feet more, you have an edge the crowd doesn't.

Cratos
03-07-2008, 01:01 PM
That's wrong. Speed is the total distance relative to the time. If a horse covers 40 extra feet of ground in a race in the same time as the winner, that horse essentially ran faster. Using Beyer's chart 4 beaten lengths equals 10 points in a 6f race, so a horse that lost about four lenghs by going wide on the turn actually earned a 100 while his ground saving rival earned a 90.

I have read many different interpretations of the Beyer Speed Figure (BSF), but what I have not read is the assertion that it is not a speed figure. Which in my opinion it is not a speed figure, but a performance figure determined by the final time of the race.

You are absolutely correct that if a horse went wide or had a wind aided trip its final race speed would be impacted, but again in the BSF way of thinking that is irrelevant because only performance is being considered.

Therefore as some have said in earlier posts, the BSF were good in its day, but now more sophisticated metrics and different ways of both qualifying and quantifying a horse’s effort is rendering the BSFs as “old technology.”

alysheba88
03-07-2008, 01:59 PM
I have read many different interpretations of the Beyer Speed Figure (BSF), but what I have not read is the assertion that it is not a speed figure. Which in my opinion it is not a speed figure, but a performance figure determined by the final time of the race.

You are absolutely correct that if a horse went wide or had a wind aided trip its final race speed would be impacted, but again in the BSF way of thinking that is irrelevant because only performance is being considered.

Therefore as some have said in earlier posts, the BSF were good in its day, but now more sophisticated metrics and different ways of both qualifying and quantifying a horse’s effort is rendering the BSFs as “old technology.”


Are you really saying the creator meant them to be something other then what he says they are- A Speed Figure-.That even though Beyer for years has said they are a speed figure and speed figure only, that you really believe he is misleading and that they are really Performance figures. What would be his motive for saying something is a speed figure when they are "really" a Performance figure.

They were not meant to be interpreted as a performance figure. Others make the mistake in interpreting that way, or even worse, attacking them for not being something they werent intended to be.

Beyer talks at length in his various books about pace impacting figures, about trip impacting figures, etc. At length.

Cratos
03-07-2008, 03:57 PM
Are you really saying the creator meant them to be something other then what he says they are- A Speed Figure-.That even though Beyer for years has said they are a speed figure and speed figure only, that you really believe he is misleading and that they are really Performance figures. What would be his motive for saying something is a speed figure when they are "really" a Performance figure.

They were not meant to be interpreted as a performance figure. Others make the mistake in interpreting that way, or even worse, attacking them for not being something they werent intended to be.

Beyer talks at length in his various books about pace impacting figures, about trip impacting figures, etc. At length.

I don’t want to get into a long drawn out argument about Andrew Beyer’s intent because I cannot and will not attempt to speak for him. But looking at his work from both an academic and a practical point of view it becomes a performance assessment based on speed and not a pure speed figure.

If you wanted a speed figure your calculations would become lot more complicated. Variables like ground loss, weight toted, energy expended, environmental conditions, turn banking angles, etc would and should be addressed to come up with a speed figure. What you have just read is the engineer in me and not the horseplayer and that is why I don’t want this argument, it is not worth it.

Fastracehorse
03-07-2008, 04:35 PM
That's a contradiction in terms. If the Beyer is low, but the performance was good, then there must be something inherently wrong with the figure - something that could have been measured that wasn't like, say, ground loss. Take a sprint race in which a horse sets the pace along the rail and wins by a nose to a closer that ran four wide around the turn. On the Beyer scale the winner might have earned a 90, but they assign the same number to the horse that ran four wide. Mathematically, that can't be true.

The Beyers claim to tell you how fast a horse ran in the race given the conditions, and analysts use that number to evaluate not only the individual performance, but the overall quality of the horse. By saying that you can't take figures out of context or that you need good trip notes, your essentially admitting that the Beyer figs are substandard.

There's nothing wrong with the figure/U just have to know what it is measuring.

The horse that was 4-wide in U're example fits; he was measured at a 90 but U know he ran faster.

fffastt

Fastracehorse
03-07-2008, 04:39 PM
How do you know? Is that something you can measure?



How do you know the rail is dead? To what degree can you modify the figure?



Your non-static methods are based on anecdotal observations of events that you imagine have a dramatic effect on a horse's performance. I would rather have mathematically accurate figures and let someone else do the guessing about a supposed bias. In the long run I expect the laws of mathematics to trump flawed observations.

Ground loss can be reasonably well measured. You can do it straight from the charts, but replays make it a lot easier.

As for weight, a jockey on a horse is all dead weight. The equivalent would be to take a 150 pound human runner and strap a 15 pound iron to his back. I'd bet there wouldn't be any new world records that day, whether he takes a dump or not! :D

Their is a stigma attached to the word anecdotal - because in the world of science it doesn't correspong to proof.

But in the world of a 10 race card, over one day, with an obvious bias, that is all U have.

fffastt

Fastracehorse
03-07-2008, 04:43 PM
Well, that's what it is. Go tell Beyer he's wrong. If you know a horse ran 40 feet more, you have an edge the crowd doesn't.

But their is the force of friction as well - which can be applied to track biases - so, it is very possible that a horse in a wider path, that ran more ground, didn't not run a faster race than an inside horse.

fffastt

alysheba88
03-11-2008, 12:42 PM
The irony here is Beyer talks at length about most of the issues here in his various books. How pace, ground loss, trip, etc all factor into a horses performance. Yet people still try to pin him as a "slave" to the numbers.

He discusses the ground loss issue and brings up the point that ground loss and running wide isnt necessarily a bad thing and how performances shouldnt necessarily be upgraded for all horses who run wide.

njcurveball
03-11-2008, 01:17 PM
The irony here is Beyer talks at length about most of the issues here in his various books. How pace, ground loss, trip, etc all factor into a horses performance. Yet people still try to pin him as a "slave" to the numbers.

He discusses the ground loss issue and brings up the point that ground loss and running wide isnt necessarily a bad thing and how performances shouldnt necessarily be upgraded for all horses who run wide.

He also did a very good video on Trip Handicapping. Very informative.

steveb
03-11-2008, 06:11 PM
So, every horse carries a jock. So, you are looking at about 1100 lbs, horse and jockey. Do you really believe, that an additional 3 lbs would have that much difference on the performance of that horse?

i would essentially agree with most of what you said.....until this last paragraph.


if you knew how much 3lb difference made, with everything else being the same, you would not pose that question.

46zilzal
03-11-2008, 06:13 PM
if you knew how much 3lb difference made, with everything else being the same, you would not pose that question.
Crap, every study ever done debunks weight as a major factor in racing unless the shifts are greater than 10-20 pounds.

Quirin is at the top of that list in debunking it.

steveb
03-11-2008, 06:36 PM
Crap, every study ever done debunks weight as a major factor in racing unless the shifts are greater than 10-20 pounds.

Quirin is at the top of that list in debunking it.

:) that's a polite way of putting it. :)

those that can...do......those that can't.....teach or write books!!

not my words, but those of a certain gambling genius that died recently.
he would have told you that weight is VERY high up the ladder of important variables.

i know which person i would rather believe and it's not quirin(whoever he is!)
not to mention i know how to prove it myself!

TrifectaMike
03-11-2008, 07:34 PM
It's all about friction... the engineer in me thinks so...oops I'm not an engineer.

The Bit
03-11-2008, 09:39 PM
Crap, every study ever done debunks weight as a major factor in racing unless the shifts are greater than 10-20 pounds.

Quirin is at the top of that list in debunking it.

What he said.

Look, I don't have numeric evidence or any studies to back it up. But like is said above, 95% of what is written on the subject says it need not be considered.

A friend of mine who is an Asst. trainer for a prominent mid-atlantic trainer says they rarely consider it, unless they are really getting the shaft by the racing secretary than they may complain just to complain.

I have family that owned and trained standardbreds and they claim they didn't care how much the driver weighed. They called on 145 lbs drivers to 185 lbers. I realize the are pulling the weight as oppose to carrying it but it says something.

Here is my ( probably ) flawed way of looking at it: A horse tips the scales at 1000lbs we'll say, with the jock. 3 lbs of that is only .03% of the total package. I tip the scales at 200lbs we'll say. For me, that 3 lbs would feel like .6 lbs. I happen to be in pretty good shape, but probably not in near the condition that a thoroughbred race horse is in and that same % of weight is only going to be supported by two legs. However, I can assure if I ate a .6 lbs of steak on my way to the gym the extra lbs would have no ill affect on my performance on the track, basketball court, treadmill, etc.

Perhaps not a great comparison but it makes some sense to me.

Where has NYPlayer been, I was looking forward to his responses.

steveb
03-11-2008, 10:11 PM
What he said.

Look, I don't have numeric evidence or any studies to back it up. But like is said above, 95% of what is written on the subject says it need not be considered.

A friend of mine who is an Asst. trainer for a prominent mid-atlantic trainer says they rarely consider it, unless they are really getting the shaft by the racing secretary than they may complain just to complain.

I have family that owned and trained standardbreds and they claim they didn't care how much the driver weighed. They called on 145 lbs drivers to 185 lbers. I realize the are pulling the weight as oppose to carrying it but it says something.

Here is my ( probably ) flawed way of looking at it: A horse tips the scales at 1000lbs we'll say, with the jock. 3 lbs of that is only .03% of the total package. I tip the scales at 200lbs we'll say. For me, that 3 lbs would feel like .6 lbs. I happen to be in pretty good shape, but probably not in near the condition that a thoroughbred race horse is in and that same % of weight is only going to be supported by two legs. However, I can assure if I ate a .6 lbs of steak on my way to the gym the extra lbs would have no ill affect on my performance on the track, basketball court, treadmill, etc.

Perhaps not a great comparison but it makes some sense to me.

Where has NYPlayer been, I was looking forward to his responses.

i would never comment on something i nothing about, so i''l leave the harness racing aside.

it's fact that more horses win when they are raisng in weight, rather than dropping in weight.
mostly that has nothing to do with the actual weight.
it will be because they are perhaps fitter or have not reached the limit of their ability.
or maybe even droppping in class
when you are dropping weight then generally you are losing form, or rising in class.



it is possiblle to measure the effect of weight, using the very methods that many people who show disdain for weight use. times.
it's simply that they know not how to apply it.

i don't know the class system in usa, nor how it works, but let me explain what might happen in australia.

the official handicappers will have relative weight scales which express their opiniion of the wieght difference between the various classes.
they may think there is 5kg between racetype a and racetype b.

one day they decide(it's all subjective on their part), no, that's too much, we'll make the difference only 4kg.

now that 1kg shift will alter the relativities not only weight wise between these 2 race types, but it WILL also alter the time relativities between these 2 race types.

i can measure that difference and believe me it exists.
and i also know any differences are magnified on dirt, so have no doubt weight is MORE important on dirt than turf.

chickenhead
03-11-2008, 10:17 PM
i can measure that difference and believe me it exists.

so..what is it?

NYPlayer
03-11-2008, 11:27 PM
...if you knew how much 3lb difference made, with everything else being the same, you would not pose that question.

I don't think that three pounds makes much of a difference, but it's wrong to combine the weight of the horse with the weight of the jock, as the weight that is carried by the horse is what contributes to the drag effect. If the standard weight is 120 and a particular horse is carrying 117, that horse is carrying 2.5% less dead weight. At 110 pounds the weight reduction is 8%. That's significant.

NYPlayer
03-11-2008, 11:31 PM
The irony here is Beyer talks at length about most of the issues here in his various books. How pace, ground loss, trip, etc all factor into a horses performance. Yet people still try to pin him as a "slave" to the numbers.

He discusses the ground loss issue and brings up the point that ground loss and running wide isnt necessarily a bad thing and how performances shouldnt necessarily be upgraded for all horses who run wide.

...and, of course, everything that Andy Beyer says is absolutely true! ;)

NYPlayer
03-11-2008, 11:44 PM
What he said.

Look, I don't have numeric evidence or any studies to back it up. But like is said above, 95% of what is written on the subject says it need not be considered.

A friend of mine who is an Asst. trainer for a prominent mid-atlantic trainer says they rarely consider it, unless they are really getting the shaft by the racing secretary than they may complain just to complain.

I have family that owned and trained standardbreds and they claim they didn't care how much the driver weighed. They called on 145 lbs drivers to 185 lbers. I realize the are pulling the weight as oppose to carrying it but it says something.

Here is my ( probably ) flawed way of looking at it: A horse tips the scales at 1000lbs we'll say, with the jock. 3 lbs of that is only .03% of the total package. I tip the scales at 200lbs we'll say. For me, that 3 lbs would feel like .6 lbs. I happen to be in pretty good shape, but probably not in near the condition that a thoroughbred race horse is in and that same % of weight is only going to be supported by two legs. However, I can assure if I ate a .6 lbs of steak on my way to the gym the extra lbs would have no ill affect on my performance on the track, basketball court, treadmill, etc.

Perhaps not a great comparison but it makes some sense to me.

Where has NYPlayer been, I was looking forward to his responses.

It's wrong to combine the weight of the horse with the jockey's weight (you didn't do this for the standard bred scenario). It's the jockey's weight that contributes to drag. I responded elsewhere on this, but since you were interested in me answering, here's how I see it: 117/120 pounds is 2.5% less weight. Not much difference. However, 110/120 is 8% less. That's enough to matter somewhat.

With the standardbreds, the driver weight isn't quite so significant since there is some momentum from the carriage, although I would think forty pounds would make a difference. I wouldn't mind though, if I knew my horse was much better.

steveb
03-12-2008, 04:21 AM
I don't think that three pounds makes much of a difference, but it's wrong to combine the weight of the horse with the weight of the jock, as the weight that is carried by the horse is what contributes to the drag effect. If the standard weight is 120 and a particular horse is carrying 117, that horse is carrying 2.5% less dead weight. At 110 pounds the weight reduction is 8%. That's significant.

hi nyplayer,

don't know if you think i am referring to weight of horse as well as rider and lead.
i am not referring to bodyweight in any way, just the weight over and above that.

the body weight is something else again, and another important variable i would imagine, but is not available in australia.


interested to know what 'much of a difference' means.
would you care to put a value on what that 'not much difference' would be on average? time wise, margin wise or even probability wise?

a nostril can mean the difference between a big pay day and a complete wipe out.
if you can value a variable, then the logical thing would be to use it imo.
even if it has a small impact, in the big scheme of things.


steveb

classhandicapper
03-12-2008, 09:21 AM
I'll weight in slightly on the subject of weight even though I don't have very strong feelings on way or the other.

I think it might make some sense to look at the results and speed figures for the Fall Highweight Stakes. That's one race every year where a lot of horses are aksed to carry a lot more weight than they do typically. If that race has consistently come up slow over the years (relative to expectations), it would suggest something.

Someone would need the Beyer speed figures for a lot of years though.

njcurveball
03-12-2008, 10:40 AM
Dr Fager carried 134 pounds when he set the mile record in 1:32 1/5. I have yet to hear a proponent of weight explain that one if they think 2 or 3 pounds can be significant.

I don't know if they made sheet figures back then, but if they factor in weight, this has to be the highest sheet figure in history.

cj
03-12-2008, 11:00 AM
Maybe the track was really, really fast that day? I'm not a huge proponent of adjusting for weight, but I know using 3 pounds = 1 point on the Beyer scale improves my performance both W% and ROI wise. That is the great thing about computers, you don't have to guess.

I should add one cavaet. Any weight below 117 is counted as 117. I got this idea from Nick Mordin, and it also matches what Beyer published in his book regarding weight. Below a certain level, it just doesn't seem to matter. So, a horse dropping from 120 to 110 is only credited with 3 lbs, while a horse dropping from 125 to 118 would be credited with 7 lbs. A horse moving from 110 to 118 is only credited with picking up 1 lb. It works, and that is all that matters for me.

Fastracehorse
03-12-2008, 04:41 PM
:) that's a polite way of putting it. :)

those that can...do......those that can't.....teach or write books!!

not my words, but those of a certain gambling genius that died recently.
he would have told you that weight is VERY high up the ladder of important variables.

i know which person i would rather believe and it's not quirin(whoever he is!)
not to mention i know how to prove it myself!

I like weight when an apprentice is added - that z a huge factor. Sometimes these factors like the bug are an excuse, not that I'm lecturing U, for the horse to exhibit a + form reversal.

So the weight loss helps - but added to the training intent factor ( much like blinkers off might ) - it can be fruitful.

Sometimes in races where horses are allowed 2lbs if they drop the tag $2500 U see form reversals - but not as venomous ROIs as the bug.

Fastracehorse
03-12-2008, 04:53 PM
i would never comment on something i nothing about, so i''l leave the harness racing aside.

it's fact that more horses win when they are raisng in weight, rather than dropping in weight.
mostly that has nothing to do with the actual weight.
it will be because they are perhaps fitter or have not reached the limit of their ability.
or maybe even droppping in class
when you are dropping weight then generally you are losing form, or rising in class.



it is possiblle to measure the effect of weight, using the very methods that many people who show disdain for weight use. times.
it's simply that they know not how to apply it.

i don't know the class system in usa, nor how it works, but let me explain what might happen in australia.

the official handicappers will have relative weight scales which express their opiniion of the wieght difference between the various classes.
they may think there is 5kg between racetype a and racetype b.

one day they decide(it's all subjective on their part), no, that's too much, we'll make the difference only 4kg.

now that 1kg shift will alter the relativities not only weight wise between these 2 race types, but it WILL also alter the time relativities between these 2 race types.

i can measure that difference and believe me it exists.
and i also know any differences are magnified on dirt, so have no doubt weight is MORE important on dirt than turf.

Because a difference exists, as I know it does, doesn't mean it has a negligible effect on performance - but U know this too.

For ex., if U ate 20 pickled eggs or 19.9 pickled eggs in 5 min's - are U going to feel appreciably better??

fffastt

steveb
03-12-2008, 05:13 PM
Maybe the track was really, really fast that day? I'm not a huge proponent of adjusting for weight, but I know using 3 pounds = 1 point on the Beyer scale improves my performance both W% and ROI wise. That is the great thing about computers, you don't have to guess.

I should add one cavaet. Any weight below 117 is counted as 117. I got this idea from Nick Mordin, and it also matches what Beyer published in his book regarding weight. Below a certain level, it just doesn't seem to matter. So, a horse dropping from 120 to 110 is only credited with 3 lbs, while a horse dropping from 125 to 118 would be credited with 7 lbs. A horse moving from 110 to 118 is only credited with picking up 1 lb. It works, and that is all that matters for me.

hi cj
where can the 'beyer' scale be found cj, if you don't mind me asking?
would like to have a study of that.
would not have thought you would need a scale to measure time, and get a number.
time should be a variable with no set scale imo.
relativities are going to depend on lots of factors, such as surface, going, class, distance, and a myriad(slight exaggeration!) of others.
steveb

The Bit
03-12-2008, 06:03 PM
I'll take your word for it :)

I don't know enough about the mathematics end of it to argue that fact and have heard straight from the barns mouth that they don't think it matters.

So I'll continue to look right past it, unless the swing is 10 to 13 lbs.

steveb
03-12-2008, 06:28 PM
I'll take your word for it :)

I don't know enough about the mathematics end of it to argue that fact and have heard straight from the barns mouth that they don't think it matters.

So I'll continue to look right past it, unless the swing is 10 to 13 lbs.


:) if i was rich from not botherig about weight, i would ignore it too. :)

and my apologies to the op for getting this thread off topic.
or did i???? :)

The Bit
03-12-2008, 11:58 PM
I'm rich huh? lol

steveb
03-13-2008, 09:37 PM
I like weight when an apprentice is added - that z a huge factor. Sometimes these factors like the bug are an excuse, not that I'm lecturing U, for the horse to exhibit a + form reversal.

So the weight loss helps - but added to the training intent factor ( much like blinkers off might ) - it can be fruitful.

Sometimes in races where horses are allowed 2lbs if they drop the tag $2500 U see form reversals - but not as venomous ROIs as the bug.

have been reading this for 2 days :), and i'm still no closer to figuring it out!
what is 'the bug'????

gear changes are interesting, the most profitable one i can find is this one 'GELDED'.......ouch!! it only happens once, never to be repeated!!

can't find much advantage statistically(australia) with blinkers off though.
of 'no blinkers', 'blinkers on', 'blinkers off', or 'blinkers' then 'no blinkers' is best.

and to get back to times....agree with those that use them unadorned in their models.
the other factors like pace and weight and wide, etc, etc, even though related to the times they run, can be accounted for as separate variables in your model. that's my opinion anyway.

Fastracehorse
03-14-2008, 03:20 PM
have been reading this for 2 days :), and i'm still no closer to figuring it out!
what is 'the bug'????

gear changes are interesting, the most profitable one i can find is this one 'GELDED'.......ouch!! it only happens once, never to be repeated!!

can't find much advantage statistically(australia) with blinkers off though.
of 'no blinkers', 'blinkers on', 'blinkers off', or 'blinkers' then 'no blinkers' is best.

and to get back to times....agree with those that use them unadorned in their models.
the other factors like pace and weight and wide, etc, etc, even though related to the times they run, can be accounted for as separate variables in your model. that's my opinion anyway.

Sorry, U r Aussie??

OK, that makes sense then :) - the bug or bugboy is a nickname for an apprentice rider carrying a low weight.

Alot of trainers like to use them if their horse z live.

fffastt

steveb
03-14-2008, 05:55 PM
Sorry, U r Aussie??

OK, that makes sense then :) - the bug or bugboy is a nickname for an apprentice rider carrying a low weight.

Alot of trainers like to use them if their horse z live.

fffastt

thanks for that.

yes i'm aussie.

we both have engilish as primary language!

vernacularly, it is SO different though, as i finding from reading this board.

Cratos
03-15-2008, 01:40 PM
Crap, every study ever done debunks weight as a major factor in racing unless the shifts are greater than 10-20 pounds.

Quirin is at the top of that list in debunking it.

Wrong and wrong again. Quirin work is elementary when compared to the late Phil Bull's work. Weight is a factor and can be proven if the correct physics are applied.

Cratos
03-15-2008, 01:47 PM
The irony here is Beyer talks at length about most of the issues here in his various books. How pace, ground loss, trip, etc all factor into a horses performance. Yet people still try to pin him as a "slave" to the numbers.

He discusses the ground loss issue and brings up the point that ground loss and running wide isnt necessarily a bad thing and how performances shouldnt necessarily be upgraded for all horses who run wide.

This is not an argument against Andrew Beyer, it is an assertion of how speed is defined and calculated and to the best of my knowledge that discussion happened long before the existence of the Beyer Speed Figures.

Physics define speed, not Andrew Beyer.

Tom
03-15-2008, 03:15 PM
However, the thread is about BEYER FIGS and they are the most used in throroughbred racing, so the definition from Beyer is what is approriate.

alysheba88
03-15-2008, 06:30 PM
This is not an argument against Andrew Beyer, it is an assertion of how speed is defined and calculated and to the best of my knowledge that discussion happened long before the existence of the Beyer Speed Figures.

Physics define speed, not Andrew Beyer.

I am in the wrong thread then. Sorry. Wasted both our time

Cratos
03-16-2008, 09:15 PM
I am in the wrong thread then. Sorry. Wasted both our time

Quite the contrary and I wasn't challenging you in anyway. A poster before me in this thread brought up ground loss and how speed was calculated. To that end the equation S=D/T hold true where S = speed, D= distance, and T=time.

It is to the advantage of the handicapper to have a clear understanding of the variables that are being used.

To use speed as an assessment of a horse's performance and not understand speed is useless in my opinion.

Cratos
03-16-2008, 09:19 PM
However, the thread is about BEYER FIGS and they are the most used in throroughbred racing, so the definition from Beyer is what is approriate.

You are absolutely correct, Andrew Beyer can define his methodology of speed figures any way that he chooses, but he cannot define speed anyway he chooses.

Tom
03-16-2008, 10:12 PM
We are talking about a racing tool - you're the one obsessed with speed and energy definitions. Go define them however you want to. What we are talking about is not the same thing. And the definition of what we are talking about is what we care about, not your test book terms.

Cratos
03-17-2008, 11:25 PM
We are talking about a racing tool - you're the one obsessed with speed and energy definitions. Go define them however you want to. What we are talking about is not the same thing. And the definition of what we are talking about is what we care about, not your test book terms.

If that is what you believe, good. However you are not the "we." You are the "you" and can believe whatever you want.

Incidentally there isn't any reason to be upset and I am not talking about "test book terms," I am talking about "speed" because that was the core term is this thread.

But I yield to you.

Tom
03-17-2008, 11:29 PM
Not upset, and the core item was "Beyer Speed."

Fastracehorse
03-18-2008, 06:08 PM
If that is what you believe, good. However you are not the "we." You are the "you" and can believe whatever you want.

Incidentally there isn't any reason to be upset and I am not talking about "test book terms," I am talking about "speed" because that was the core term is this thread.

But I yield to you.


The teletimer gives us one variable: T.
The track distance is set at D; however, adjustments for actual D can be accounted for.
S is easy to calculate, however, not accurate without the 'accumulated forces of friction' - some vector analysis needed or some even simpler but equally as effective variant determination.

fffastt

dav4463
03-18-2008, 11:48 PM
Do you trust the Beyers?

Yes.