All of you numbers guys

[Bruddah]

Where are the preliminary numbers for the Belmont? After the Derby and Preakness you all had some early thoughts and numbers. I really enjoyed your numbers and post race analysis and have been waiting all day to read your conclusions. Don't tell a fan (me) you guys have taken a "Bankers Holiday". I am in withdrawal, so get to posting. Does anyone have any early numbers? :)

[Tom]

From Crist's blog.....
The winner's 2:29.65 for 12 furlongs earned a Beyer Speed Figure of 99, the lowest Belmont in the 20 years since the Beyers have been published, and one could argue that even a 99 was slightly generous.

So factor in beaten lengths, ground loss on both turns, the bumping incident and BB earned a.........0!

[Bruddah]

From Crist's blog.....


So factor in beaten lengths, ground loss on both turns, the bumping incident and BB earned a.........0!

number ever given, in any TC race ever. Using my best Ricky Ricardo, Sumbudy's got sum splaining to do Looscy. That number is totally ludicrous and I am being generous. :confused:

[46zilzal]

right here.

[cj]

Where are the preliminary numbers for the Belmont? After the Derby and Preakness you all had some early thoughts and numbers. I really enjoyed your numbers and post race analysis and have been waiting all day to read your conclusions. Don't tell a fan (me) you guys have taken a "Bankers Holiday". I am in withdrawal, so get to posting. Does anyone have any early numbers? :)

I'll look at the card tomorrow. I don't have the usual excitement of making a figure for a big race for the Belmont. The reason is twofold. First, the figure won't mean much because the horses won't race that distance again most likely. Second, it is a very hard figure to make because all you really have to go by is the horses. They used to card a starter 1 1/2 mile race on Belmont day but haven't been consistent with it.

[Stareagle]

right here.

The question was about the performance numbers for the Belmont, so a pre-race handicapping screen isn't tremendously helpful.

My rating system gave Da'Tara the second-lowest performance rating for a Belmont in the last 10 years - one point ahead of Commendable and 25 points behind Rags to Riches.

[PaceAdvantage]

number ever given, in any TC race ever. Using my best Ricky Ricardo, Sumbudy's got sum splaining to do Looscy. That number is totally ludicrous and I am being generous. :confused:What number did you assign to the race?

[Bruddah]

What number did you assign to the race?

Well PA, I don't claim to be an expert at making numbers, but I do mess around with them to see if I agree with the Publicly available Beyer numbers. As stated in another thread, I found an 88 to be fair and objective. Again, I don't claim to be an expert, but a 99 Beyer seems to be way off. (JMHO) I would love to hear the reasoning behind Beyers numbers.

[rastajenk]

A 99 for the winner gives the rest of the field the low 90's - 80's, probably even 70's, that these had been achieving up to now. And they all seem to have been able to run their races without excuses. That may not be the best line of defense, but when they run back the next time, their Beyers would seem to be in accord.

Not that it matters much. The Belmont is such a strangely unique event. Even as one of Beyer's most truly-believing loyal subjects, I find the Belmont Beyer to be the single most useless one generated all year long. Not saying they're always bad or misfigured, just that their value going forward is limited by the lack of long distance opportunities.

[Cratos]

Where are the preliminary numbers for the Belmont? After the Derby and Preakness you all had some early thoughts and numbers. I really enjoyed your numbers and post race analysis and have been waiting all day to read your conclusions. Don't tell a fan (me) you guys have taken a "Bankers Holiday". I am in withdrawal, so get to posting. Does anyone have any early numbers? :)


Da’Tara’s final time of 2:29.65 for the 140th running of the Belmont Stakes wasn’t exceptional when compared to the final time of the great Secretariat’s 1973 Belmont Stakes final time of 2:24 seconds.

However when compared to the final time of the last 60 runnings of the Belmont Stakes which averages 2:28.68 seconds, it didn’t fall out of the 1 sigma distribution which accounts for about 68% of all Belmont Stakes final times.

[Bruddah]

I am not going to make any comments on the information I am putting out. I just want to get the comments from everyone, especially the figure makers. You guys be the judge and let me learn from your knowledge.

These figures on the Belmont are from 1992 forward:

1992 A.P. Indy gd trk 2:26 flat Beyer 111 2nd rated Beyer
1993 Colonial Affair ft trk 2:29 4/5 Beyer 104 12th rated Beyer
1994 Tabasco Cat ft trk 2:26 4/5 Beyer 106 8th rated Beyer
1995 Thunder Gulch ft trk 2:32flat Beyer 101 14th rated Beyer
1996 Editors note ft trk 2:28 4/5 Beyer 106 8th rated Beyer
1997 Touch Gold ft trk 2:28 4/5 Beyer 110 3rd rated Beyer
1998 Victory Gallop ft trk 2:28.16 Beyer 110 3rd rated Beyer
1999 Lemon Deop Kid ft trk 2:27.88 Beyer 109 6th rated Beyer
2000 Commendable ft trk 2:31.19 Beyer 101 14th rated Beyer
2001 Point Given ft trk 2:26.56 Beyer 114 1st rated Beyer
2002 Sarava ft trk 2:29.71 Beyer 105 11th rated Beyer
2003 Empire Maker slpy trk 2:28.26 Beyer 110 3rd rated Beyer
2004 Birdstone ft trk 2:27.05 Beyer 101 14th rated Beyer
2005 Afleet Alex ft trk 2:28.70 Beyer 106 8th rated Beyer
2006 Jazil ft trk 2:27.86 Beyer 102 13th rated Beyer
2007 Rags to Riches ft trk 2:28.74 Beyer 107 7th rated Beyer
2008 Da'Tara ft trk 2:29.65 Beyer 99 16th rated Beyer

[ryesteve]

I know what you're looking for... yeah, the field and the performance were pretty terrible, comparatively speaking. But I don't think you can judge the entire crop as if Da' Tara is the standard-bearer. I'd like to see some more from the horses on the shelf before deciding exactly how bad they are.

[Bruddah]

Thanks for your input but I am really trying to get information on figure making. Without commenting much further, there seems to be some past Belmont figures askew from reality, in the above nformation. (JMHO)

[cj]

I've already stated it is a very difficult number to make. The horses have no history at the distance, or more importantly, even close to the distance. Second, no other races are run at the distance on the card. The best you could do this year was look at the 1 1/2 mile ran on Friday and see how it related to the other races run on Friday and then compare that to Saturday.

By the way, Hopkins way overstated the Friday Brooklyn in my opinion...107?

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not sure why D'Tara deserves such a low number, in Bruddah's opinion (88?)

D'Tara was a lightly raced (who wasn't, right?) 3yo who had shown improvement in his last two (89 Beyer in the Derby Trial and a 92 when just missing in the Barbaro).

He's bred to get the distance, had a super-easy trip, and don't forget, he won the Belmont by over 5 lengths, and on the Beyer scale, he improved 7 points. I'm not so sure why that is so out of line, but then again, I'm not a figure maker.

[Bruddah]

I'm not sure why D'Tara deserves such a low number, in Bruddah's opinion (88?)

D'Tara was a lightly raced (who wasn't, right?) 3yo who had shown improvement in his last two (89 Beyer in the Derby Trial and a 92 when just missing in the Barbaro).

He's bred to get the distance, had a super-easy trip, and don't forget, he won the Belmont by over 5 lengths, and on the Beyer scale, he improved 7 points. I'm not so sure why that is so out of line, but then again, I'm not a figure maker.

Again my disclaimer, I am not a numbers maker, but I would say I have been successful in using and comparing numbers for my own use. Tell me what you see here.

year Winner time T rank Byr rank Byr # trk
2000 Commendable 2:31.19 16th 14th 101 fst 84 speed 19 variant

2001 Point Given 2:26.56 2nd 1st 114 fst 107 speed 2 variant

2002 Sarava 2:29.71 14th 11th 105 fst 84 speed 12 variant

2003 Empire Maker 2:28.26 8th 3rd 110 sly 91 speed 14 variant

2004 Birdstone 2:27.05 4th 14th 101 fst 95 speed 10 variant

2005 Afleet Alex 2:28.70 9th 8th 106 fst 94 speed 7 variant

2006 Jazil 2:27.86 5th 13th 102 fst 98 speed 11 variant

2007 Rags to Riches 2:28.74 10th 7th 107 fst 94 speed 6 variant

2008 Da'Tara 2:29.65 13th 16th 99 fst 91 speed 7 variant

[46zilzal]

Comparing these generationally is meaningless. They will have you believe Count Fleet was not the colt his dominance proved on the race course.

[Bruddah]

Comparing these generationally is meaningless. They will have you believe Count Fleet was not the colt his dominance proved on the race course.

However, when it comes down to the Belmont, a race like no other, you need to start somewhere when comparing numbers and PP's. The numbers guys say it's the hardest race to develop a number for and I believe them. I think you can compare the previous 4 to 5 years and come to some conclusions. The first thing I do is try to isolate a winners approx. final time for the upcoming current years Belmont. My home grown method came up with BB winning in a time of 2:28.85 winning by approx 5 lengths. Making the second place horse coming in just over 2:30.05, My second place choice was Denis of Cork. I rated Da'Tara a fading fourth at 2:30.90

It was after the race was run that I came to the conclusion that the winner's Beyer (Da'Tara) should be 88 to 90. I was shocked when they gave Da'Tara a 99. Here's why; I used the 2004 running of the Belmont as my base for projecting this years time and Beyers.(before the Belmont was run) Reasons: 1) it's within my acceptable comparison time of 5 years. 2) The track would be rated fast. 3) field size of 9 identical. 4.) The race shape called for a single front runner with BB challenging the last 3/8ths. 5) the Beyer rating was 101 the lowest in the last 5 years. 6) Yet the race time of 2:27.05 was the fastest of the last 5 years.

When comparing my estimated time for running the mile of 1:38 and the estimated finish time of 2:28.85 and comparing them to the actual times for 2004, I concluded it was impossible for any of this years horses to run a 100 Beyer. They just couldn't run it fast enough according to the criteria of the last 5 years.

When the actual time for this year was 2:29.65, compared to the 2004 base time of 2:27.05 A difference of [2.6 deconds,] A difference of approx. 13 lengths. I came to the conclusion that the Beyer would be 88 to 90 based on 101-13. I then compared the time at 8F (1 mile) for both races. 2004 base was run by Smarty Jones in 1:35.44 and Da'Tara in 1:37.96 A difference in [2.52 seconds.] I also compared the 1 1/4 time of Smarty Jones at 2:00.52 and Da'Tara at 2:03.21 A difference of [2.69 seconds]. Both of these horses held the lead. The track variants were 10 in 2004 and 7 in 2008. Very much identical. Conclusion either Smarty Jones Beyer of 100 or Da'Tara's Beyer of 99 is completely wrong.

As I stated, I am not a numbers maker, I am a numbers comparer (a handicapper), and I started the thread to learn from those that do make these numbers. But what I have gotten so far is you can't make the numbers or you can compare generationally. Conclusion, it can't be done, which is Bull Sh*t. Using my archaic system, I stated before the race that this years field couldn't achieve a 100 Beyer. That was before BB was declared just an average horse.

[Bruddah]

Obviously, making a Good number for races is extremely hard. However, the results of those efforts in the Belmont, since 1992, has led me to envision that group of numbers makers having too many coctails during the race and then playing Pin the Beyer on the Donkey. :D

Let me add, I do like the Public Beyer numbers for comparison purposes. I am not a play by the numbers capper except sometimes in Triple Crown and BC races. I primarily use Trainer angles and play one specific track and circuit. So my try at humor is just making a little fun at those with a difficult job. I do believe good figures can be an integral part of handicapping. ;)

[cj]

I definitely agree. Most years, the assigned Beyer for the Belmont has left me scratching my head. This year, I happen to think it is pretty close.

[Bruddah]

I definitely agree. Most years, the assigned Beyer for the Belmont has left me scratching my head. This year, I happen to think it is pretty close.

could the 2004 Number of 101 for Birdstone and 100 for Smarty Jones then be accurate? I could understand it if the time/ variant differentials were fairly close but, over 2.5 seconds with Smarty Jones running the fastest mile of any Belmont? Something seems askew to me.

My initial comparison and analysis led me to make a bold prediction prior to the race. I said none of this years horses (Big Brown included) would be able to run a 100 Beyer because their times would not be fast enough. When in fact, all previous Belmonts from 1992 to 2007 received at least a 101+ Beyer.

I don't believe the Beyer guys read my prediction and decided to favor me. :D

I ask these things sincerely, because it completely baffels me and I respect your opinion more than any other on this board. :ThmbUp:

[cj]

For the Belmont, the only thing I look at is the history of the horses. There is nothing to compare the time to most years. You can't really compare raw times from year to year, just as you can't compare raw times from different back to back days.

The problem with the Belmont is that the race is run on a huge portion of the course that isn't touched the rest of the day. Not only could the surface be different, but the wind could make a big difference as well.

In the race you mention, Birdstone had a dream trip and ran a lifetime best by a few points. He then went to the Travers and bettered it once again before flopping in the Classic.

I wasn't making pace numbers for the Belmont back then, but I looked at them not to try to see what I could find.

The raw pace figure would have been 143 (mile is the pace call for the distance). The raw speed figure would have been 126. I ran the numbers through my program and assumed the 101 was correct. I get pace of 112 and speed of 101. This would give Smarty Jones an adjusted 107 or so and Birdstone about a 103. Looking at that, I think the 101 is probably OK, perhaps a little low, but not a ton.

For a point of reference, this year's raw numbers were 120 and 113, pace and speed. With variants, I have it as 100 and 95.

One other thing to keep in mind, the value of time is a lot less at 12 furlongs than it is at other distances. Remember the Olympic analogy...you lose by a second at 100 meters, you stink. You lose the 1500 meters by a second, you are world class.

[Bruddah]

but, I think I will stick to the old fashioned way of comparing others numbers. It seems more predictive and makes more sense to me. :D

[Tom]

How many races do you need to use a mile and a half fig for anything?

[Cratos]

but, I think I will stick to the old fashioned way of comparing others numbers. It seems more predictive and makes more sense to me. :D

Statistical methodology tells us when we compare we should compare “apples to apples” and when we can’t, we should make the best assumptions we can and extrapolate some rational postulations to derive a logical conclusion.

When comparing final times in the Belmont the historical record of final times is the best reference because you have consistency in the data. You will always have 3yos against 3yos and the race distance at 1 ½ miles (since 1926). Additionally weather data can be found on the Internet that gives an excellent status of weather conditions for past Belmonts.

Therefore Da’Tara‘s final time for the 2008 is very consistent with the historical average and median Belmont final times. The problem is that we as fans don’t see enough 1 ½ mile races to keep us cognizance of their final times. For instance if a 6f race on Belmont day had been run in 1:11 by a group of quality allowance horses we would probably all echo that time as being a pedestrian time for that distance by that quality of horse, but I will reiterate our reference to the 1 ½ mile race is just not that common place.

[Bruddah]

When comparing final times in the Belmont the historical record of final times is the best reference because you have consistency in the data. You will always have 3yos against 3yos and the race distance at 1 ½ miles (since 1926). Additionally weather data can be found on the Internet that gives an excellent status of weather conditions for past Belmonts.

Can anyone direct me to a site with the past weather conditions for the Belmont(s). I would like to enter that information into my db.

Thanks
Bruddah

[Cratos]

When comparing final times in the Belmont the historical record of final times is the best reference because you have consistency in the data. You will always have 3yos against 3yos and the race distance at 1 ½ miles (since 1926). Additionally weather data can be found on the Internet that gives an excellent status of weather conditions for past Belmonts.

Can anyone direct me to a site with the past weather conditions for the Belmont(s). I would like to enter that information into my db.

Thanks
Bruddah


This is an excellent online historical weather data site, but not easy to navigate:

http://weather-warehouse.com/?gclid=CLCGzKu59JMCFQoFGgod1g3tVQ

[Lose The Juice]

Yes, speed figs in races at 1 and 1/2 miles are extraordinarily useful.

Even more useful are speed figs in 2 and 1/4 mile races. I got an 82 for Ethnarch's 3:55 4/5 in the 1979 Display Handicap (big trainer change from Lenny to Dom Imperio!), and a 90 for Peat Moss in 1980 ( seemingly slow 3:57 4/5, but the track was slow, and PM had previously established himself as a solid allowance horse for Howie Tesher before Puentes claimed him). Field Cat's 3:51 4/5 in '81 was a 96, just a shade under reformed claimer Seaney Bear's 98 (3:53 1/5) in 1978.

Anyone have barometric pressure readings for these days? I think the figs may still need some fine-tuning.

:rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, speed figs in races at 1 and 1/2 miles are extraordinarily useful.

Even more useful are speed figs in 2 and 1/4 mile races. I got an 82 for Ethnarch's 3:55 4/5 in the 1979 Display Handicap (big trainer change from Lenny to Dom Imperio!), and a 90 for Peat Moss in 1980 ( seemingly slow 3:57 4/5, but the track was slow, and PM had previously established himself as a solid allowance horse for Howie Tesher before Puentes claimed him). Field Cat's 3:51 4/5 in '81 was a 96, just a shade under reformed claimer Seaney Bear's 98 (3:53 1/5) in 1978.

Anyone have barometric pressure readings for these days? I think the figs may still need some fine-tuning.

:rolleyes:I see you've crowned yourself king of what's important and not important. How quaint.

[highnote]

---------------------------------------------------------------
Da' Tara [ 86 ]
07JUN08 BE D 1m 4f 1 -- 0 86
17MAY08 PI D 1m 0f 110y 2 -- .5 83
26APR08 CH D 7f 110y 5 -- 5 74
29MAR08 GU D 1m 1f 9 -- 23.5 65
22FEB08 GU D 1 mile 3 -- 4.25 74
05JAN08 GU D 1m 1f 1 -- 0 74
[ 74 ]
08DEC07 CR D 1m 0f 70y 4 -- 1.85 58
28SEP07 BE D 7f 2 -- 1 74
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anak Nakal [ 81 ]
07JUN08 BE D 1m 4f 3 -- 8 81
03MAY08 CH D 1m 2f 7 -- 15 74
05APR08 AQ D 1m 1f 5 -- 3.5 77
15MAR08 OP D 1m 0f 110y 7 -- 12.25 70
24FEB08 GU D 1m 1f 8 -- 13.55 69
[ 77 ]
24NOV07 CH D 1m 0f 110y 1 -- 0 77
28OCT07 AQ D 1 mile 2 -- 6.5 72
28SEP07 BE D 7f 1 -- 0 75
---------------------------------------------------------------
BIG BROWN [ 86 ]
07JUN08 BE D 1m 4f 9 -- 99.99 20
17MAY08 PI D 1m 1f 110y 1 -- 0 81
03MAY08 CH D 1m 2f 1 -- 0 86
29MAR08 GU D 1m 1f 1 -- 0 86
05MAR08 GU D 1 mile 1 -- 0 77
[ 80 ]
03SEP07 ST T 1m 0f 110y 1 -- 0 80
---------------------------------------------------------------
CASINO DRIVE [ 87 ]
10MAY08 BE D 1m 1f 1 -- 0 87

---------------------------------------------------------------
DENIS OF CORK [ 83 ]
07JUN08 BE D 1m 4f 2 -- 5.25 83
03MAY08 CH D 1m 2f 3 -- 8.25 80
05APR08 HA D 1m 1f 5 -- 8.5 77
18FEB08 OP D 1 mile 1 -- 0 81
19JAN08 FG D 1m 0f 39y 1 -- 0 78
[ 75 ]
24NOV07 CH D 7f 1 -- 0 75
---------------------------------------------------------------
ICABAD CRANE [ 77 ]
07JUN08 BE D 1m 4f 8 -- 25.25 69
17MAY08 PI D 1m 1f 110y 3 -- 5.75 76
19APR08 PI D 1m 1f 1 -- 0 77
22MAR08 TW A 1m 0f 110y 3 -- 3.25 77
20JAN08 AQ D 1m 0f 70y 1 -- 0 71
[ 70 ]
21NOV07 AQ D 6f 110y 1 -- 0 70
---------------------------------------------------------------
MACHO AGAIN [ 79 ]
07JUN08 BE D 1m 4f 5 -- 11 79
17MAY08 PI D 1m 1f 110y 2 -- 5.25 76
26APR08 CH D 7f 110y 1 -- 0 79
22MAR08 TW A 1m 1f 7 -- 12.75 70
28FEB08 FG D 6f 1 -- 0 76
12JAN08 FG D 1 mile 6 -- 6.7 74
[ 79 ]
24NOV07 CH D 1 mile 2 -- .25 76
28OCT07 CH D 7f 1 -- 0 77
07OCT07 KE A 6f 7 -- 12.95 61
15AUG07 ST D 5f 110y 2 -- 2.25 79
---------------------------------------------------------------
READY'S ECHO [ 81 ]
07JUN08 BE D 1m 4f 3 -- 8 81
10MAY08 BE D 1m 1f 3 -- 6.25 81
12APR08 KE A 1m 0f 110y 2 -- .25 79
05MAR08 GU D 7f 1 -- 0 72
[ 61 ]
08AUG07 ST D 5f 110y 2 -- 5.75 61
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tale of Ekati [ 80 ]
07JUN08 BE D 1m 4f 6 -- 18.25 74
03MAY08 CH D 1m 2f 4 -- 11 77
05APR08 AQ D 1m 1f 1 -- 0 80
08MAR08 FG D 1m 0f 110y 6 -- 6.5 75
[ 83 ]
27OCT07 MO D 1m 0f 110y 4 -- 17.5 66
15SEP07 BE D 7f 1 -- 0 78
26JUL07 ST D 6f 2 -- 4 81
07JUL07 BE D 5f 110y 1 -- 0 83
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalcanal [ 75 ]
07JUN08 BE D 1m 4f 7 -- 24.75 70
23MAY08 CH T 1m 4f 2 -- .05 75
19APR08 KE A 1m 0f 110y 3 -- 4 70
06MAR08 GU D 1m 1f 8 -- 26.75 52
01FEB08 GU D 7f 7 -- 16.1 56
[ 59 ]
01SEP07 CR D 6f 2 -- 1 59

[Bruddah]

Using the famous word Ass U Me. Are those numbers the speed ratings you have come up with, or the numbers a particular software has generated. The reason I ask is, they seem in line with how I rated their performances. Just Curious. :confused:

[highnote]

Using the famous word Ass U Me. Are those numbers the speed ratings you have come up with, or the numbers a particular software has generated. The reason I ask is, they seem in line with how I rated their performances. Just Curious. :confused:

The number on the right is a speed rating. They're based on the method outlined by Nick Mordin in his book, "Mordin On Time".

The figures are made using a projected daily variant which is based on the past speed figures of many horses horses on the card.

[Bruddah]

As I said, they seem realistic to me. More so than the Beyr number of 99. But, I admit, I know nutheeennng! Thanks for your explanation and post. :ThmbUp:

P.S. I wonder if the Gamblers Book Store has a copy of that book?

[Lose The Juice]

Guys, not to be entirely dismissive, but what is the actual value of a speed figure for a distance run once or twice a year?

[Bruddah]

Guys, not to be entirely dismissive, but what is the actual value of a speed figure for a distance run once or twice a year?

I find it very helpful. If you dismiss the race as something which you can't get a handle on because it's run at a strange distance, once a year, they won't help you at all. However, my data base and the way I use it, helped me make a bold prediction before the Belmont was run. I said no horse, including BB would be able to run a 100 Beyer. I said they just wouldn't be fast enough. A good prediction considering the lowest rated Beyers in Belmont History were 101. Also considering, before the race, most experts were sure this was the year for a (BB) TC championship. I may disagree with the final rating which Beyer gave, (99) but it was below 100. I also think the number I gave the race is more accurate. (88).

I am not trying to say my prediction was spectacular or even important, because I had BB on top. I didn't even bother to bet the race. However, my pre race predictive times were also very close to reality. In conclusion, I think they are important to those of us who make an effort to understand the third leg of the Triple Crown and in some years payoff with a value bet. :)

[Lose The Juice]

I don't dismiss the race at all, and I realize it's nice, at least in an academic sense, to be able to compare this year's Belmont winner with those of past years; I just don't see how speed figures (especially given this year's result) are either a help in picking the race, or much help in assessing the performances of horses coming out of it, most if not all of whom will presumably drop back to much shorter distances in their upcoming races.

[46zilzal]

, to be able to compare this year's Belmont winner with those of past years; I just don't see how speed figures (especially given this year's result) are either a help in picking the race, or much help in assessing the performances of horses coming out of it, most if not all of whom will presumably drop back to much shorter distances in their upcoming races.

RELATIVITY......Energy distribution will often figure it out based upon who shows up. Has for many years now.

[Lose The Juice]

What?

[46zilzal]

What?
When various energy distribution types get together, you can often tell the winner just by that. Also earlier ones, relatively, do better on most dirt surfaces.

[Lose The Juice]

This gets better and better.

Was you first language a Slavic or a Finno-Ugric one? If the latter, do you have
a good set of speed figs from Helsinki Downs?

[rastajenk]

RELATIVITY......Energy distribution will often figure it out based upon who shows up. Has for many years now.
Is this another one of those Eintstein proclamations? Or is it Eint-steen?

[Lose The Juice]

RELATIVITY......Energy distribution will often figure it out based upon who shows up. Has for many years now.


Einstein was at least comprehensible in German. This is Delphic babble in any language.

[JeremyJet]

Re: Beyer number accuracy

All I can say is that they have been making Beyer numbers for a long time. They're not going to put a number out there that they don't have confidence in. Look what happened with the recent Stephen Foster Handicap. The day after the race, they gave the race a 105. The following day they changed it to a 110. Rest assured that they're doing all that they can do to assure the accuracy of their numbers.

As for the Belmont and the unique 12f distance. I don't see what the big deal is. You have a number of horses that finished behind the winner. There's enough data there to base your [projections] off of if the race doesn't seem to conform to the other route races that day.

I'm not sayiong the Beyer numbers are the most accurate speed figures out there, but they're as accurate as the methedology calls for. If you're looking for something more accurate, look into the sheet methedology.

JeremyJet

[Valuist]

Jeremy Jet was one of my all time favorite Illinois breds. He and Demetri's Boy.

[JeremyJet]

Jeremy Jet was one of my all time favorite Illinois breds. He and Demetri's Boy.

I was thinking of a cool username when I signed up. Looks like I picked a good one. ;-) Thanks.

Yeah, bring back the good old days.

JeremyJet

[cj]

Re: Beyer number accuracy

All I can say is that they have been making Beyer numbers for a long time. They're not going to put a number out there that they don't have confidence in. Look what happened with the recent Stephen Foster Handicap. The day after the race, they gave the race a 105. The following day they changed it to a 110. Rest assured that they're doing all that they can do to assure the accuracy of their numbers.

As for the Belmont and the unique 12f distance. I don't see what the big deal is. You have a number of horses that finished behind the winner. There's enough data there to base your [projections] off of if the race doesn't seem to conform to the other route races that day.

I'm not sayiong the Beyer numbers are the most accurate speed figures out there, but they're as accurate as the methedology calls for. If you're looking for something more accurate, look into the sheet methedology.

JeremyJet

Your initial statement isn't really true. The Beyer guys MUST put out a figure for all the races. It doesn't matter how "confident" they are in the number.

[JeremyJet]

Your initial statement isn't really true. The Beyer guys MUST put out a figure for all the races. It doesn't matter how "confident" they are in the number.

Well, actually, they don't produce numbers for really short sprint races. So, technically, they don't have to. ;)

JeremyJet

[cj's dad]

So, gee. the Byers guys are not supposed to post a post race # on the Belmont Stakes. Duh !?

[JeremyJet]

Yeah, hi there, CJ's dad. How are you?

But speaking of the projection method ... my guesstimate is that a 104 looks about right for today's Hollywood Gold Cup.

Raw figs look like this:
4F: 105
8F: 112
10F:115

Subtract 11 points from each fraction and the adjusted figs look like this:
4F: 94
8F: 101
10F: 104

That would give GO BETWEEN a 101, STUDENT COUNCIL a 98, McCANN'S MOJAVE a 97, BIG BOOSTER a 97 and TIAGO a 95. Those numbers seem to fit well based on past efforts.

I could be off a couple points either way, but my point is that it's possible to scope out the varaint just based on the result of one race.

JeremyJet

[JeremyJet]

They gave the winner a 105 Beyer. I was off by one point.

JeremyJet

[classhandicapper]

They gave the winner a 105 Beyer. I was off by one point.

JeremyJet

Maybe they are off by 1 point. ;)