Quality Road's 121 Beyer is a sham

[cj]

Warning: long, boring breakdown on making figures for Donn day so don't read if you aren't interested!

It looks to me like the track was pretty consistent throughout the day. Beyer in fact seems to support this by giving all the one turn races the same adjustment, races 3, 4, 6, and 8.

So, you are left with two races around two turns, races 1 and 10. Race 1 was run with a wickedly fast pace for horses of that ability. It is a very tough race from which to make a variant. I have the raw pace figure coming in 30 points higher than the speed figure, and the winner ran 13 points faster to the pace call. The raw figures are 107 pace, 77 finish.

The winner ran exactly once on dirt, her last where eased at a higher claiming price while showing no ability whatsoever in a slow race. (Side note, I find it hilarious DRF lists her as having 24 "D.Fst" starts.) Her absolute best races have been around a 70 Beyer and all on her preferred polytrack.

The runner up by a length Our Dreamette has a been a very consistent closer running 64, 64, and 63 her last three races. Given the fast pace today I see no reason she wouldn't be able to replicate those figures. If I am going to project a number for this race, it is going to be a 65 giving an additional point for the 1/2 length the winner had on her at the end. This horse has never topped a 66 in 28 career starts. The third finisher six lengths behind has Beyers of 56 and 55 last two and the 65 for the winner puts her right in line with this number.

So, given the raw number of 77, I project a variant of Fast 12 for the track for this route. For some reason, Beyer gives the race a 69, or a FAST 8. I know 4 points doesn't seem like a lot, but when giving 121s off of only two route races I think you have to look at every detail.

For the Donn, I have raw figures of 132 pace, 126 speed, with Quality Road's pace figure at 130. I of course start with him to project a number for the race. His career best figure is a 113 around one turn, and a 111 around 2. His first back was obviously a prep and he was given a 103, but I'd project around that 113 career best. The runner up, Dry Martini had recorded figs of 99, 84, 85, and 93 his last four. He was beaten 12.75 lengths which is about 20 points on the Beyer scale, so this would project a 93. That seems reasonable. I would never assume a horse is going to run his best when trounced by a large distance. Third place Delightful Kiss has run his last three with 91, 81, and 98. With the 113 projection, he would get a 91 seeing he was beaten an additional length. I really think the 113 is a good projection.

So, with a raw figure of 126, I have the track Fast 13. The two routes are Fast 12 and Fast 13, very tight, and given it is more likely QR improved than the runner in the 1st, I'd use the Fast 12 for a variant.

So, the first race gets a 65 and the Donn a 114. I really don't know where that 122 is coming from to be honest. Even if you believe Beyer, why the 3 point difference between the 1st and 10th when all other races are consistent? He takes 8 away from the first, but only 5 from the 10th. It makes no sense.

[illinoisbred]

I think you're right on target with your reasoning and logic. If you don't mind me asking ,what was your 1 turn variant?

[cj]

I'm not home now, but I think it was 9 Fast.

[illinoisbred]

Thank you!

[CincyHorseplayer]

This is why my brain turns into tapioca.I'm glad someone else has the daunting task of estimation via speed!Your threads are always information packed and it's much appreciated.Keep em coming.Glad to be viewing this one outside the lines though!:ThmbUp:

[Charlie D]

CJ

Do the Beyer compilers add lengths for ease of win, easing down?? Timeform do this occasionly and it could go some way to explaining the 121


Example:

Zarkava 131, but TF handicappers added a couple of pound for "ease of victory" making her 133

[cj]

No, they do not add points for ease of victory.

[KidCapper]

I have noticed that Beyer seems to inflate his numbers with big blow out wins. Don't have any pp's on this puter to back that up but I know I have seen this before.

[Charlie D]

K


FWIW i have 113 on my figs, but if "ease" was taken into account you could end up with 114, 115, 116, 117 or whatever. Depending on the view taken of course.

[bisket]

the track was really a tough read on saturday. i had a difficult time of it myself, and play this track rather regularly. i usually only play weekend cards, but keep up with how the track plays on a daily basis. the way i looked at it was it was a touch tiring. it rained the evening beforehand, and probably not enough to change it from fast to good. although i don't think it was playing quite as fast as the previous few weeks. i think a telling race would be the non winners of 1 allowance for 4 year and up fillies and mares. the 1st and 2nd place finishers have on a regular basis raced 2-3 fifths off the variant on a regular basis. you drop 2/5 off their race time of 1:38 2/5 and you get a time thats 2 seconds above 136 (12 second furs). another race that reinforces this plus 2 second variant (2 seconds above 12 sec furs) would be wildcat frankie's race. graded stakes quality 3 year olds generally run their races roughly around the variant time this time of year. thats what frankie appears to be because his 1 mile race was timed at 138 2/5. the allowance for 4 year olds was a 1 turn mile so you can add 3/5 of a second for the extra turn for quality road. the 1 mile distance doesn't have a run up, and 1 1/8 mile does have a run up of 80 feet. so we can drop 1/5 off the deduction for the turn so we'll deduct 2/5 of a second off quality's race taking into consideration the run up and the turn. that gives you a time 147 flat. so quality beat the variant by 3 seconds. pretty good performance!!!

[Saratoga_Mike]

To be precise, I believe the raw figure for the Donn was 127 (147.49), so I think that would bump CJ's estimate up to 115. He may not use a 1/10th of second Beyer scale, which is reasonable.

I rarely attempt to make figures for GP, but I did after the Donn and I posted my thoughts shortly after the race. I thought QR earned a 118 or 119, lower than Beyer, but higher than CJ.

Couple of questions for CJ. I thought the track seemed to be playing faster for the 2 two-turn dirt races than the one-turn dirt races (specifically referencing race 3 and 4, not race 6)? You didn't find that to be the case? Wasn't there an issue with the Beyers (one-turn vs two-turn) at GP last yr or perhaps in 2008? Thanks.

[cj]

I use time to the 1/100th.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think you're mocking my 1/10 of a second comment, but not sure. If so, I deserved it.

[cj]

Yes, I do think the track played faster for two turn races by a little bit. I'm not mocking, I really do use 100ths. Why wouldn't I if they are available?

[bisket]

Yes, I do think the track played faster for two turn races by a little bit. I'm not mocking, I really do use 100ths. Why wouldn't I if they are available?
because basing bets on times that precise is silly

[PaceAdvantage]

because basing bets on times that precise is sillySilly for who? Guys like you who never have tried or simply are unable? Yeah, I would agree it would be silly for you to base your bets on something you don't understand or can't make work for you...

But don't project that failure onto others...THAT would be silly.

[classhandicapper]

I have a few comments about this that may help (or may not). :lol:

1. I "think" Beyer adjusted his 9F speed figure chart for GP last year in the middle of the meet and made some of the 9F races several points faster (QR included). Since I don't make figures for GP, I have no idea if that's still true now or how that might be impacting an analysis of what he did Saturday. Perhaps he had all the races a similar speed but it's not apparent because he's using a different chart than you?

2. We know for certain that extreme paces like the one in the other route race can really throw some figure makers off about how fast a track actually was because it gets difficult to determine whether the time was impacted by the extreme pace, a change in track speed, or both. That could have throw him off.

3. While I don't disagree with your projection for the Donn, one could easily project a much faster figure by starting with the assumption that QR ran much faster Saturday as a fully developed 4YO than he did in his spring 3YO peak. That would not be an unreasonable assumption. Typical improvement could easily be between 5-10 points or even a tad more. That would get him up to the 120s.

Dry Martini did run a 99 last time out and has strung together high 90s and even broken through the 100 barrier last year. So that's not too unreasonable.

Delightfull Kiss's last was only a 91, but it was his first race off a long layoff, was clearly a sprint prep for the Donn, and he routinely ran in the high 90s before that.

Mambo Meister has been running about a 100.

I guess what I am saying is that whenever you use one race in isolation or have various pace and one turn vs. two turn complications figure makers often produce a wide range of figures because they interpret the results differently.

I'm not sure which is correct. What I feel comfortable saying is that those other horses were weaker Grade 2 and Grade 3 animals, but he destroyed them like an elite older Grade 1 horse should. If I was in RA's camp, I would want no part of him.

[PaceAdvantage]

If I was in RA's camp, I would want no part of him.Have we seriously reduced Rachel Alexandra to nothing more than a glorified allowance runner at this point?

I say this because now QUALITY ROAD, the horse only a few scant months ago some on here were begging to be RETIRED after his BC gate "freak out", and the horse who many on here pegged as a horse who "wants no part of 10f," is some sort of world beater RA must run and hide from at all costs?

I really don't understand this mindset. You guys are acting as if Rachel Alexandra has some undefeated record she has to protect. You guys act as if losing a race this year means that Rachel should be further reduced to perhaps nothing more than a high-priced claimer in the grand scheme of things.

Absurd.

[classhandicapper]

Have we seriously reduced Rachel Alexandra to nothing more than a glorified allowance runner at this point?

I say this because now QUALITY ROAD, the horse only a few scant months ago some on here were begging to be RETIRED after his BC gate "freak out", and the horse who many on here pegged as a horse who "wants no part of 10f," is some sort of world beater RA must run and hide from at all costs?

I really don't understand this mindset. You guys are acting as if Rachel Alexandra has some undefeated record she has to protect. You guys act as if losing a race this year means that Rachel should be further reduced to perhaps nothing more than a high-priced claimer in the grand scheme of things.

Absurd.

We obviously are having a communication problem because of your love affair with Rachel and my defense of Zenyatta as a great filly . :lol:

I think Rachel is the top 3-4 dirt fillies I have seen in my life. She may even be second best behind Ruffian. However, I don't think even great fillies can beat "elite Grade 1 older males" in tough Grade 1 events on dirt (especially at 10F or longer).

My view of Quality Road is that last spring he was probably the best 3YO colt in the country before he got hurt. (I Want Revenge was another, but QR was clearly at least among them). I think he was sort of rushed back to make the Travers, but delivered a few performances that were good enough to indicate a return to top form was still at least possible. So maybe the Donn was an indication that all is right and he's ready to take his place among the elite Grade 1 older colts this year. Of course, he could just stay sharp for short period of time and his form head south again. I do not know. What I do "think" is that his race in the Donn was way better than anything Rachel faced in the Preakness and Woodward where she struggled a bit. And I also think Rachel will not be better this year than last year because fillies tend to develop sooner and faster than colts. I think we've seen her best.

So my view is that if the RA we saw last year faced the QR we saw Saturday, she'd be meeting an elite Grade 1 older colt for the first time and would lose. But I also think Go for Wand etc... would have lost Saturday. I don't see why her camp should be anxious to meet a field of elite Grade 1 older colts this year when they did an excellent job of picking tough but winnable spots for her last hear. They would be better off looking to get Zenyatta in 9F race on dirt against much weaker fillies where she could dictate matters and not have to cope with QR.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yes, I do think the track played faster for two turn races by a little bit. I'm not mocking, I really do use 100ths. Why wouldn't I if they are available?

I don't really take issue with it, but I guess detractors would say it gives you more precision, but not necessarily more accuracy (in the handicapping process).

[Saratoga_Mike]

"Have we seriously reduced Rachel Alexandra to nothing more than a glorified allowance runner at this point?"

Well she is working really slowly! :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

We obviously are having a communication problem because of your love affair with Rachel and my defense of Zenyatta as a great filly . I beg to differ. I'm hearing you loud and clear. That last line said it all:If I was in RA's camp, I would want no part of him.For the most part, running and hiding from the best available has been camp Zenyatta's M.O....I honestly don't think camp R.A. is as frightened of losing as you make them out to be...and at this point, who can blame them? They already have their HOY and they aren't looking to protect an unbeaten record like team Moss/Sheriffs.

People on this board act as if Rachel can't afford to lose in 2010. Well, if the BC Classic is her only opportunity to meet Zenyatta or Quality Road, then I agree. Other than that, shoot the dice and see what happens.

[bisket]

Silly for who? Guys like you who never have tried or simply are unable? Yeah, I would agree it would be silly for you to base your bets on something you don't understand or can't make work for you...

But don't project that failure onto others...THAT would be silly.
i didn't think that statement would be all that popular :lol: but it leads to my bottom line on speed figures!!

[PaceAdvantage]

i didn't think that statement would be all that popular :lol: but it leads to my bottom line on speed figures!!All I know is you won't see me acting the part of the fool by dismissing other forms of handicapping. I have never once put down paper-and-pencil guys, speed figure guys, class handicappers, visual handicappers, guys who use workouts, non-computer handicappers...all the things I DON'T USE on a regular basis. I would NEVER DREAM of putting down those that DO use these sorts of methods and are successful with them, simply because they don't suit my style or I haven't been able to make them work for me.

Only an ignorant fool would make the following statement to a winning player who happens to utilize 100ths:because basing bets on times that precise is silly

[Saratoga_Mike]

"I would NEVER DREAM of putting down those that DO use these sorts of methods and are successful with them, simply because they don't suit my style or I haven't been able to make them work for me."

What about JohnnyLou's system - can't you make an exception and put that down?

[bisket]

All I know is you won't see me acting the part of the fool by dismissing other forms of handicapping. I have never once put down paper-and-pencil guys, speed figure guys, class handicappers, visual handicappers, guys who use workouts, non-computer handicappers...all the things I DON'T USE on a regular basis. I would NEVER DREAM of putting down those that DO use these sorts of methods and are successful with them, simply because they don't suit my style or I haven't been able to make them work for me.

Only an ignorant fool would make the following statement to a winning player who happens to utilize 100ths:
well the fact is people have been putting down my methods, and attempting to discredit them on a regular basis. i figured i'd just join the crowd.

[PaceAdvantage]

What about JohnnyLou's system - can't you make an exception and put that down?I really have no clue what his system or method is, so I couldn't put it down, even if I wanted to (despite his myriad attempts at explanation over the years). :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

And I apologize for being at least partly responsible for getting this thread seriously off track. I wouldn't be shocked to see CJ delete my posts...:lol:

[Relwob Owner]

Have we seriously reduced Rachel Alexandra to nothing more than a glorified allowance runner at this point?

I say this because now QUALITY ROAD, the horse only a few scant months ago some on here were begging to be RETIRED after his BC gate "freak out", and the horse who many on here pegged as a horse who "wants no part of 10f," is some sort of world beater RA must run and hide from at all costs?

I really don't understand this mindset. You guys are acting as if Rachel Alexandra has some undefeated record she has to protect. You guys act as if losing a race this year means that Rachel should be further reduced to perhaps nothing more than a high-priced claimer in the grand scheme of things.

Absurd.



Couldnt agree more....if QR is the "monster" that everyone says he is, where were all of the posts BEFORE the race????? Nowhere, which proves that all of the people jumping on the bandwagon are doing so because of one race.....the whole thing is just an example of recency and how quickly people discount things done a few months ago and overestimate what just happened.........

[Charlie D]

Couldnt agree more....if QR is the "monster" that everyone says he is, where were all of the posts BEFORE the race????? Nowhere, which proves that all of the people jumping on the bandwagon are doing so because of one race.....the whole thing is just an example of recency and how quickly people discount things done a few months ago and overestimate what just happened.........



QR was tagged as Top quallity as a 3yo by plenty, in fact was he not favourite for KD before his injury???

[classhandicapper]

I beg to differ. I'm hearing you loud and clear. That last line said it all:For the most part, running and hiding from the best available has been camp Zenyatta's M.O....I honestly don't think camp R.A. is as frightened of losing as you make them out to be...and at this point, who can blame them? They already have their HOY and they aren't looking to protect an unbeaten record like team Moss/Sheriffs.

People on this board act as if Rachel can't afford to lose in 2010. Well, if the BC Classic is her only opportunity to meet Zenyatta or Quality Road, then I agree. Other than that, shoot the dice and see what happens.

I think I've been among the least biased posters on this forum even if you (or most people) disagree with me. It's just that I constantly find people diminishing everything Zenyatta did (you among them). So I typically find myself in defense of Zenyatta's accomplishments while putting Rachel's into what I feel is the proper perspective. When one poster (can't remember his name) was trashing Rachel relentlessly earlier in the year, I defended her the same way.

I don't know if RA's camp is frightened of losing or not. They made some very bold moves last year. So I don't think they are trying to protect her. But I also think that among their bold moves, they always made the smartest one in terms of winning.

I think skipping the Belmont was smart not only because she probably needed a freshening, but because they thought she might be vulnerable at 12F.

I think they passed the Travers because they wanted to take a shot at older males after having already beaten the 3YOs, but they also knew that an improving Summer Bird and potentially sharp Quality Road at 10F were going to be tougher than Macho Again at 9F.

I think this year they want Zenyatta on dirt at 9F where they know they will have the best of it.

Will they try 10F against top fillies, take on elite Grade 1 older male horses, or run in the Classic at 10F this year?

I don't know.

I think they will probably behave like most other connections. They will look for the highest possible purse and greatest possible gain in prestige with the lowest possible risk of losing while keeping their eye on whatever their major goal for the year is (beating Zenyatta? peaking for the BC Classic? )

I don't think they are going to go out of their way to face QR if he remains this sharp when it would be a tougher race than one against Zenyatta on dirt at 9F against fillies. I know I wouldn't.

If my major goal was also the BC Classic, I'd take on Zenyatta at some point, but I'd give her a well spaced and easier campaign than last year to get her to peak on the right day. In other words, I'd give her Zenyatta's campaign from last year where she was brilliantly handled from a "peak on the right day" perspective, but unfortunately ran into a buzzsaw named RA that cost her HOY.

[cj]

I have a few comments about this that may help (or may not). :lol:

1. I "think" Beyer adjusted his 9F speed figure chart for GP last year in the middle of the meet and made some of the 9F races several points faster (QR included). Since I don't make figures for GP, I have no idea if that's still true now or how that might be impacting an analysis of what he did Saturday. Perhaps he had all the races a similar speed but it's not apparent because he's using a different chart than you?

2. We know for certain that extreme paces like the one in the other route race can really throw some figure makers off about how fast a track actually was because it gets difficult to determine whether the time was impacted by the extreme pace, a change in track speed, or both. That could have throw him off.

3. While I don't disagree with your projection for the Donn, one could easily project a much faster figure by starting with the assumption that QR ran much faster Saturday as a fully developed 4YO than he did in his spring 3YO peak. That would not be an unreasonable assumption. Typical improvement could easily be between 5-10 points or even a tad more. That would get him up to the 120s.

Dry Martini did run a 99 last time out and has strung together high 90s and even broken through the 100 barrier last year. So that's not too unreasonable.

Delightfull Kiss's last was only a 91, but it was his first race off a long layoff, was clearly a sprint prep for the Donn, and he routinely ran in the high 90s before that.

Mambo Meister has been running about a 100.

I guess what I am saying is that whenever you use one race in isolation or have various pace and one turn vs. two turn complications figure makers often produce a wide range of figures because they interpret the results differently.

I'm not sure which is correct. What I feel comfortable saying is that those other horses were weaker Grade 2 and Grade 3 animals, but he destroyed them like an elite older Grade 1 horse should. If I was in RA's camp, I would want no part of him.

A few points I'll make:


I don't think the chart thing is an issue.
I have a very hard time believing the 2-3 finishers ran near their best while getting trounced. It just rarely ever happens.
I also don't see any way the horses in the 1st suddenly ran career tops after tons of starts in a cheap claimer going 9f
I agree horses can improve from spring of the 3yo season, but he ran 3 times in fall. How many horses actually keep improving from 113 at 3 to 120s at 4? Usually quick bloomers like Quality Road are the least likely to show improvement as they age.
I also agree I could be wrong and Beyer right, but I think the odds are heavily in my favor.

[Relwob Owner]

QR was tagged as Top quallity as a 3yo by plenty, in fact was he not favourite for KD before his injury???

He was and it is a case of Deja Vous....before the KD, he was a really talented horse who ran some really good races and then had physical issues...he came back and couldnt win against top horses and went nuts before the BC....now, a year later, he is a really talented horse who ran a really good race against a poor field-I dont know what the future holds but I am guessing he repeats his last year than becomes a consistent, top notch horse.

[Charlie D]

He didn't go nuts, he just refused to go in gate that day for a reason only he knows. Horses refusing t go in gate happens quite a bit this side of pond tbh and handlers do get physical with them, put on blindfolds and rugs to help.

Some horse are just that way sometimes.

[classhandicapper]

A few points I'll make:



I don't think the chart thing is an issue.
I have a very hard time believing the 2-3 finishers ran near their best while getting trounced. It just rarely ever happens.
I also don't see any way the horses in the 1st suddenly ran career tops after tons of starts in a cheap claimer going 9f
I agree horses can improve from spring of the 3yo season, but he ran 3 times in fall. How many horses actually keep improving from 113 at 3 to 120s at 4? Usually quick bloomers like Quality Road are the least likely to show improvement as they age.
I also agree I could be wrong and Beyer right, but I think the odds are heavily in my favor.



I'm not so sure about the chart thing because I can't remember the specifics, but if his 9F chart is 4 points or so different than the standard one, that could account for something.


The first race new peak is the thing that makes me most skeptical.

[cj]

He didn't change the chart last year, he retroactively changed the variants by changing his "standard" between one and two turn races. The problem with that is the days he did it usually only had one two turn race so it was tougher to judge.

I don't use a fixed gap between one and two turn races. I think it is a poor practice. If there aren't enough routes to make a variant with the data, it is better to go deeper in the individual races and look at more horses than to just assume the relationship to sprints is static.

[bisket]

its because the inside trip at gulfstream at 1 1/8 mile is more favorable. i think? its a reaction to big brown in 2008

[depalma113]

Here's a formula I use concerning large Beyers in open length wins.

Beyer Number Earned - (1/2 x winning margin) = Real Beyer Figure

121 - 6.25 = 114.75

Round it up, and it's a 115.

Not saying it is exact science, but it seems to help.

[Relwob Owner]

He didn't go nuts, he just refused to go in gate that day for a reason only he knows. Horses refusing t go in gate happens quite a bit this side of pond tbh and handlers do get physical with them, put on blindfolds and rugs to help.

Some horse are just that way sometimes.



If that wasnt going nuts, I would not like to be around when he really does go nuts..........

[David-LV]

It doesn't matter what the number was, seeing is believing.

The race that QR ran on Saturday would have beat any horse in training including the two girls.

If the Beyer numbers meant that much handicapping would be much easier.

_________
David-LV

[Robert Goren]

It doesn't matter what the number was, seeing is believing.

The race that QR ran on Saturday would have beat any horse in training including the two girls.

If the Beyer numbers meant that much handicapping would be much easier.

_________
David-LV I saw a replay and wasn't all that impressed. As the wrestler Ric Flair says " to be the man you have got to beat the man" When he actually beats one of the girls, then I will give him his due. Both them have beaten far better horses than him.

[Charlie D]

If that wasnt going nuts, I would not like to be around when he really does go nuts..........


If you want to say he went nuts RL that is up to you, but imo it was just like a child having a tantrum when they can't get thier way.


No harm done as this seasons performances showed i think.

[Charlie D]

I saw a replay and wasn't all that impressed. As the wrestler Ric Flair says " to be the man you have got to beat the man" When he actually beats one of the girls, then I will give him his due. Both them have beaten far better horses than him.

Just interested. Were you of a similar mindset when RA was beating trees in a similar fashion last year in Martha Washington Fantasy, FG Oaks, Oaks???

[PaceAdvantage]

If the Beyer numbers meant that much handicapping would be much easier.Who said it meant anything more than a fairly well-crafted speed figure? Nothing more than another tool in the toolbox. I don't think I've read anyone on here claim otherwise.

Although some would have you believe otherwise, but they have their own agenda.

[Dahoss9698]

I saw a replay and wasn't all that impressed. As the wrestler Ric Flair says " to be the man you have got to beat the man" When he actually beats one of the girls, then I will give him his due. Both them have beaten far better horses than him.

Granted, there wasn't much behind him. But how could you have not been impressed? What does it take? I know it was his track and I know he got a very nice set up. But he ran huge. In this day and age, we'll be lucky if another horse runs a race like that in the US this year.

If that kind of an effort doesn't impress you, you might be following the wrong sport.

[Charlie D]

Granted, there wasn't much behind him. But how could you have not been impressed? What does it take? I know it was his track and I know he got a very nice set up. But he ran huge. In this day and age, we'll be lucky if another horse runs a race like that in the US this year.

If that kind of an effort doesn't impress you, you might be following the wrong sport.

This is what i was wandering

[Charlie D]

Speedfigures, ratings from competent compilers are an excellent guide to a performance and also as to where a performance fits in the grand scheme of all things horsey .


RA 131 Martha Washington, Big Brown 127 Flad, Curlin 132 Akansas Derby, Zarkava 127 Prix Marcel Bousac, New Approach 120 (SF) Futurity.

When you compile yourself or use a competent compilers figs, you just know when you've just seen a corker from a horse and if said horse can repeat or run near it he/she is going to be in shake up come big race day.

[bisket]

Granted, there wasn't much behind him. But how could you have not been impressed? What does it take? I know it was his track and I know he got a very nice set up. But he ran huge. In this day and age, we'll be lucky if another horse runs a race like that in the US this year.

If that kind of an effort doesn't impress you, you might be following the wrong sport.
when i saw him hit that next gear in the stretch my thoughts were he's back to where he was last year, and a little better. i still have one nagging question though: if theres a horse in that race capable of being next to him when they turn for home will he pack it in like i've watched him do his past few races dating back to last summer? i think talent wise he's better than summer bird and both the ladies, but the fastest and most talented doesn't always win.
is this effort proof he's back in form? or is he just a wimp that was in with a bunch of bigger wimps? guess thats yet to be seen.... i'd say if you want to be the man you gotta beat the man sums it up :ThmbUp:

[Charlie D]

when i saw him hit that next gear in the stretch my thoughts were he's back to where he was last year



Me too bisket and when i compiled the numbers it confirmed that thought. What worries me a little is, he may be a horse for course type, in that he is better at GP than anywhere else.

Time will confirm whether my thought above is correct or not.

[thaskalos]

Cj, you seem to follow the Beyer figures closely so I would like to ask for your opinion: do you think Beyer and his associates use one variant for the first part of the day, and a different one for the rest of the day? I don't mean sprints as opposed to routes, nor am I talking about the times when rapidly declining weather conditions change the track during the course of the day. On more than a few occations, even in the summer when the track is fast, I have found great inconsistency in the figures. For instance: the fourth race is run in 1.10 3/5 and a horse who is beaten by 3 lengths gets a rating of 82. Two races - about 45 minutes - later, the sixth race is run in 1.10 flat, and the winner gets a figure of 85, only 3 points higher than the fourth race. According to his scale of 2.4 points per length (at 6 fur.) the difference should be about 14 points. It doesn't happen often, but then again, who knows how many less obvious mistakes are made that go unnoticed... Is there a reason for this inconsistency or is it a mistake on their part. They can't be factoring class in the equation, can they?

[cj]

Cj, you seem to follow the Beyer figures closely so I would like to ask for your opinion: do you think Beyer and his associates use one variant for the first part of the day, and a different one for the rest of the day? I don't mean sprints as opposed to routes, nor am I talking about the times when rapidly declining weather conditions change the track during the course of the day. On more than a few occations, even in the summer when the track is fast, I have found great inconsistency in the figures. For instance: the fourth race is run in 1.10 3/5 and a horse who is beaten by 3 lengths gets a rating of 82. Two races - about 45 minutes - later, the sixth race is run in 1.10 flat, and the winner gets a figure of 85, only 3 points higher than the fourth race. According to his scale of 2.4 points per length (at 6 fur.) the difference should be about 14 points. It doesn't happen often, but then again, who knows how many less obvious mistakes are made that go unnoticed... Is there a reason for this inconsistency or is it a mistake on their part. They can't be factoring class in the equation, can they?

I already posted that the variant for sprints remained static throughout the day. There were two routes and the variant was three points apart for whatever reason. If it stayed the same, the figure should have been 118.

I can't really say why the figures are adjusted sometimes since I don't work for them. Usually, it would guess it has to do with a very fast or very slow paces. Also, there are just races and even cards that are very tough to come up with figures. You do the best you can and monitor them in the future.

[Valuist]

I think you have the figure pegged accurately. Definitely have to use the runnerup in the opener to project because the winner had never finished a race on a dry fast track, despite what the DRF says.

Now for the quality of the race itself (no pun intended). I don't even remember what the grade was, but take QR out of the race and could it possibly be better than Grade 3 quality? And QR strikes me as a bit of a bully; given the right field and trip, he can really run up a big margin. As for the earlier comments re: RA, there were no colts/geldings anywhere near Rachel Alexandra. He still will have his hands (or legs) full if he takes her on.

[matthewsiv]

Beyer quite often throws out some high numbers that a horse never runs to again.

It is always when a horse wins easy and there has been little competiton in the race.

Take the number with a pinch of salt and just use the horse's previous highest Beyer.

I often wonder if this is done to create this kind of controversy.

[Tom]

I think CJ nailed the fig. His number makes sense for the horses behind, which is what we want speed figs to do. When you have a race where multiple horses unexplainably run new higher numbers, you have a bad fig to start with.

But this anointing the second coming of Secretariat can only help the pools down the road, when he meets better and gets beat. And he will.
Not to take anything away from him.....his records is one of impressive performances and good CJ number. But not a 120+.

[classhandicapper]

He didn't change the chart last year, he retroactively changed the variants by changing his "standard" between one and two turn races. The problem with that is the days he did it usually only had one two turn race so it was tougher to judge.

I don't use a fixed gap between one and two turn races. I think it is a poor practice. If there aren't enough routes to make a variant with the data, it is better to go deeper in the individual races and look at more horses than to just assume the relationship to sprints is static.

Changing the relationship between 1 turn and two turn races is what I meant by changing his charts.

If he is using a different relationship than most other people because of that change, then in his mind perhaps the 1 turn and 2 races fit perfectly together. Then it would make perfect sense for him to make the races a little faster.

To be honest, I find these debates pretty funny because we have them every year about a few of the important stakes and Triple Crown preps. There's always a 1 turn/2 turn problem, changing moisture, a big win, extreme pace, windy day etc... that cloud the issues. So you can imagine how many figures for maidens and claimers are equally or more suspect that we never talk about. Yet people form such strong opinions on differences of a couple of points.

To me, that was an elite Grade 1 performance and I'll leave it at that. ;)

[cj]

To me, that was an elite Grade 1 performance and I'll leave it at that. ;)

I agree to a point, but there was no competition so it is tough to judge. I think it was a solid G1 performance, but not as good as what Rachel did a few times last year and Zenyatta did in the BC. We don't get many of those any more.

[JeremyJet]

A few points I'll make:

I have a very hard time believing the 2-3 finishers ran near their best while getting trounced. It just rarely ever happens.
I agree horses can improve from spring of the 3yo season, but he ran 3 times in fall. How many horses actually keep improving from 113 at 3 to 120s at 4? Usually quick bloomers like Quality Road are the least likely to show improvement as they age.
I also agree I could be wrong and Beyer right, but I think the odds are heavily in my favor.



Why? It's not like their best is exceptional. MAMBO MEISTER run at that level in his last three, now four, races.
You're talking in general. That doesn't mean this particular horse didn't, or can't, do it.
That's your opinion, but I don't see why the odds are heavily in your favor based on what you wrote. Like I alluded to above, MAMBO MEISTER ran at the 100 level in his last three races going into the Donn. The pieces fall into place nicely if you project another effort like that.

[cj]

Why? It's not like their best is exceptional. MAMBO MEISTER run at that level in his last three, now four, races.
You're talking in general. That doesn't mean this particular horse didn't, or can't, do it.
That's your opinion, but I don't see why the odds are heavily in your favor based on what you wrote. Like I alluded to above, MAMBO MEISTER ran at the 100 level in his last three races going into the Donn. The pieces fall into place nicely if you project another effort like that.




Mambo Meister? You really want to base a figure on a horse that ran fourth, and did so pressing a pace faster than any he has seen in any of those three 100 level races you speak about by at least 4 or 5 lengths? I think if anything he helps my argument. It is extremely unlikely he reproduced his 100 range figure given the pace. If he did, it was a lifetime best race while getting trounced.
Of course a horse can do it. But I think there is more evidence that points to the fact he didn't. I'm not basing my figures on a few points, but all of them in total. Sure, you can probably nitpick at every one. I've said it is possible I'm wrong.
I've already addressed MM, but how does the first race "fall into place nicely"?
As I've said already, even if you don't agree, the figure should have been 118 max if you agree with Beyers assessment of the first race, the one where he has horses running career bests after 28 races in a cheap claimer at an extended distance for horses that cheap.

[classhandicapper]

Mambo Meister? You really want to base a figure on a horse that ran fourth, and did so pressing a pace faster than any he has seen in any of those three 100 level races you speak about by at least 4 or 5 lengths? I think if anything he helps my argument. It is extremely unlikely he reproduced his 100 range figure given the pace. If he did, it was a lifetime best race while getting trounced.
Of course a horse can do it. But I think there is more evidence that points to the fact he didn't. I'm not basing my figures on a few points, but all of them in total. Sure, you can probably nitpick at every one. I've said it is possible I'm wrong.
I've already addressed MM, but how does the first race "fall into place nicely"?
As I've said already, even if you don't agree, the figure should have been 118 max if you agree with Beyers assessment of the first race, the one where he has horses running career bests after 28 races in a cheap claimer at an extended distance for horses that cheap.


I think the pace issues and the 1st race peak figure are the best arguments against a 121.



If I have time, I may give it a closer look, but I think I may be biased. I thought he was the best 3YO last year before the Derby and then rushed back in the summer trying to make Travers. So I've been looking for some vindication that he was the best 3YO last year when he was going well.


Let's hope Summer Bird comes back 100%.



Last I heard I Want Revenge was in training.


Musket Man is back.



This could be an awesome year if they all come back 100%.

[JeremyJet]

Mambo Meister? You really want to base a figure on a horse that ran fourth, and did so pressing a pace faster than any he has seen in any of those three 100 level races you speak about by at least 4 or 5 lengths? I think if anything he helps my argument. It is extremely unlikely he reproduced his 100 range figure given the pace. If he did, it was a lifetime best race while getting trounced.
Of course a horse can do it. But I think there is more evidence that points to the fact he didn't. I'm not basing my figures on a few points, but all of them in total. Sure, you can probably nitpick at every one. I've said it is possible I'm wrong.


You make it sound so dramatic that MAMBO MEISTER finished 4th. 2nd through 6th place are seperated by 4 Beyer points. It was a race within a race, so the fact that he/they got trounced shouldn't detract from what that group of horse can do. The numbers look fine, IMHO.

You say it's possible that you could be wrong. But you came on pretty strong when you titled this thread. You described the assigned Beyer a sham.

Regards,

JeremyJet

[cj]

You make it sound so dramatic that MAMBO MEISTER finished 4th. 2nd through 6th place are seperated by 4 Beyer points. It was a race within a race, so the fact that he/they got trounced shouldn't detract from what that group of horse can do. The numbers look fine, IMHO.

You say it's possible that you could be wrong. But you came on pretty strong when you titled this thread. You described the assigned Beyer a sham.

Regards,

JeremyJet



Sound dramatic? I thought I was typing.

I've been doing pace/speed figures in combination for a long time, and I think the chances that Mambo Meister suddenly recorded his best combined figure while chasing a superior horse that is part of a very fast pace is extremely remote. This is especially true considering this was career start number 25.

If you wanted to say he ran just as well as he had in the past three starts, I'd agree, I'm sure he did. But he didn't do it with a 100 speed figure, my opinion of course.

[Relwob Owner]

Beyer quite often throws out some high numbers that a horse never runs to again.

It is always when a horse wins easy and there has been little competiton in the race.

Take the number with a pinch of salt and just use the horse's previous highest Beyer.

I often wonder if this is done to create this kind of controversy.



Good point...Chapter 3, Beyer on Speed-"How was the figure earned?"....if you read all of his books, you can see Beyer's own progression from viewing his own figures as the end all be all, to being more of a part of the puzzle that needs to be factored in with the trip, any track biases, the competition, etc.....anyone that uses Quality Road's Beyer as a basis for him beating some sort of unbeatable "monster" after that race should read it for some perspective.

[46zilzal]

Good point...Chapter 3, Beyer on Speed-"How was the figure earned?"....if you read all of his books, you can see Beyer's own progression from viewing his own figures as the end all be all, to being more of a part of the puzzle that needs to be factored in with the trip, any track biases, the competition, etc.....anyone that uses Quality Road's Beyer as a basis for him beating some sort of unbeatable "monster" after that race should read it for some perspective.
When a horse runs all on his own the entire tip a la Affirmed, Slew or Spend A Buck, etc. you do not have to factor in much as he simply outran everything in sight in tremendous performance just like the FLA DERBY

Snow Chief had the same detractors coming into his Preakness. He just outran them all again.

I have seen other pace performances where the animal did go wire to wire but dogged it early. That was not the case here.

[Bobby Seller]

Beyer probably wants to
a)draw attention, and
b)adjust up to the days when elite G1 runners earned 120+ figs on their best days.

a) - mission accomplished

b)
Ghostzapper earned 120+ in 4 out of 5 races at one point, commentator got 120 a couple/few times

When the stars fastest performances are associated w/ gaudy BSFs it's good for business, and hopefully this year will have the BIG3 or maybe even more "elite" stars

[Relwob Owner]

When a horse runs all on his own the entire tip a la Affirmed, Slew or Spend A Buck, etc. you do not have to factor in much as he simply outran everything in sight in tremendous performance just like the FLA DERBY

Snow Chief had the same detractors coming into his Preakness. He just outran them all again.


Right, just like the FLA Derby, which, when looking back, was against a sub par group of horses and how long ago????????

[Bobby Seller]

IMO last years FOY @ 1Mile was QRs most comparable performance to this year's DONN.

[46zilzal]

Right, just like the FLA Derby, which, when looking back, was against a sub par group of horses and how long ago????????
TIME from start to finish and the energy distribution attained was one of the best three year old performances of the year. SAME horse that ran last week ran that one the same way. When you are out front, alone with just the clock as your adversary it doesn't matter which horses are behind you as you are no longer contending with any of them.

Akin to telling me in 1949, Dimaggio had not hit x number of home runs in 1942

[Relwob Owner]

TIME from start to finish and the energy distribution attained was one of the best three year old performances of the year. SAME horse that ran last week ran that one the same way. When you are out front, alone with just the clock as your adversary it doesn't matter which horses are behind you as you are no longer contending with any of them.

Akin to telling me in 1949, Dimaggio had not hit x number of home runs in 1942


You have just proven that Quality Road runs one great race a year....mark of a champion

If you want to go with sports references, I would go with one that didnt take place over 50 years ago....Quality Road is to horse racing as Marcus Camby is to basketball....extremely talented when healthy and fit but never a lock to show up come game time.

[46zilzal]

You have just proven that Quality Road runs one great race a year....mark of a champion

If you want to go with sports references, I would go with one that didnt take place over 50 years ago....Quality Road is to horse racing as Marcus Camby is to basketball....extremely talented when healthy and fit but never a lock to show up come game time.
Horse histories have chapters and surprisingly they are rarely the same twice.

[Relwob Owner]

Horse histories have chapters and surprisingly they are rarely the same twice.



Jerkens is called "The Giant Killer"

At times, I feel like you should be called "The Thread Killer"

[The Hawk]

I also remember reading that Beyer will sometimes isolate the first and/or last races of the day (on a given surface), if the figures don't make sense to him. He'll many times create a special variant for those races, to justify a figure, if I remember correctly. I'd bet that would be the explanation, if CJ were able to get a direct answer.

[46zilzal]

Jerkens is called "The Giant Killer"

At times, I feel like you should be called "The Thread Killer"
And having SOME historical perspective would really help a lot of people to understand this game is one of repeating patterns, GLEANED by reading its history

[JeremyJet]

I also remember reading that Beyer will sometimes isolate the first and/or last races of the day (on a given surface), if the figures don't make sense to him. He'll many times create a special variant for those races, to justify a figure, if I remember correctly. I'd bet that would be the explanation, if CJ were able to get a direct answer.

You guys are right, Beyer blew the number. It's a sham, alright. Beyer was too conservative. The number should be 128! That's according to Jerry Brown of Thoro-Graph. Thoro-Graph gave the race a -7". Wow!

What do you think of that, CJ?

Regards,

JeremyJet

[illinoisbred]

-7.5-Wow! Isn't that about the best Thoro-graph # ever?

[Vinnie]

Quality Road is one gifted horse. This past summer at Saratoga I took the day off to watch the opening day where he ran that 6.5 or 7 furlongs in record time. He did this while stumbling out of the gate and starting out rather poorly. I am not at all suprised at the figure that Jerry Brown of Thorograph came up with for that race. No matter who else was in that field, in just watching the race he (QR) just seemed to get faster and faster. Honestly, I pretty much expected him to cash it in after entering into the stretch, but, he just kept on going instead. It was really something to see visually. Anyone that can set the track record at a sprint distance at the SPA and then go beyond a mile while setting the track record at Gulfstream Park is one special animal indeed. I am thrilled to see this horse doing his thing and getting back into his own on the track. I only wish him continued health going forward.

[JeremyJet]

-7.5-Wow! Isn't that about the best Thoro-graph # ever?

I believe so.

Regards,

JeremyJet

[cj]

You guys are right, Beyer blew the number. It's a sham, alright. Beyer was too conservative. The number should be 128! That's according to Jerry Brown of Thoro-Graph. Thoro-Graph gave the race a -7". Wow!

What do you think of that, CJ?

Regards,

JeremyJet

I think it is wrong. I also think I would never be assigning all time best figures based on such sketchy data. I'm sure he is inflating the figures of the also rans for ground loss.

[cj]

Quality Road is one gifted horse. This past summer at Saratoga I took the day off to watch the opening day where he ran that 6.5 or 7 furlongs in record time. He did this while stumbling out of the gate and starting out rather poorly. I am not at all suprised at the figure that Jerry Brown of Thorograph came up with for that race. No matter who else was in that field, in just watching the race he (QR) just seemed to get faster and faster. Honestly, I pretty much expected him to cash it in after entering into the stretch, but, he just kept on going instead. It was really something to see visually. Anyone that can set the track record at a sprint distance at the SPA and then go beyond a mile while setting the track record at Gulfstream Park is one special animal indeed. I am thrilled to see this horse doing his thing and getting back into his own on the track. I only wish him continued health going forward.

That "record" at Saratoga is highly questionable to say the least. For one, it is a pretty rarely run distance especially for quality horses. Second, the timer malfunctioned.

He is certainly talented, I hope I'm not sending the message I think he is some plug.

[broadreach]

Hard to comprehend how one expert can say 113 and another says 128!

[46zilzal]

Hard to comprehend how one expert can say 113 and another says 128!
just like art critics, they use differing criteria to come to a conclusion......and thats why you evaluate the performer not any single performance.

Gonna censor that one too

[cj]

Hard to comprehend how one expert can say 113 and another says 128!

Brown has horses getting continually faster over the years, remarkedly so the last decade. So, you can't really compare the scales any longer as his isn't static.

[JeremyJet]

Hard to comprehend how one expert can say 113 and another says 128!

"There is danger here, Cherie" - Harry Caray.

Because one has supposedly solved the mysteries of pace. :rolleyes:

Regards,

JeremyJet

[cj]

"There is danger here, Cherie" - Harry Caray.

Because one has supposedly solved the mysteries of pace. :rolleyes:

Regards,

JeremyJet

I wish I had. The others, however, haven't a clue about pace. Why are you taking this personally?

[JeremyJet]

Why are you taking this personally?

I'm not, Dude. I'm just having some fun with you. I respect what you do.

Regards,

JeremyJet

[Tom]

just like art critics, they use differing criteria to come to a conclusion......and thats why you evaluate the performer not any single performance.

Gonna censor that one too

If you read the posts by CJ (:rolleyes:) that is exactly what he is doing - looking at all the horses overall records and trying to make sense of this one race. His conclusions are that this race was NOT the freaked-out second coming Beyer and others made it. When you look at QR's CJ history, this number he made fits nicely, as well as most other numbers for the other horses.

Making it a 128 - pure foolishness.

[Charlie D]

hUsing Steve Romans Chart

113 BSF = TF 128 RPR 129

122 BSF = TF 137 RPR 140

128 BSF = TF 143 RPR 149



QR is a good horse and the Donn was impressive, but i don't think he has yet shown himself as good as or better than Curlin or Invasor and he certainly has not shown he is one of the best to step on a Dirt or Turf track.

[Charlie D]

He may however be as good as RA and Zen :)


Lets get it on.

[Vinnie]

That "record" at Saratoga is highly questionable to say the least. For one, it is a pretty rarely run distance especially for quality horses. Second, the timer malfunctioned.

He is certainly talented, I hope I'm not sending the message I think he is some plug.


Hey CJ:

Not at all. That isn't the message that I was getting by reading your post. :)
I have always loved this horse and his way of going when he is healthy and ready to go. CJ, God Bless you for your service. I used to live in OKC. I assisted in opening the Federal Transfer Center near the Will Rogers Airport back in the Mid 90's. Closest I have been to home since working for the gov't.

Take Good Care CJ. Always enjoy your posts.

[Charlie D]

Steve Romans PF for QR in Donn -94

(-90 = BSF 115 , -100 = BSF 118)



On my handicap rating i get QR 131, using chart = BSF 115.



Up it 2 ticks CJ imo :)

[cj]

I actually said 114, so we are really close.

[GaryG]

Jerry Brown gave him a -7 1/2, I think he said it was his best ever

[Charlie D]

I actually said 114, so we are really close.


CJ, if you said no i'm leaving it at 113, i would say OK mate, i'm not going to argue over 1 length.

[Judge Gallivan]

Jerry Brown gave him a -7 1/2, I think he said it was his best ever

That number is a good 'insurance policy' for them as well.

If QR wins his next race impressively and trounces his opposition that will validate their number. If he doesn't, or if he loses, they'll say 'he had to bounce off that number.'

[Charlie D]

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=110655&subs=0&arc=0



Quality Road's performance changes the outlook for the entire racing season. Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta were universally expected to be the sport's big stars this year as they were in 2009, when Rachel beat out her rival for the Horse of the Year title. But as great as they are, neither of the females delivered a performance as good as Quality Road's win in the Donn.






Looks like Andy has QR as 2010 Classic winner by a few length.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Hard to comprehend how one expert can say 113 and another says 128!

The 128 number would mean the track was playing 1 point slow on the day. There is absolutely no evidence of that, even if you look at the slower-playing one-turn races. I would have pegged QR's Beyer at 118/119, right between Beyer's and CJ's number. However, I concede both have far more experience making numbers than myself.

[bisket]

it doesn't suprise me that there are many different opinions for figures at gulfstream. there are many different reasons that people making figures miss the mark at that track. which are also the same reasons i love playing the track :jump: :p

[GARY Z]

Jerry stated today he has quite a bit of difficulty assigning the fastest
# of all time to this horse for many of the reasons stated by CJ.

Intoduced into the discussion was the fact thoroughbreds have evolved
into faster animals than 30 years ago, are given various
"meds".proteins etc to run faster than their dads and grand dads and
in turn, if I heard hime correctly, the whole system of Thorograph
speed figures may need correction based upon this race.

This horse was on my "hit" last when he first appeared and while
I think he has the ability to be a champion, the -7 ,imho needs
discounted based upon QR's races to date.

[George Sands]

Jerry stated today he has quite a bit of difficulty assigning the fastest
# of all time to this horse for many of the reasons stated by CJ.

Intoduced into the discussion was the fact thoroughbreds have evolved
into faster animals than 30 years ago, are given various
"meds".proteins etc to run faster than their dads and grand dads and
in turn, if I heard hime correctly, the whole system of Thorograph
speed figures may need correction based upon this race.

Brown thinks his number is definitely right. He thinks CJ is definitely wrong. The system change he mentions every year is purely cosmetic. And you might have a future in diplomacy.

[GARY Z]

I did forget to mention one other item mentioned by Jerry Brown.

How do you rate the also rans in this race and compare their # on Saturday
in relationship to their previous races?


I'm going to see if I can get this race on the Thorograph site.

Hopefully any sheet players having the Saturday race(or Rag players)
will comment if this record speed figure is viable when assigning
similar top #'s tom the balance of the field.

[Valuist]

You make it sound so dramatic that MAMBO MEISTER finished 4th. 2nd through 6th place are seperated by 4 Beyer points. It was a race within a race, so the fact that he/they got trounced shouldn't detract from what that group of horse can do. The numbers look fine, IMHO.

You say it's possible that you could be wrong. But you came on pretty strong when you titled this thread. You described the assigned Beyer a sham.

Regards,

JeremyJet

The mere fact that these also rans finished so close together leads me to believe none of them ran close to their best. Mambo Meister can run a 100 Beyer, with a good trip, and when he wins. Seriously doubt he'd run that in a race where he's beaten double digits. Same goes for Delightful Kiss and the others.

BTW, how many times in the past few years have we heard the expression "greatest number ever" or "greatest figure for a 3YO, a filly, an older mare, etc"......does anyone else think the breed is getting that much better? I remember hearing that Mineshaft was the greatest horse to grace the earth.....until Ghostzapper.....and now that honor belongs to Quality Road? Yeah, I'm a skeptic.

[cj]

The mere fact that these also rans finished so close together leads me to believe none of them ran close to their best. Mambo Meister can run a 100 Beyer, with a good trip, and when he wins. Seriously doubt he'd run that in a race where he's beaten double digits. Same goes for Delightful Kiss and the others.

BTW, how many times in the past few years have we heard the expression "greatest number ever" or "greatest figure for a 3YO, a filly, an older mare, etc"......does anyone else think the breed is getting that much better? I remember hearing that Mineshaft was the greatest horse to grace the earth.....until Ghostzapper.....and now that honor belongs to Quality Road? Yeah, I'm a skeptic.

Since 2002, fastest horse ever crown has been held by Left Bank, Congaree, Mineshaft, Ghostzapper, Midnight Lute, and now Quality Road according to TG. Like I mentioned, Brown has horses getting faster at an alarming rate. Whether you believe him or not, you can't compare his figures to Beyer over time because his historical scale is changing.

[George Sands]

Since 2002, fastest horse ever crown has been held by Left Bank, Congaree, Mineshaft, Ghostzapper, Midnight Lute, and now Quality Road according to TG. Like I mentioned, Brown has horses getting faster at an alarming rate. Whether you believe him or not, you can't compare his figures to Beyer over time because his historical scale is changing.

I don't follow this. Why do you say his historical scale is changing rather than merely saying his historical scale is the same and he thinks horses are getting faster?

[cj]

I don't follow this. Why do you say his historical scale is changing rather than merely saying his historical scale is the same and he thinks horses are getting faster?

Say it however you like, I'm good with that. The point is that there is no rough conversion to Beyer figures because TGs figures are getting faster while Beyers are staying the same, maybe even getting lower.

[Bobby Seller]

Say it however you like, I'm good with that. The point is that there is no rough conversion to Beyer figures because TGs figures are getting faster while Beyers are staying the same, maybe even getting lower.

Which is yet another "good" reason for Beyer to start giving 120+ to the "elite" G1 horse's fastest performances again.
Your figuring is correct IMO, but again IMO - this BSF for Quality Road isn't necessarily meant to be precise as it is to be prominent, and to raise the general standard for the "BIG3" and others.

[Tom]

I disagree - you want a speed figure to accurately reflect how fast a horse really ran. Nothing more. If horses get faster or slower, so be it. There is no need to change the figures.

[PaceAdvantage]

Gonna censor that one tooKeep going way off topic, and we probably will...

[rastajenk]

Amen, brother Tom. Speed ratings' value affects only future wagering decisions; there's no need to add in some kind of historical significance spin just for the sake of....what, I don't know. You can't bet Quality Road v. Ghostzapper, not anywhere I know of.

[Willy Wonka]

Correction Mr CJ, there was no hot pace in the 1st race. There was one Wild Horse named "Got that Money" who was up by 4, 9 and 4 lengths respectively at the fractional calls. The winner ran over 24 seconds for the quarter and over 48 seconds for the half. Take a look and consider a "Redo".

The readers on this board understand a track record was set in the Donn by a horse that has now set 3 track records. Its going to be very hard to convince them that Quality Road only ran a 114.

Willy

Warning: long, boring breakdown on making figures for Donn day so don't read if you aren't interested!

It looks to me like the track was pretty consistent throughout the day. Beyer in fact seems to support this by giving all the one turn races the same adjustment, races 3, 4, 6, and 8.

So, you are left with two races around two turns, races 1 and 10. Race 1 was run with a wickedly fast pace for horses of that ability. It is a very tough race from which to make a variant. I have the raw pace figure coming in 30 points higher than the speed figure, and the winner ran 13 points faster to the pace call. The raw figures are 107 pace, 77 finish.

The winner ran exactly once on dirt, her last where eased at a higher claiming price while showing no ability whatsoever in a slow race. (Side note, I find it hilarious DRF lists her as having 24 "D.Fst" starts.) Her absolute best races have been around a 70 Beyer and all on her preferred polytrack.

The runner up by a length Our Dreamette has a been a very consistent closer running 64, 64, and 63 her last three races. Given the fast pace today I see no reason she wouldn't be able to replicate those figures. If I am going to project a number for this race, it is going to be a 65 giving an additional point for the 1/2 length the winner had on her at the end. This horse has never topped a 66 in 28 career starts. The third finisher six lengths behind has Beyers of 56 and 55 last two and the 65 for the winner puts her right in line with this number.

So, given the raw number of 77, I project a variant of Fast 12 for the track for this route. For some reason, Beyer gives the race a 69, or a FAST 8. I know 4 points doesn't seem like a lot, but when giving 121s off of only two route races I think you have to look at every detail.

For the Donn, I have raw figures of 132 pace, 126 speed, with Quality Road's pace figure at 130. I of course start with him to project a number for the race. His career best figure is a 113 around one turn, and a 111 around 2. His first back was obviously a prep and he was given a 103, but I'd project around that 113 career best. The runner up, Dry Martini had recorded figs of 99, 84, 85, and 93 his last four. He was beaten 12.75 lengths which is about 20 points on the Beyer scale, so this would project a 93. That seems reasonable. I would never assume a horse is going to run his best when trounced by a large distance. Third place Delightful Kiss has run his last three with 91, 81, and 98. With the 113 projection, he would get a 91 seeing he was beaten an additional length. I really think the 113 is a good projection.

So, with a raw figure of 126, I have the track Fast 13. The two routes are Fast 12 and Fast 13, very tight, and given it is more likely QR improved than the runner in the 1st, I'd use the Fast 12 for a variant.

So, the first race gets a 65 and the Donn a 114. I really don't know where that 122 is coming from to be honest. Even if you believe Beyer, why the 3 point difference between the 1st and 10th when all other races are consistent? He takes 8 away from the first, but only 5 from the 10th. It makes no sense.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Correction Mr CJ, there was no hot pace in the 1st race. There was one Wild Horse named "Got that Money" who was up by 4, 9 and 4 lengths respectively at the fractional calls. The winner ran over 24 seconds for the quarter and over 48 seconds for the half. Take a look and consider a "Redo".

The readers on this board understand a track record was set in the Donn by a horse that has now set 3 track records. Its going to be very hard to convince them that Quality Road only ran a 114.

Willy

Correction Mr. Willy, there WAS a hot pace in the first race that day. The first quarter for race one was 23 1/5 and the half was 46 1/5, compared with a first quarter of 23 1/5 and 46 flat in QR's race. Did I mention race one was for $6,250 claiming mares? You might want to consider getting a clue before posting more of your condescending crap toward a knowledgeable poster.

I pegged the Donn at a 118/119 Beyer, but I respect CJ's opinion and I actually calculated variants for each race, more than you can say.

[Tom]

The readers on this board understand a track record was set in the Donn by a horse that has now set 3 track records. Its going to be very hard to convince them that Quality Road only ran a 114.

Willy

It is going to very hard to convince some of he ran any faster. CJ's analysis makes perfect sense, and the number is the best for the race I have seen.
And btw, you don't speak for anyone but yourself.

[Charlie D]

Willy

I may not be understanding your post, but i think you may need to go here http://www.pacefigures.com/numbers.html before commenting on CJ figs

[Willy Wonka]

MR Saratoga Mike,

Numbers don't exist in a vacuum. I'd invite you to look at Gulfstream Parks 10th on February 6th again. Mr CJ's point is that the Pace in the 1st race was as fast as the Pace in the Donn and "thus" the final time for the Donn is not reflective of a superior pace and a superior effort. It's a nice "crafted" theory. A theory that utilizes one race 9 races earlier in the card for its basis, yet ignores reams of other race data. And one that clearly ignores path and weight as well. But, it is most certainly is a manufactured theory. One common pitfall of "figure makers" is getting so wrapped up in the numbers they fail to see "the forest through the trees". Mr CJ is seeing a tree in the 1st and hes seeing a tree in the 10th, while simultaneously all around him, yet going unnoticed, is a vast and informative forest of race data trees. I can say this with certainty because I've made figures and recognize the pitfalls of the trade. Been there, done that. It's kind of like having voted for George W. Bush, eventually, the truth of the horrible mistake becomes self evident and one swears off a former abiding theory.

But Mr Saratoga Mike, the fraction setter in the 1st Race on that day was the Post Time Favorite "Got That Money", ridden by the competent Paco Lopez. That horse opened up a 9 to 10 length lead to the second call and then collapsed from exhaustion to be beaten 17.5 lengths as indicated by proprietary charting. One fact Mr CJ neglected to include, perhaps conveniently for his One Race Theory is that Got That Money was the fractional call horse for the 3rd fraction as well, while leading by just over 4 lengths. That fractional time was 1.11:68 compared to the 10th race fraction of 1:09:86 and of course the variance between the two races got worse from there. Thats a convenient omission when trying to make an argument that the Pace in the Donn was not that hot, don't you think? But the variance in the fractions between the 1st and 10th really isn't the variance one needs to look at to understand the Donn.

Mr CJ would have you believe that Got That Money is a pace equivalent horse to Past the Point and that he ran as such in the Donn. Well he did, sort of, as a Suicide horse on the lead for about a half mile. In other words Got That Money's pace mark was sacrificial and illegitimate, yet Mr CJ's Theory assigns it veracity and makes it a barometer for comparison. A more insightful question would be why did Paco Lopez let Got That Money run off like that? But theres not going to be any analysis there because Mr CJ is neck deep in numbers with a "Beyer made a mistake" theory to support. The problem for him is that there were some Consistent Stakes Horses in that Donn and they were decimated by well over 8 points on the Performance Figure scale, not to mention the third track record at a Major Track.

The rubber will met the road in the wagers. My guess is that Mr CJ will argue that Quality Road is Not exceptional but that he won't bet against him. In other words that the debate is an Intellectual Exercise. I on the other hand expect and predict that other track records will fall to this horse.

The Donn result didn't surprise me. I was expecting it, but Mr CJ is correct about one thing, Beyer did get it wrong. He made it too slow, even before he adjusted down from the 122.

Willy

[Tom]

Unless QR ships to SA, in which case the Road will meet the rubber.

You are right - figure don't exist in a vacuum - so explain the horses behind QR and how their figs will make sense at a plus 122? :sleeping:

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'll let CJ defend his own figures - he's more than capable from what I've seen. We both previously explained how we came up with our numbers, and it wasn't in isolation, as you assert. For anyone else, I might restate my thinking, but your posts are too pedantic and annoying for me to bother.

Have fun betting QR at 4/5 in the Met.

[Charlie D]

I'll let CJ defend his own figures - he's more than capable from what I've seen. We both previously explained how we came up with our numbers, and it wasn't in isolation, as you assert. For anyone else, I might restate my thinking, but your posts are too pedantic and annoying for me to bother.

Have fun betting QR at 4/5 in the Met.


Think you might be being generous there Mike. Do you want to come this side of pond and open a bookies :)

[Charlie D]

It is going to very hard to convince some of he ran any faster. CJ's analysis makes perfect sense, and the number is the best for the race I have seen.
And btw, you don't speak for anyone but yourself.


Tom

Having recorded figs for Arcs, DWC's, Guineas, Derby's Classic's, Kentucky Derby's, Arkansas Derby's, Flad Derby's and numerous other races from around World it is very hard to convince me that QR's Donn was best ever on turf or Dirt

[Saratoga_Mike]

Think you might be being generous there Mike. Do you want to come this side of pond and open a bookies :)

I hope you're right!

[Charlie D]

Don't know entries Mike, but i'd presume QR will not have much competition in Met and that being so, 4/5 will not be around.

[cj]

There was no hot pace in the 1st?

The winner, while sitting well off the runoff leader, still ran 13 points faster to the pace call (6f) than she did to the finish. If that isn't the definition of a hot pace, we are using different dictionaries.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Don't know entries Mike, but i'd presume QR will not have much competition in Met and that being so, 4/5 will not be around.

I'm hoping for a decent Met field, but you may be right. I'd love to see him turn out to be a real monster. To date, he's certainly distinguished himself, but I'm not ready to call him Horse of the Yr just yet!

[Parman444]

I don't go crazy over all these number,it seems the horse loves Gulfstream Park and that has alot to do with it. Lets see what happens when he runs at other track bet the number is lower.If there is another good horse or two in the race you can beat a horse like this.

[letswastemoney]

Even if it was 114, the only horse that can beat him then is Rachel

[Willy Wonka]

...
Have fun betting QR at 4/5 in the Met.

Sometimes you can make money by bucking the favorite.

You don't have to bet a favorite, but sometimes one has to know when to not beat against him. Mr CJ was leading down a dangerous path.

I couldn't stand idly by and was merely trying to help Mr. Saratoga Mike.

Willy

[cj]

Sometimes you can make money by bucking the favorite.

You don't have to bet a favorite, but sometimes one has to know when to not beat against him. Mr CJ was leading down a dangerous path.

I couldn't stand idly by and was merely trying to help Mr. Saratoga Mike.

Willy

What exactly would that dangerous path be? Whether 114 or 118 or 122, he is going to be short odds and probably not worth betting against given the weak fields that show up these days.

Enough of the Mr crap, you sound like an ass.

[toetoe]

No, they do not add points for ease of victory.



Thank God. (:Mopping brow.)





And thanks to CJ for doing the work. :ThmbUp: .

[gm10]

Warning: long, boring breakdown on making figures for Donn day so don't read if you aren't interested!

It looks to me like the track was pretty consistent throughout the day. Beyer in fact seems to support this by giving all the one turn races the same adjustment, races 3, 4, 6, and 8.

So, you are left with two races around two turns, races 1 and 10. Race 1 was run with a wickedly fast pace for horses of that ability. It is a very tough race from which to make a variant. I have the raw pace figure coming in 30 points higher than the speed figure, and the winner ran 13 points faster to the pace call. The raw figures are 107 pace, 77 finish.

The winner ran exactly once on dirt, her last where eased at a higher claiming price while showing no ability whatsoever in a slow race. (Side note, I find it hilarious DRF lists her as having 24 "D.Fst" starts.) Her absolute best races have been around a 70 Beyer and all on her preferred polytrack.

The runner up by a length Our Dreamette has a been a very consistent closer running 64, 64, and 63 her last three races. Given the fast pace today I see no reason she wouldn't be able to replicate those figures. If I am going to project a number for this race, it is going to be a 65 giving an additional point for the 1/2 length the winner had on her at the end. This horse has never topped a 66 in 28 career starts. The third finisher six lengths behind has Beyers of 56 and 55 last two and the 65 for the winner puts her right in line with this number.

So, given the raw number of 77, I project a variant of Fast 12 for the track for this route. For some reason, Beyer gives the race a 69, or a FAST 8. I know 4 points doesn't seem like a lot, but when giving 121s off of only two route races I think you have to look at every detail.

For the Donn, I have raw figures of 132 pace, 126 speed, with Quality Road's pace figure at 130. I of course start with him to project a number for the race. His career best figure is a 113 around one turn, and a 111 around 2. His first back was obviously a prep and he was given a 103, but I'd project around that 113 career best. The runner up, Dry Martini had recorded figs of 99, 84, 85, and 93 his last four. He was beaten 12.75 lengths which is about 20 points on the Beyer scale, so this would project a 93. That seems reasonable. I would never assume a horse is going to run his best when trounced by a large distance. Third place Delightful Kiss has run his last three with 91, 81, and 98. With the 113 projection, he would get a 91 seeing he was beaten an additional length. I really think the 113 is a good projection.

So, with a raw figure of 126, I have the track Fast 13. The two routes are Fast 12 and Fast 13, very tight, and given it is more likely QR improved than the runner in the 1st, I'd use the Fast 12 for a variant.

So, the first race gets a 65 and the Donn a 114. I really don't know where that 122 is coming from to be honest. Even if you believe Beyer, why the 3 point difference between the 1st and 10th when all other races are consistent? He takes 8 away from the first, but only 5 from the 10th. It makes no sense.

Your DTV number is based on very little data. One thing to keep in mind is that your number is just an estimate of a true quantity. Beyer's DTV is another estimate. I've got an estimate of my own which makes the track slower than yours or Beyer's. Who's right? Who's to say. My opinion is that you should use the data of all races on the surface (not to equal weights of course). But the crucial point is .... we're estimating here - Beyer's product has major flaws but I wouldn't call this BSF a sham.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I had to go back to the beginning of the thread to see if anybody asked about the maturity factor of QR.I saw that Classhandicapper did.I just wanted to ask you a question or two CJ.

Don't you think that as lightly raced as he is,and as fast as he has raced,that a 7 point improvement between his 3 and 4yo season,on a track he prefers is possible?

And you mentioned the 3 fall races.A sprint and two marathon distance races in the slop.That's being pretty tough on such a lightly raced horse who had a 1 sprint prep and then two mile and a quarter races and the last one literally raced in a bog isn't it?

And looking at his overall record.He has had exactly 1 fast,2 turn dirt route in his life that produced his top prior to this race.

I am no figure maker,and as I said in my first response to this thread,I'm glad I don't have the daunting task to face everyday,but in light of how I'm seeing things and the class gulf between these two races,even though the track played evenly that day,would a split variant be out of the question?

Hindsight might be the only way we'll know normally,but the 1 turn Met off yet another layoff might obscure him even more.Arrrgggghh!!!

Just wanted your thoughts.

[Relwob Owner]

Sometimes you can make money by bucking the favorite.



Willy



Wow......I really do learn something new every day on this forum.....thanks for the original betting angle above

[cj]

I had to go back to the beginning of the thread to see if anybody asked about the maturity factor of QR.I saw that Classhandicapper did.I just wanted to ask you a question or two CJ.

Don't you think that as lightly raced as he is,and as fast as he has raced,that a 7 point improvement between his 3 and 4yo season,on a track he prefers is possible?

And you mentioned the 3 fall races.A sprint and two marathon distance races in the slop.That's being pretty tough on such a lightly raced horse who had a 1 sprint prep and then two mile and a quarter races and the last one literally raced in a bog isn't it?

And looking at his overall record.He has had exactly 1 fast,2 turn dirt route in his life that produced his top prior to this race.

I am no figure maker,and as I said in my first response to this thread,I'm glad I don't have the daunting task to face everyday,but in light of how I'm seeing things and the class gulf between these two races,even though the track played evenly that day,would a split variant be out of the question?

Hindsight might be the only way we'll know normally,but the 1 turn Met off yet another layoff might obscure him even more.Arrrgggghh!!!

Just wanted your thoughts.

Of course it is possible. My opinion is that in this case it is very unlikely because of how all the other horses on the day performed.

GM,

I didn't give every single detail I use to come up with a variant. I didn't want to make an eight page post. You, however, haven't given any details. I was looking at the race as a Beyer figure maker, using the tools that they use. I am discussing why I don't believe the Beyer, nothing more.

[Willy Wonka]

Wow......I really do learn something new every day on this forum.....thanks for the original betting angle above

No Problem Mr. Relwob. But...responding to a quote is kinda like handicapping a favorite. You can't skip anything. You can't takes whats before you out of context. You can't "manufacture" a scenario to suit your perspective.

The full quote was:

Sometimes you can make money by bucking the favorite.

You don't have to bet a favorite, but sometimes one has to know when to not bet against him.

Mr CJ was in the process of talking away a world class track record that needed a little grounding in the factual situation is all. People were liable to get hurt if that went on. Theres a time not to bet against.

By the way Mr Relwob, whats a Relwob?


Willy

[Relwob Owner]

No Problem Mr. Relwob. But...responding to a quote is kinda like handicapping a favorite. You can't skip anything. You can't takes whats before you out of context. You can't "manufacture" a scenario to suit your perspective.

The full quote was:



Mr CJ was in the process of talking away a world class track record that needed a little grounding in the factual situation is all. People were liable to get hurt if that went on. Theres a time not to bet against.

By the way Mr Relwob, whats a Relwob?


Willy


I didnt have to "manufacture" anything....your whole post was obvious, I just chose the first line because it was the most obvious....what is most obvious is how annoying the "Mr" is when you are referring to others....Relwob? A long, historical reference that would require a ton of annoying research to figure out.....

[PaceAdvantage]

Bowler spelled backwards?

[OTM Al]

Almost a palindrome, but sadly not quite, but numerically both words add up to the same sum. I have the feeling that neither of these things are remotely close.

[jonnielu]

Jerry stated today he has quite a bit of difficulty assigning the fastest
# of all time to this horse for many of the reasons stated by CJ.

Intoduced into the discussion was the fact thoroughbreds have evolved
into faster animals than 30 years ago, are given various
"meds".proteins etc to run faster than their dads and grand dads and
in turn, if I heard hime correctly, the whole system of Thorograph
speed figures may need correction based upon this race.

This horse was on my "hit" last when he first appeared and while
I think he has the ability to be a champion, the -7 ,imho needs
discounted based upon QR's races to date.

How does Mr. Brown back up his "facts" here. Do 90% of thoroughbred tracks have new records in the past ten years?

jdl

[Relwob Owner]

Bowler spelled backwards?


Give that man a prize!!!!!:)


Used to bowl when I was a kid and liked it....

[gm10]

Of course it is possible. My opinion is that in this case it is very unlikely because of how all the other horses on the day performed.

GM,

I didn't give every single detail I use to come up with a variant. I didn't want to make an eight page post. You, however, haven't given any details. I was looking at the race as a Beyer figure maker, using the tools that they use. I am discussing why I don't believe the Beyer, nothing more.

I don't trust BSF either - I also suspect that they are subjectively adjusted. Not sure about this one, though. I don't know how his projected ratings method is actually implemented.

I can't comment on my own methodology apart from repeating that I use all races to calculate a DTV. It's a weighted average.

[Cratos]

I don't trust BSF either - I also suspect that they are subjectively adjusted. Not sure about this one, though. I don't know how his projected ratings method is actually implemented.

I can't comment on my own methodology apart from repeating that I use all races to calculate a DTV. It's a weighted average.

What I find interesting about the speed figure and track variant debate is that they are treated analogously and mechanically like a machine.

A machine like an automobile can be designed with the mass and power to produce a certain speed output within limits and that speed output can be retarded because of environmental conditions and other factors.

Therefore a speed projection can be made once the environmental conditions and other factors are taken into consideration.

However a horse is an animal with innate ability that is measured in the post race from its performance, but to say due to environmental conditions and other factors it would have run faster is poppycock and every person that I know who have a scientific background have said the same thing about Beyer Speed Figures and speed figures in general.

Given a horse's mass and its velocity, a calculation can be made of its power output for its speed of that event and that event only; all future events are smoke and mirrors.

[jonnielu]

What I find interesting about the speed figure and track variant debate is that they are treated analogously and mechanically like a machine.

A machine like an automobile can be designed with the mass and power to produce a certain speed output within limits and that speed output can be retarded because of environmental conditions and other factors.

Therefore a speed projection can be made once the environmental conditions and other factors are taken into consideration.

However a horse is an animal with innate ability that is measured in the post race from its performance, but to say due to environmental conditions and other factors it would have run faster is poppycock and every person that I know who have a scientific background have said the same thing about Beyer Speed Figures and speed figures in general.

Given a horse's mass and its velocity, a calculation can be made of its power output for its speed of that event and that event only; all future events are smoke and mirrors.

Thank you, well said. :ThmbUp:

P.S. Especially the poppycock part.

jdl

[illinoisbred]

Who would run a faster mile? The person running at the water's edge on the compacted shore or the person running 50' inland in loose deep sand? If you don't think track surface-it's depth,firmness influences speed,I know some 4,000 claimers that ran 1:09 and change last december at Hawthorne.Surely, they can run that time anywhere and maybe win stake races too.

[Cratos]

Who would run a faster mile? The person running at the water's edge on the compacted shore or the person running 50' inland in loose deep sand? If you don't think track surface-it's depth,firmness influences speed,I know some 4,000 claimers that ran 1:09 and change last december at Hawthorne.Surely, they can run that time anywhere and maybe win stake races too.

Very simple question: “There is a change in the speed output of a horse for a given race; is it because of the physical condition of the horse, or the track surface condition, or a combination of the two?”

Take your time and think about it, because it is a non-trivia answer.

[46zilzal]

Very simple question: “There is a change in the speed output of a horse for a given race; is it because of the physical condition of the horse, or the track surface condition, or a combination of the two?”

Take your time and think about it, because it is a non-trivia answer.
surface changes it more than the physical condition of the horse although there an be a little form cyle involvement, but hugh sifts are due to the surface not the animal.

[illinoisbred]

Mostly surface.Some of those same 4,000 claimers I referred to ran in the last couple days and struggled to break 1:12. Same track and same surface,or isn't it?

[Charlie D]

An interesting debate and here is my two cents worth.


Does the track condition have a influence on speed?? YES, is this influence overstated and misunderstood?? I think so.


That me done - Good Skill all

[jonnielu]

Who would run a faster mile? The person running at the water's edge on the compacted shore or the person running 50' inland in loose deep sand? If you don't think track surface-it's depth,firmness influences speed,I know some 4,000 claimers that ran 1:09 and change last december at Hawthorne.Surely, they can run that time anywhere and maybe win stake races too.

Distance and nature have the largest influence on speed. The track surface will have an effect on horses getting up to their full speed, and an effect on how far that particular speed will be carried, but the physical characteristics of the particular horse will dictate most how this effects any particular horse.

An olympic marathon runner would likely beat your brother-in-law's accountant in the scenario of your example.

jdl

[chickenhead]

Very simple question: “There is a change in the speed output of a horse for a given race; is it because of the physical condition of the horse, or the track surface condition, or a combination of the two?”

Take your time and think about it, because it is a non-trivia answer.

isn't the question more often:

"There is a change in the speed output of the majority of horses in each race, in a majority or all of similarly configured races run, of an analogous amount, in the same direction. Is it because of the physical condition of the horses, or the track surface condition, or a combination of the two?"

[cj]

isn't the question more often:

"There is a change in the speed output of the majority of horses in each race, in a majority or all of similarly configured races run, of an analogous amount, in the same direction. Is it because of the physical condition of the horses, or the track surface condition, or a combination of the two?"

Exactly. You don't have to look at each horse as an individual. You look at all the horses on a card. Sometimes they number more than 100. Sure, some have improved form, some decline, and some stay the same. It doesn't mean a good figure maker can't accurately assess these situations a majority of the time.

[Cratos]

isn't the question more often:

"There is a change in the speed output of the majority of horses in each race, in a majority or all of similarly configured races run, of an analogous amount, in the same direction. Is it because of the physical condition of the horses, or the track surface condition, or a combination of the two?"

Yes, you have re-phased and stated question much more eloquently and succinctly than I did and I am still waiting for an answer to be stated with the same clarity

[Cratos]

Mostly surface.Some of those same 4,000 claimers I referred to ran in the last couple days and struggled to break 1:12. Same track and same surface,or isn't it?

I find this puzzling since the speed curve on an off-track or a fast track is typically downward-sloping which suggests that the speed retardation is more about the animal than the surface.

[Tom]

When 80-100 horses slow down or speed up on given day, it is not breeding and it is not their weight. The common denominator is the track, the wind, something that affects them all. Some individual horse will go against this, due to form or pace, bu overall, it can can be clearly shown that some tracks are faster than others. All the theory is worth a cup of coffee...the only result that matters is do you make money off your figures? No one is saying a good figure accounts for all the sources of variation....they are, however, superior to raw times. That can be demonstrated. So far, CJ has put up real example using real horses and real times. No one has matched him on that point yet.
Opinions are a dime a dozen. Let's see some real life stuff. Not opinions.

[Cratos]

When 80-100 horses slow down or speed up on given day, it is not breeding and it is not their weight. The common denominator is the track, the wind, something that affects them all. Some individual horse will go against this, due to form or pace, bu overall, it can can be clearly shown that some tracks are faster than others. All the theory is worth a cup of coffee...the only result that matters is do you make money off your figures? No one is saying a good figure accounts for all the sources of variation....they are, however, superior to raw times. That can be demonstrated. So far, CJ has put up real example using real horses and real times. No one has matched him on that point yet.
Opinions are a dime a dozen. Let's see some real life stuff. Not opinions.

No one is disputing CJ’s profitability and if opinions aren’t aired on this forum then why have a forum at all?

[Tom]

Because the opinion of CJ was backed up with actual examples. Everyone else had not had the balls to show real examples. My conclusion is they cannot. Talk is cheap. That is my opinion.

[Charlie D]

Exactly. You don't have to look at each horse as an individual. You look at all the horses on a card. Sometimes they number more than 100. Sure, some have improved form, some decline, and some stay the same. It doesn't mean a good figure maker can't accurately assess these situations a majority of the time.

Phil Bulls company Timeform have been doing such since the late 40's, i believe.

[Cratos]

Because the opinion of CJ was backed up with actual examples. Everyone else had not had the balls to show real examples. My conclusion is they cannot. Talk is cheap. That is my opinion.

Talking generally about a concept in public is okay, but if you are a serious gambler and your livelihood depends on your winnings, you are not going to reveal anything publicly in a game of pari-mutuel wagering that might give your competitors an edge.

If this make you disbelief me or others on this forum or any forum; so it be because you are entitled to your belief.

[Cratos]

Phil Bulls company Timeform have been doing such since the late 40's, i believe.

The legendary Phil Bull who passed away in 1989 created a methodology of both time figures and time ratings which are weight based and are uniquely different than the speed figure concept used in America. Bull was a mathematician and much accomplished with the science of his methodology; needless to say I am a Phil Bull convert.

[Charlie D]

The legendary Phil Bull who passed away in 1989 created a methodology of both time figures and time ratings which are weight based and are uniquely different than the speed figure concept used in America. Bull was a mathematician and much accomplished with the science of his methodology; needless to say I am a Phil Bull convert.


Weight based figures that take into account variations in surface conditions.

[Cratos]

Weight based figures that take into account variations in surface conditions.

Yes, but weight is pivotal in his calculation and he also used a standard time metric.

[Charlie D]

They also take into account Pace, wind, rail movements and some other stuff to arrive at the figures.

[Cratos]

They also take into account Pace, wind, rail movements and some other stuff to arrive at the figures.

You are correct and there are two good books about Phil Bull. One is Time Figures (out of print) by Phill Bull and Bull by Howard Wright.

[Charlie D]

Here you go Cratos, you and figure makers may find the former Timeform editor thoughts of interest.

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/betting-strategy/betting-strategy-simon-rowlands-on-time-analysis-part-o-240309.html


http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/betting-strategy/post-182-010409.html

[jonnielu]

Because the opinion of CJ was backed up with actual examples. Everyone else had not had the balls to show real examples. My conclusion is they cannot. Talk is cheap. That is my opinion.

What difference does it make if QR's speed rating is actually off by 10 or 15 points. The whole thing stands on shifting sand anyway, since you have the whole unprovable concept of track variant tied into it. If he runs what some figuremaker decides is a 108 next time, apparently the tractors went out on the break to turn the track into quicksand.

Looks to me like he ran the 9f better than any other colt I've seen run 9f. I don't think I'll bet against him and actually expect to win. Even if some variant guru decides that he actually only ran 94 in the Donn.

jdl

[Cratos]

Here you go Cratos, you and other figure makers may find the former Timeform editor thoughts of interest.

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/betting-strategy/betting-strategy-simon-rowlands-on-time-analysis-part-o-240309.html


http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/betting-strategy/post-182-010409.html

I am not a figuremaker, I left that building long ago, but I do like Phil Bull's approach to handicappping.

[Charlie D]

Ooops, forgot Part three


http://betting.betfair.ie/irish-racing/horse-racing-systems/betting-strategy-simon-rowlands-on-time-analysis-part-three-080409.html

[cj]

I'll never understand why people that don't believe in track variants and/or speed figures get involved in threads about track variants and/or speed figures.

[Charlie D]

Must admit CJ, it does seem a strange thing to do :)

[jonnielu]

I'll never understand why people that don't believe in track variants and/or speed figures get involved in threads about track variants and/or speed figures.

I could only imagine the reasons that others may have, but for myself, I like to be open-minded and consider the ideas of others. I have been told that it isn't fair to rush to judgement just because the concept initially struck me as total BS. So, I thought it only fair to give it 30 years or so, of observation and careful consideration.

Besides, shouldn't I avail myself of your legendary expertise in the matter, when the natural question arises.

jdl

[Tom]

What difference does it make if QR's speed rating is actually off by 10 or 15 points. The whole thing stands on shifting sand anyway, since you have the whole unprovable concept of track variant tied into it. If he runs what some figuremaker decides is a 108 next time, apparently the tractors went out on the break to turn the track into quicksand.

Looks to me like he ran the 9f better than any other colt I've seen run 9f. I don't think I'll bet against him and actually expect to win. Even if some variant guru decides that he actually only ran 94 in the Donn.

jdl

If you have nothing to offer, why bother posting here?
Your total lack of understanding of figures is fine if that is how you handicap. Other do not follow your way, so why do you persist in sticking your stupid nose into threads that do not concern you. You are a gross bore, Joni baby, a bore.
And as far as your method goes, we have heard from Patrick and no one else. I infer from that he is spot on about your and your so-called method. At least Beyer has a supporter for each detractor here...you have you and no one else. I call that delusional. :lol:

btw, you confuse open minded with a hole in the head.

[jonnielu]

If you have nothing to offer, why bother posting here?
Your total lack of understanding of figures is fine if that is how you handicap. Other do not follow your way, so why do you persist in sticking your stupid nose into threads that do not concern you. You are a gross bore, Joni baby, a bore.
And as far as your method goes, we have heard from Patrick and no one else. I infer from that he is spot on about your and your so-called method. At least Beyer has a supporter for each detractor here...you have you and no one else. I call that delusional. :lol:

btw, you confuse open minded with a hole in the head.

The same could be said for any name-caller here.

jdl

[Cratos]

Must admit CJ, it does seem a strange thing to do :)

It is called an intellectual endeavor and that is not so strange in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding

[Charlie D]

Might be wrong, but i always thought reading and maybe asking questions if unsure of the topic under discussion was the best way to further knowledge and understanding.

[Cratos]

Might be wrong, but i always thought reading and maybe asking questions if unsure of the topic under discussion was the best way to further knowledge and understanding.

Discussion that is rational and logical about any subject with the exchange of ideas is the pathway to knowledge; because a person don’t use speed figures, it doesn’t make that person ignorant of their use and application.

[Charlie D]

This discussion was about a Beyer fig being a sham in CJ's opinion though, nothing more.


12 pages long now due to unrelated posts. :)

[jonnielu]

Might be wrong, but i always thought reading and maybe asking questions if unsure of the topic under discussion was the best way to further knowledge and understanding.

I'm not at all unsure of the topic under discussion. And, I am asking questions, that is the problem.

Frankly, I get a little tired of hearing how "they" sped up the track everytime a good horse makes a well executed run so that the "numbers" will fit into the convuluted theory of "track variant".

You might better understand the performance if the performance weren't crammed into the parameters of "the numbers", which are crammed into an assumption as to track surface.

jdl

[jonnielu]

This discussion was about a Beyer fig being a sham in CJ's opinion though, nothing more.


12 pages long now due to unrelated posts. :)

My opinion is that QR's Beyer is no more a sham then any other Beyer assigned to any other horse. Everybody seems to accept the idea that they could always be off by 10 points or so.

jdl

[Charlie D]

I understand Energy distribution, acceleration and deceleration and some of the things can have an effect on it. one of which is surface condition, i also understand that overall time is limited in its use and other useful stuff.


I also understand that bashing someones methodology just because it don't fit yours is just niot cricket and to leep doing so time after time becomes boring.

[Charlie D]

My opinion is that QR's Beyer is no more a sham then any other Beyer assigned to any other horse. Everybody seems to accept the idea that they could always be off by 10 points or so.

jdl


Jonnie, what has Beyers, track varianta are BS got to do with the thread CJ started here??


None imho, those topics are for another thread - find one that exists or start one, again imho.

[Charlie D]

BTW Jonnie, i personally find the bashing of your methodology time after time becomes boring too.

[jonnielu]

BTW Jonnie, i personally find the bashing of your methodology time after time becomes boring too.

I don't see how you get to the proposition that there is bashing going on. Cj starts the thread to say that the Beyer number for QR is a sham, I agree.

The only bashing that I see is Tom's bashing of me, I let it go because I realize that it makes Tom feel like a man of substance when he can attempt to belittle someone. So, it's okay with me because I figure it must do Tom a world of good to feel like a man of substance from time to time.

jdl

[Charlie D]

I don't see how you get to the proposition that there is bashing going on. Cj starts the thread to say that the Beyer number for QR is a sham, I agree.

jdl


I must be misinterpreting these type of posts then Jonnie.


I'm not at all unsure of the topic under discussion. And, I am asking questions, that is the problem.

Frankly, I get a little tired of hearing how "they" sped up the track everytime a good horse makes a well executed run so that the "numbers" will fit into the convuluted theory of "track variant".

You might better understand the performance if the performance weren't crammed into the parameters of "the numbers", which are crammed into an assumption as to track surface.

jdl

[Tom]

I don't see how you get to the proposition that there is bashing going on. Cj starts the thread to say that the Beyer number for QR is a sham, I agree.

The only bashing that I see is Tom's bashing of me, I let it go because I realize that it makes Tom feel like a man of substance when he can attempt to belittle someone. So, it's okay with me because I figure it must do Tom a world of good to feel like a man of substance from time to time.

jdl

Gee, Jon, when a roach keeps walking over your table, eventually you bash it.
You don't contribute to threads, you infest them.

[gm10]

What I find interesting about the speed figure and track variant debate is that they are treated analogously and mechanically like a machine.

A machine like an automobile can be designed with the mass and power to produce a certain speed output within limits and that speed output can be retarded because of environmental conditions and other factors.

Therefore a speed projection can be made once the environmental conditions and other factors are taken into consideration.

However a horse is an animal with innate ability that is measured in the post race from its performance, but to say due to environmental conditions and other factors it would have run faster is poppycock and every person that I know who have a scientific background have said the same thing about Beyer Speed Figures and speed figures in general.

Given a horse's mass and its velocity, a calculation can be made of its power output for its speed of that event and that event only; all future events are smoke and mirrors.

That may be true, but the horses' performances are still the best indicator of how fast/slow the surface was on that day (that I know of, anyway).

Also, a horse's past performances is the best indicator of its future performance. But there is nothing mechanical about that. Its future speed rating follows some statistical distribution, I think we all agree on that. So it's probabilistic rather than mechanical.

[classhandicapper]

I missed a lot of this conversation because I've been busy with personal issues, but I think a TG -7.5 can't be right.

I've been arguing that it's at least possible that the Beyer figure is approximately correct, but I think there's a zero percent probability that that performance translates into a Beyer of 128 (or whatever in that range).

For one thing, Jerry Browns figures have been getting faster and faster over the last 10 years. IMO it is possible that horses are indeed getting faster due to drugs, improved nutrition and training etc... as he says, but it's very unlikely it's as fast as his figures otherwise other people that make projection figures would be getting at least similar results.

I think more likely is that he has a bias in his interpretation of results that leads to slowly escalating figures. I've identified and discussed what I think that bias is (notice that his super huge figures are almost always a large margin victory where the dominant horse set or prompted a pace that was too fast for the inferior horses and thus torched them).

Either way though, the lesson is clear.

We have 3 excellent figure makers. One says 114, one says 121, and one says 128. This is a high profile race containing horses that tend to be more consistent than the average field of horses and we have a huge range.

Can you imagine how many discrepancies there are among cheaper claimers where less time and energy are put into the analysis because of the lower profile nature of the races and less consistent nature of the horses. Yet when we debate the actual merits of horses (sometimes racing on different surfaces), people form super strong opinions on the basis of just a few Beyer points one way or the other. :lol:

[cj]

Can you imagine how many discrepancies there are among cheaper claimers where less time and energy are put into the analysis because of the lower profile nature of the races and less consistent nature of the horses. Yet when we debate the actual merits of horses (sometimes racing on different surfaces), people form super strong opinions on the basis of just a few Beyer points one way or the other. :lol:

I can't speak for others, but I put MORE time and energy into the cheaper horses because the figures are generally harder to make.

[Cratos]

That may be true, but the horses' performances are still the best indicator of how fast/slow the surface was on that day (that I know of, anyway).

Also, a horse's past performances is the best indicator of its future performance. But there is nothing mechanical about that. Its future speed rating follows some statistical distribution, I think we all agree on that. So it's probabilistic rather than mechanical.

No, that is not true because a group of horses could run on a surface that is deem lighting fast and exhibit pedestrian times whereas another group might run on a surface that is considered to be “dead” and their times are supernormal.

Why would something like this happen? First and foremost the groups of racing horses are classified as though they are homogeneous lots; they are not. Horses end up in various classes for many reasons, but mostly because of money.

Therefore to use a horse’s performance as an indicator of a track’s surface to be fast or slow as measured by the speed figure metric ranks up there with the FICO credit score and the SAT score as predictors of success; both of the mentioned metrics has failed miserably because of blind belief in a single entity.

Also you mentioned that performance is probabilistic rather than mechanical. That is also a fallacious assertion. The ability for horse to run, walk, or move period is all about its body mechanics. This says that a horse’s performance will depend largely on the efficiency of its body mechanic and not on the probability that a surface is fast or slow as determined by some blue sky metric.

[jonnielu]

Gee, Jon, when a roach keeps walking over your table, eventually you bash it.
You don't contribute to threads, you infest them.

Of course I contribute to threads, you just don't like my contributions because they remind you that you aren't thinking.

Maybe you would like to contribute too, how does it make a difference if QR's SR is 114 or 128?

I contributed that "they" always speed the track up, instead of slowing it down, maybe you'd like to contribute why?

What about all the hard-hitting physicality stuff that I contribute? Oh yeah, you are probably thinking that requires skill, actually it just takes practice, and it helps if you are perceptive.

I contributed the Travers superfecta.

But, I guess that you are just mad because I don't contribute enough, maybe I should work on that.

jdl

[Tom]

Of course I contribute to threads, you just don't like my contributions because they remind you that you aren't thinking.
Reading your posts and thinking seem to be mutually exclusive events.

Maybe you would like to contribute too, how does it make a difference if QR's SR is 114 or 128? It matters because that number affect all the horses in that race. It is NOT QR's number - it the race variant and number that count. Duh.

I contributed that "they" always speed the track up, instead of slowing it down, maybe you'd like to contribute why? Who the hell cares? As long as we know it happens and can quantify it. DUh.

What about all the hard-hitting physicality stuff that I contribute? Oh yeah, you are probably thinking that requires skill, actually it just takes practice, and it helps if you are perceptive. Must have missed it....can't remember a useful post you have made.

I contributed the Travers superfecta. Congratulations. You must be the first person here to post a winner.

But, I guess that you are just mad because I don't contribute enough, maybe I should work on that. Oh no, you contribute more than enough. Sarcastic crap and thread drift are always appreciated.

jdl

Bolded comments mine.

[Tom]

Cratos....who ran the fasted derby prep this weekend?

[jonnielu]

No, that is not true because a group of horses could run on a surface that is deem lighting fast and exhibit pedestrian times whereas another group might run on a surface that is considered to be “dead” and their times are supernormal.

Why would something like this happen? First and foremost the groups of racing horses are classified as though they are homogeneous lots; they are not. Horses end up in various classes for many reasons, but mostly because of money.

Therefore to use a horse’s performance as an indicator of a track’s surface to be fast or slow as measured by the speed figure metric ranks up there with the FICO credit score and the SAT score as predictors of success; both of the mentioned metrics has failed miserably because of blind belief in a single entity.

Also you mentioned that performance is probabilistic rather than mechanical. That is also a fallacious assertion. The ability for horse to run, walk, or move period is all about its body mechanics. This says that a horse’s performance will depend largely on the efficiency of its body mechanic and not on the probability that a surface is fast or slow as determined by some blue sky metric.

All of that goes double for me, and throw in another contribution. In the average classes several horses in the race are training, not racing. Was the track fast or slow when the two front runners were just doing 4f workouts?

jdl

[PaceAdvantage]

Why is it there hasn't been one person on PaceAdvantage that I can recall, that has ever sung the praises of jonnielu and his method?

We know there have been those who have become customers of his at one time (PKtruckdriver for one). Surely there must have been others...don't recall one person coming to your defense.

CJ has a full subscriber base and countless people on here who proclaim his numbers to be some of the most accurate around...where are your testimonials?

Maybe your cheerleaders are told to keep quiet for fear the "word will get out?"

[lamboguy]

I can't speak for others, but I put MORE time and energy into the cheaper horses because the figures are generally harder to make.
coming from me, those are good figures. pretty damn accurate, i get them on premier turf club. i am not a pace figure type of guy either, but looking at your figures can certainly tell me what the shape of the race might be.

i did some thing about 3 weeks ago that i have never done in my life. i had this horse as a 2 yo he runs a race at 3, he shows up in tampa with a trainer that i never heard of. i decided to call the trainer to ask what what was done with the breathing problem that the horse had. the trainer told me that there was a tie forward done. i told the trainer that i had the horse as a baby and that he is fast. i looked at the pace figures cj's and decided that the best course was to gun the horse to the lead. i told the trainer to switch riders because the horse needed someone that wasn't an unexperienced bug rider. i got the jock switch, and won the race.

for the next race i told the trainer that there was to much speed in the race and that the horse would never get a clear lead. i said that you are going to have to take back and sit about 3rd or 4th behind the speed. this time the jock agent came up with the idea that this horse was the speed of the speed which i clearly didn't see based on cj numbers, sure enough they went with the agent;s plan and the horse got a lucky 3rd instead of winning the race.
i just brought this up because an unreliable set of numbers aren't worth the price of the paper that they are printed on. that is why guys hustle jocks boooks to begin with. i know what some of the better agents use for numbers and that is their bloodline to the game. ramon's agent makes no mistakes riding up in new york during the winter. he is good.

[gm10]

No, that is not true because a group of horses could run on a surface that is deem lighting fast and exhibit pedestrian times whereas another group might run on a surface that is considered to be “dead” and their times are supernormal.

Why would something like this happen? First and foremost the groups of racing horses are classified as though they are homogeneous lots; they are not. Horses end up in various classes for many reasons, but mostly because of money.

Therefore to use a horse’s performance as an indicator of a track’s surface to be fast or slow as measured by the speed figure metric ranks up there with the FICO credit score and the SAT score as predictors of success; both of the mentioned metrics has failed miserably because of blind belief in a single entity.

Also you mentioned that performance is probabilistic rather than mechanical. That is also a fallacious assertion. The ability for horse to run, walk, or move period is all about its body mechanics. This says that a horse’s performance will depend largely on the efficiency of its body mechanic and not on the probability that a surface is fast or slow as determined by some blue sky metric.


a) As far as I can see, you agree that tracks can be slower or quicker from one day to the other, true? That is the TRUE DTV. We can define it as how many seconds per furlongs a horse would go quicker/slower in identical runs.

So we can definite, but can be calculate it exactly? No, we cannot. We can, however, estimate it. For example, we can take the average difference between the winning time and par times for the race. We can take the difference between what you would expect and what you got from the top 3 in every race, and average those differences.

There are always inaccuracies. Even if the estimator was an unbiased estimator of the true DTV, we would still need an infinite amount of races on the day before we be able to calculate the true DTV.

So, no, we shouldn't have any blind belief in any DTV estimates, however, looking at the bigger picture, their contribution is beyond doubt.


I also want to react to your mechanical argument. We are probably talking about different things. I wanted to say that speed figures are not mechanical. Each horse's ratings follows its on statistical distribution. The average of that distribution is what most people would consider to be projected rating for today. But the application field is much wider than that. You can also look at a conditional distribution for the horse ... how are its speed ratings Y given that the pace in the race was X.

Very probabilistic in that sense.

[proximity]

Why is it there hasn't been one person on PaceAdvantage that I can recall, that has ever sung the praises of jonnielu and his method?

to be fair i believe i was about the only person on here who ever (at least with any consistency) sung the praises of john del riccio's kuck ratings...... and they were quality numbers.

[proximity]

All of that goes double for me, and throw in another contribution. In the average classes several horses in the race are training, not racing. Was the track fast or slow when the two front runners were just doing 4f workouts?

jdl

cj makes variants based on the pace times of race winners.... not leaders who quit.... so this doesn't matter.

[jonnielu]

Why is it there hasn't been one person on PaceAdvantage that I can recall, that has ever sung the praises of jonnielu and his method?

We know there have been those who have become customers of his at one time (PKtruckdriver for one). Surely there must have been others...don't recall one person coming to your defense.

CJ has a full subscriber base and countless people on here who proclaim his numbers to be some of the most accurate around...where are your testimonials?

Maybe your cheerleaders are told to keep quiet for fear the "word will get out?"

Maybe it's a case of selective memory.

jdl

[nobeyerspls]

How could a guy with my handle stay away from this thread for so long? The answer - common sense, decency, doing the right thing.
Why then try to contribute now? The devil made me do it.
So, I get to arbitrate between CJ, well respected figure maker and forum member in good standing, and Andy Beyer, inventor of the bsf, writer of books, and highly regarded racing columnist.
Let me count the ways. One guy gets a 122 and the other has it at 114. This one is easy. The King Salomon in me has it 118, right down the middle.
Another way. The bsf's are accurate plus or minus 10%. That puts the range at 110 to 134. They're both right.
Wait a minute - it was a new track record. A whole bunch of very good horses ran this distance at this track. Gotta be closer to the higher number. Let's make it 120.
Hold it. He broke his own track record and only by a few hundredths. Has to be closer to that number. What was it? 111? Gotta look it up. If so then it's a 112.
CJ compared it to the first race so that's the way to go.
Not so fast. The bsf guys say that the track changes during the day, even between races. Moisture in the air, tide coming in, lots of stuff.
Better look at the horses that finished behind him. If the number is too high then they look to good.
Oh crap! This is too hard! Shoulda used common sense, done the right thing, and remained decent.

[classhandicapper]

How could a guy with my handle stay away from this thread for so long? The answer - common sense, decency, doing the right thing.
Why then try to contribute now? The devil made me do it.
So, I get to arbitrate between CJ, well respected figure maker and forum member in good standing, and Andy Beyer, inventor of the bsf, writer of books, and highly regarded racing columnist.
Let me count the ways. One guy gets a 122 and the other has it at 114. This one is easy. The King Salomon in me has it 118, right down the middle.
Another way. The bsf's are accurate plus or minus 10%. That puts the range at 110 to 134. They're both right.
Wait a minute - it was a new track record. A whole bunch of very good horses ran this distance at this track. Gotta be closer to the higher number. Let's make it 120.
Hold it. He broke his own track record and only by a few hundredths. Has to be closer to that number. What was it? 111? Gotta look it up. If so then it's a 112.
CJ compared it to the first race so that's the way to go.
Not so fast. The bsf guys say that the track changes during the day, even between races. Moisture in the air, tide coming in, lots of stuff.
Better look at the horses that finished behind him. If the number is too high then they look to good.
Oh crap! This is too hard! Shoulda used common sense, done the right thing, and remained decent.

It does get complex. :lol:

CJ is one of the few people I have ever known that has high enough quality pace figures and enough of an understanding of the impact of pace on final time for me to trust his educated guesses about whether aberrant or isolated final times were the result of pace issues or track speed and other issues.

To me, most other figure makers are often throwing darts at a board. As a result they wind up creating "performance figures" instead of speed figures because they build the impact of pace and race competitiveness right into the figures mistakenly thinking variations of time were a track speed issue. That process is fraught with peril and error.

However, even though CJ's approach is superior, having perfectly accurate pace figures is beyong anyone's reach and the process is complicated because the relationship between pace and final time varies from day to day and track to track (something some people refer to as energy profiles and day to day biases etc..)

So while CJ calls it a 114 and I understand his stated reasoning (and the pace figure reasoning he did not elaborate on), I still don't think a 121/122 is not out of the question if you view things in an alternate way.

Anything above or below that is almost certainy off.

That kind of thinking is typical of my handicapping.

To me, what is clear is that this horse was a solid Grade 1 3YO last year and he walloped a field of older Grade 3/2 types like an elite Grade 1 older horse should. Whether it was a 114 or 121 is somewhat immaterial to me.

[nobeyerspls]

Classhandicapper -
My contribution here was tongue in cheek. It should be clear from the premise of this thread that the numbers are subjective, one of the reasons that I find no value in them. Further, they're subject to change. The Form should have two bsf columns - original and revised.
What does it matter if it's a 114 or a 122, or a 111 or a 128? Some who posted here say that a high number makes QR better than Rachel.
How will that number be used to assess QR's chances in his next race. Is he now a superhorse? Of course if he loses he will have "bounced". Clearly, the numbers are not predictive. I've used this example before, but take the case of Birdstone. I watched him win an allowance race at GP off a layoff. While it was visually impressive, he was given a relatively low bsf. On another forum I posted pre-race that he would win the Belmont. Dave Litfin, a bsf handicapper, pegged him as the low fig horse. Zito had him coming in under the radar and the price was huge. He was not assigned a decent figure until he won his 2nd Grade 1.
Then too, what about Mine That Bird's Derby win? The bsf folks tell us that a 3yo cannot win a Triple Crown race unless he runs a 100 or better. MTB's high was an 84. Want more? Go back to Giacomo's win . Himself had a hissyfit over that race.
The primary value of the bsfs is that they lead my wagering opponents astray and for that they are indeed "material".

[cj]

How often do you think a figure gets revised? Seriously, what percentage? I would guess it is less than 1/10 of 1%.

Should Equibase not correct times that are found to be in error, or beaten length adjustments?

[Charlie D]

The primary value of the bsfs is that they lead my wagering opponents astray and for that they are indeed "material".




The only people figures lead astray are probably those that think because a horse has a Top number it means it wins next time.

figures reflect past performances and although they can be a good predictor of future performances they do have limitations as the Mine That Bird case clearly showed.


No figure maker can pick up a 100+ horse if said horse does not run anywhere near that figure in a past performance.

[gm10]

How often do you think a figure gets revised? Seriously, what percentage? I would guess it is less than 1/10 of 1%.

Should Equibase not correct times that are found to be in error, or beaten length adjustments?

All figures should get revised at least once a year. Just like par times should get updated at least once a year. Personally I update ALL CALCULATED NUMBERS twice a year, once after the Kentucky Derby, and then again 6 months later, after the Breeders Cup.

[cj]

All figures should get revised at least once a year. Just like par times should get updated at least once a year. Personally I update ALL CALCULATED NUMBERS twice a year, once after the Kentucky Derby, and then again 6 months later, after the Breeders Cup.

I understand that, and Beyer does it, but that is not what NBP was talking about in his post. He means the Beyers that are changed as horses run back, not the very small adjustments that are a result of circuit to circuit reviews and such.

[gm10]

I understand that, and Beyer does it, but that is not what NBP was talking about in his post. He means the Beyers that are changed as horses run back, not the very small adjustments that are a result of circuit to circuit reviews and such.

I don't know how often these big adjustments occur. I'd say about 5-10%. Personally I do not like them AT ALL, it's better to accept that your numbers are wrong now and then than to constantly tweak them so that they explain the latest grade 1 results better.

[cj]

I don't know how often these big adjustments occur. I'd say about 5-10%. Personally I do not like them AT ALL, it's better to accept that your numbers are wrong now and then than to constantly tweak them so that they explain the latest grade 1 results better.

There is no way in the world the percentage is that high. I am sure it is less than 1%, much less.

[gm10]

There is no way in the world the percentage is that high. I am sure it is less than 1%, much less.

Well they completely revised thousands of polytrack lines didn't they. I wouldn't put it past them. It depends on what you call 'revised' anyway, I suppose. Anyone doing Hollywood for example, will know to 'revise' all numbers after each meeting. Same with Keeneland (even when they still had the dirt).

[cj]

Well they completely revised thousands of polytrack lines didn't they. I wouldn't put it past them. It depends on what you call 'revised' anyway, I suppose. Anyone doing Hollywood for example, will know to 'revise' all numbers after each meeting. Same with Keeneland (even when they still had the dirt).

I was talking in the way NBP posted...adjusting a race figure after the fact because of subsequent horse performances. I thought that was clear.

The synthetic thing was a one time adjustment, and they didn't really adjust the figures as much as the scale. It was a silly adjustment in my opinion, but that is another story.

[gm10]

I was talking in the way NBP posted...adjusting a race figure after the fact because of subsequent horse performances. I thought that was clear.

The synthetic thing was a one time adjustment, and they didn't really adjust the figures as much as the scale. It was a silly adjustment in my opinion, but that is another story.

No it's really not clear at all. For all I know, 'subsequent horse performances' can alter the par times for that particular meeting. And those par times changes can be very significant.

[cj]

This doesn't happen with Beyers. His might change a point, 2 at the absolute most, when he revises circuit to circuit comparisons. This happens maybe once a year.

Again, I'm not saying that is how all figures work, but I know a lot about Beyers. I think you are nitpicking to be a pain, but maybe I'm wrong. So, I'll make it simple.

He is talking about assigning a figure, then adjusting it after a few run back and either exceed or underperform by a significant amount. It usually only happens when the figure was very tough to make in the first place and there was admittedly a lot of guesswork involved. Clear?

[Cratos]

a) As far as I can see, you agree that tracks can be slower or quicker from one day to the other, true? That is the TRUE DTV. We can define it as how many seconds per furlongs a horse would go quicker/slower in identical runs.

So we can definite, but can be calculate it exactly? No, we cannot. We can, however, estimate it. For example, we can take the average difference between the winning time and par times for the race. We can take the difference between what you would expect and what you got from the top 3 in every race, and average those differences.

There are always inaccuracies. Even if the estimator was an unbiased estimator of the true DTV, we would still need an infinite amount of races on the day before we be able to calculate the true DTV.

So, no, we shouldn't have any blind belief in any DTV estimates, however, looking at the bigger picture, their contribution is beyond doubt.


I also want to react to your mechanical argument. We are probably talking about different things. I wanted to say that speed figures are not mechanical. Each horse's ratings follows its on statistical distribution. The average of that distribution is what most people would consider to be projected rating for today. But the application field is much wider than that. You can also look at a conditional distribution for the horse ... how are its speed ratings Y given that the pace in the race was X.

Very probabilistic in that sense.

You are correct, the racing surface of the track can be faster or slower from one day to another, but that change can not be measured under the present speed figure methodology.

To be fair and not an absolute contrarian; speed figures correctly are performance figures and to that end you will find some very good ones and some very bad ones.

If you have ever spent any time in forecasting (and that is not a criticism, but a query) you will know that single point estimates are very bad predictors of future performance.

Also you talk about statistical distributions and then you understand that continuous probability distributions are probabilities associated with random variables that are able to assume any of an infinite number of values along an interval.

On the other hand discrete probability distributions are listings of all possible outcomes of an experiment, along with their respective probabilities of occurrence

The variable, speed figure, appears to be discrete (correct me if I am wrong); and the variable is random. If you wanted the speed figure to fall within a certain interval we would now have a conditional variable, but the conditions would have to be defined and stable to be a good predictor.

[jonnielu]

Classhandicapper -
My contribution here was tongue in cheek. It should be clear from the premise of this thread that the numbers are subjective, one of the reasons that I find no value in them. Further, they're subject to change. The Form should have two bsf columns - original and revised.
What does it matter if it's a 114 or a 122, or a 111 or a 128? Some who posted here say that a high number makes QR better than Rachel.
How will that number be used to assess QR's chances in his next race. Is he now a superhorse? Of course if he loses he will have "bounced". Clearly, the numbers are not predictive. I've used this example before, but take the case of Birdstone. I watched him win an allowance race at GP off a layoff. While it was visually impressive, he was given a relatively low bsf. On another forum I posted pre-race that he would win the Belmont. Dave Litfin, a bsf handicapper, pegged him as the low fig horse. Zito had him coming in under the radar and the price was huge. He was not assigned a decent figure until he won his 2nd Grade 1.
Then too, what about Mine That Bird's Derby win? The bsf folks tell us that a 3yo cannot win a Triple Crown race unless he runs a 100 or better. MTB's high was an 84. Want more? Go back to Giacomo's win . Himself had a hissyfit over that race.
The primary value of the bsfs is that they lead my wagering opponents astray and for that they are indeed "material".

Whatever NBP says goes double for me.

jdl

[Saratoga_Mike]

Classhandicapper -
My contribution here was tongue in cheek. It should be clear from the premise of this thread that the numbers are subjective, one of the reasons that I find no value in them. Further, they're subject to change. The Form should have two bsf columns - original and revised.
What does it matter if it's a 114 or a 122, or a 111 or a 128? Some who posted here say that a high number makes QR better than Rachel.
How will that number be used to assess QR's chances in his next race. Is he now a superhorse? Of course if he loses he will have "bounced". Clearly, the numbers are not predictive. I've used this example before, but take the case of Birdstone. I watched him win an allowance race at GP off a layoff. While it was visually impressive, he was given a relatively low bsf. On another forum I posted pre-race that he would win the Belmont. Dave Litfin, a bsf handicapper, pegged him as the low fig horse. Zito had him coming in under the radar and the price was huge. He was not assigned a decent figure until he won his 2nd Grade 1.
Then too, what about Mine That Bird's Derby win? The bsf folks tell us that a 3yo cannot win a Triple Crown race unless he runs a 100 or better. MTB's high was an 84. Want more? Go back to Giacomo's win . Himself had a hissyfit over that race.
The primary value of the bsfs is that they lead my wagering opponents astray and for that they are indeed "material".

They aren't predictive? Okay that's absurd. Here's a better argument for you: Beyers are now so widely disseminated that using them in isolation rarely generates a true value bet.

Birdstone, MTB, Giacomo? When did Andy Beyer ever say, "Beyers always predict the winner?" Correct - never. You're trying to use the exception to disprove the general rule. I do like your moniker, though!

[cj]

You are correct, the racing surface of the track can be faster or slower from one day to another, but that change can not be measured under the present speed figure methodology.


Buzzer sound!

Wrong. Just because you can't measure to the degree of precision you would like doesn't mean it can't be measured. All of geometry is based on postulates that can't be proven, so I'm pretty sure I'm safe making a few speed figures without absolute proof they are correct to the 1/100th of a second.

[jonnielu]

The only people figures lead astray are probably those that think because a horse has a Top number it means it wins next time.

figures reflect past performances and although they can be a good predictor of future performances they do have limitations as the Mine That Bird case clearly showed.


No figure maker can pick up a 100+ horse if said horse does not run anywhere near that figure in a past performance.

Exactly.

If memory serves, it seems that way back in the 70's, the original design of the speed figure was to get a measure on ability. In particular, that ability which was supposedly obscured by variation of track. Theoretically, the whole purpose of the "figure" was to help the handicapper see the "84" from New Mexico coming to CD to run a 108, or whatever.

I would think that if no figuremaker could pickup on the ability of MTB after 35 years of practice, then the figures are useless for their intended purpose.

But.... let us look at the stupid idiot trainers for a minute. Apparently Chuck Wooley drove across country with a broken leg to get to CD because he had a fair idea of the horses ability.

So after 35 years of practice, we can say that now the horse can literally run over the figuremaker with its ability, and the figuremaker still can not recognize it. Seems like the figuremakers are progressing quite similar to racetrack management.

jdl

[letswastemoney]

Exactly.

If memory serves, it seems that way back in the 70's, the original design of the speed figure was to get a measure on ability. In particular, that ability which was supposedly obscured by variation of track. Theoretically, the whole purpose of the "figure" was to help the handicapper see the "84" from New Mexico coming to CD to run a 108, or whatever.

I would think that if no figuremaker could pickup on the ability of MTB after 35 years of practice, then the figures are useless for their intended purpose.

But.... let us look at the stupid idiot trainers for a minute. Apparently Chuck Wooley drove across country with a broken leg to get to CD because he had a fair idea of the horses ability.

So after 35 years of practice, we can say that now the horse can literally run over the figuremaker with its ability, and the figuremaker still can not recognize it. Seems like the figuremakers are progressing quite similar to racetrack management.

jdlI get the feeling MTB's Sunland Park speed figures are lower than they should be.

[Dahoss9698]

Exactly.

If memory serves, it seems that way back in the 70's, the original design of the speed figure was to get a measure on ability. In particular, that ability which was supposedly obscured by variation of track. Theoretically, the whole purpose of the "figure" was to help the handicapper see the "84" from New Mexico coming to CD to run a 108, or whatever.

I would think that if no figuremaker could pickup on the ability of MTB after 35 years of practice, then the figures are useless for their intended purpose.

But.... let us look at the stupid idiot trainers for a minute. Apparently Chuck Wooley drove across country with a broken leg to get to CD because he had a fair idea of the horses ability.

So after 35 years of practice, we can say that now the horse can literally run over the figuremaker with its ability, and the figuremaker still can not recognize it. Seems like the figuremakers are progressing quite similar to racetrack management.

jdl

This is quite a post. I thank you for the continued amusement.

[the little guy]

This is quite a post. I thank you for the continued amusement.


You mean it didn't make sense to you?

[cj]

I get the feeling MTB's Sunland Park speed figures are lower than they should be.

They probably aren't actually. His first was a prep off the layoff for the big Sun race, and in the big race he was used up making a very big move into very hot pace, while wide as well if memory serves me.

He went from a very difficult trip to a perfect trip in the Derby.

[the little guy]

They probably aren't actually. His first was a prep off the layoff for the big Sun race, and in the big race he was used up making a very big move into very hot pace, while wide as well if memory serves me.

He went from a very difficult trip to a perfect trip in the Derby.


Not only that, he completely changed his running style to one that turned out to be most effective.

His Sunland figs, as you of course know, are irrelevent.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Not only that, he completely changed his running style to one that turned out to be most effective.

His Sunland figs, as you of course know, are irrelevent.

Well then, that proves it: Beyers are worthless. Throw away all of his books. :rolleyes:

[the little guy]

They're useless because they aren't indicative of his abilities with his preferred running style.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I followed you. I just know how the Beyer-haters think - "see even Serling says Beyers don't work." Of course you never said that, but they don't let facts get in the way of their Beyer contempt.

[Tom]

I would think that if no figuremaker could pickup on the ability of MTB after 35 years of practice, then the figures are useless for their intended purpose.

Do you know how absurd that statement is? Seriously?
One race and all figs are worthless? Is your 35 years of experience 100% every race? If you miss one, is your method worthless?

[Tom]

No it's really not clear at all. For all I know, 'subsequent horse performances' can alter the par times for that particular meeting. And those par times changes can be very significant.
Then in that case, you want the numbers as accurate as possible. If further information after more races are run give you a better understanding, then you should use it. Why would you purposely allow suspect figs to stay?

[Cratos]

Buzzer sound!

Wrong. Just because you can't measure to the degree of precision you would like doesn't mean it can't be measured. All of geometry is based on postulates that can't be proven, so I'm pretty sure I'm safe making a few speed figures without absolute proof they are correct to the 1/100th of a second.

It has nothing to with precision; it has to do with fact that you can’t solve a problem with all variables.

I will go away quietly if you can prove to me mathematically and statistically that speed figures are sound predictors.

Also both Euclid and Saccheri would roll over in their graves if they read your comment: “All of geometry is based on postulates that can't be proven,”

[Saratoga_Mike]

It has nothing to with precision; it has to do with fact that you can’t solve a problem with all variables.

I will go away quietly if you can prove to me mathematically and statistically that speed figures are sound predictors.

Also both Euclid and Saccheri would roll over in their graves if they read your comment: “All of geometry is based on postulates that can't be proven,”

If figures have little or no predictive value and the majority of handicappers rely on figures, which they do, can we assume you're beating the track consistently with your method? Serious question.

[Tom]

They probably aren't actually. His first was a prep off the layoff for the big Sun race, and in the big race he was used up making a very big move into very hot pace, while wide as well if memory serves me.

He went from a very difficult trip to a perfect trip in the Derby.

And you gave MTB a HUGE pace figure - the best in the field. I remember us talking about on your site. That 117 was a monster number.

Sun 03/29/09 9.0 | 118 86 117 82 | 65| | 92

The knuckleheads who can't get past the last race final figure are blowing
smoke. Figures have far more uses than that. Your numbers clearly foreshadowed
Summer Bird's improvement, and I even bet him in the Derby.

[cj]

I will go away quietly if you can prove to me mathematically and statistically that speed figures are sound predictors.


They are the single best performance related predictor of future performance, both ROI wise and win percentage wise, on a stand alone basis.

[jonnielu]

They're useless because they aren't indicative of his abilities with his preferred running style.

Are they or are they not intended to be indicative of a horses ability?

jdl

[Tom]

I will go away quietly if you can prove to me mathematically and statistically that speed figures are sound predictors.



I think the burden of proof is on you. You come on and announce what some is doing successfully and then ask him to prove you wrong? That is rich. Geometry and math and whatever have zero to do with this. The only indicator that means anything is how predictive the numbers are.

And Jon.....I point out that Beyer has around 35 ears experience as well.

[Cratos]

I think the burden of proof is on you. You come on and announce what some is doing successfully and then ask him to prove you wrong? That is rich. Geometry and math and whatever have zero to do with this. The only indicator that means anything is how predictive the numbers are.

And Jon.....I point out that Beyer has around 35 ears experience as well.

That is easy, they are all variable: now prove me wrong. Not unless I am missing something, geometry has every thing to do with it because a racetrack is the geometric shape which horses runs around and math is the tool for calculating everything about the horse and the racetrack; eliminate those two elements and you have nothing.

[Tom]

What time was expected, what time was achieved.

Expected - 1.10
Actual - 110.2

Expected - 1.11.3
Actual - 1.12

Expected - 111.1
Actual - 111.4

Expected - 112.2
Actual - 112.3


What more do you need?
Could be one turn two turns, a straightaway, and "L" shape......

[Cratos]

What time was expected, what time was achieved.

Expected - 1.10
Actual - 110.2

Expected - 1.11.3
Actual - 1.12

Expected - 111.1
Actual - 111.4

Expected - 112.2
Actual - 112.3


What more do you need?
Could be one turn two turns, a straightaway, and "L" shape......

I am a slow learner, therefore you will have to be little more explicit with your response because I really don’t understand it

[jonnielu]

Do you know how absurd that statement is? Seriously?
One race and all figs are worthless? Is your 35 years of experience 100% every race? If you miss one, is your method worthless?

One example, figures fail to recognize ability about 70% the time everywhere. This thread is about their failure to recognize the ability of Quality Road. What does the horse have to do? If the intention of the figure is now to rate the past performance, I would think that QR earned the highest number possible in the Donn. Why not?

The only reason not to give QR the recognition that has been earned would be in consideration of a future race with Rachel Alexandra. Just in case the difference at the wire is just a head, you'd want the numbers to be close. So make sure the numbers are close, and then we can have another long thread about speed figures if one of them folds up at the 3/8's like a .50 cent lawnchair.

I'll spell out my point for you, I believe the intention of speed figures was to enable the handicapper to discern ability at least to a higher degree.

Apparently, after 35 years of practice, the figuremakers assign a number to QR with caution because they are not sure of what his abilities are. Because they are not sure of what RA's abilities are, and they aren't sure of what MTB's abilities are.

But, there are numerous people that seem to have a much better grip on these horses abilities, only none of them are making speed figures.

Hey, Steve Asmussen took two horses to W. Virginny to win a race. Do you think it was the speed figures that inspired the road trip?

jdl

[cj]

I am a slow learner, therefore you will have to be little more explicit with your response because I really don’t understand it

Why bother? If you understand that stuff you post, it is obvious you are just being an ass.

[cj]

Hey, Steve Asmussen took two horses to W. Virginny to win a race. Do you think it was the speed figures that inspired the road trip?

jdl

I would almost guarantee that he uses speed figures of some kind to assist with placing his horses. Care to make a wager on it?

[jonnielu]

I think the burden of proof is on you. You come on and announce what some is doing successfully and then ask him to prove you wrong? That is rich. Geometry and math and whatever have zero to do with this. The only indicator that means anything is how predictive the numbers are.

And Jon.....I point out that Beyer has around 35 ears experience as well.

He's a slow learner, isn't he.

jdl

[the little guy]

I would almost guarantee that he uses speed figures of some kind to assist with placing his horses. Care to make a wager on it?


You knew Jonnie was clueless.....but that post really took the cake.

[cj]

You knew Jonnie was clueless.....but that post really took the cake.

Little Debbie doesn't make enough cakes for all the ones he has taken.

[jonnielu]

I would almost guarantee that he uses speed figures of some kind to assist with placing his horses. Care to make a wager on it?

What I will wager on is that he knows what kind of run will likely win at a particular track. I would doubt that it comes from traditional speed figures, because it appears that he understands track surface much better then any figuremaker.

jdl

[the little guy]

The hits just keep on coming.

[gm10]

This doesn't happen with Beyers. His might change a point, 2 at the absolute most, when he revises circuit to circuit comparisons. This happens maybe once a year.

Again, I'm not saying that is how all figures work, but I know a lot about Beyers. I think you are nitpicking to be a pain, but maybe I'm wrong. So, I'll make it simple.

He is talking about assigning a figure, then adjusting it after a few run back and either exceed or underperform by a significant amount. It usually only happens when the figure was very tough to make in the first place and there was admittedly a lot of guesswork involved. Clear?

Crystal.

[gm10]

You are correct, the racing surface of the track can be faster or slower from one day to another, but that change can not be measured under the present speed figure methodology.

To be fair and not an absolute contrarian; speed figures correctly are performance figures and to that end you will find some very good ones and some very bad ones.

If you have ever spent any time in forecasting (and that is not a criticism, but a query) you will know that single point estimates are very bad predictors of future performance.

Also you talk about statistical distributions and then you understand that continuous probability distributions are probabilities associated with random variables that are able to assume any of an infinite number of values along an interval.

On the other hand discrete probability distributions are listings of all possible outcomes of an experiment, along with their respective probabilities of occurrence

The variable, speed figure, appears to be discrete (correct me if I am wrong); and the variable is random. If you wanted the speed figure to fall within a certain interval we would now have a conditional variable, but the conditions would have to be defined and stable to be a good predictor.

There are discrete random variables that you can use, but in this case you can pretty much assume a continuous variable. We are not interested in the extreme tail behaviour of the speed ratings' distribution anyway.

Not sure what you mean by single point estimators ... What statistical concept are you using here? Viewing the speed ratings as a time series where you try to predict the value at the next point? Treating the next speed rating as another sample from the horse's speed rating distribution?

In those two cases, the single point estimator would indeed often be weak. But that really isn't the point for a gambler. There is a lot more useful information in the distributions than just the ability to make a point prediction. They can for example allow the gambler to draw up a list of win probabilities for each horse and find the value in the race.

Anyway, going off topic here.

[gm10]

Buzzer sound!

Wrong. Just because you can't measure to the degree of precision you would like doesn't mean it can't be measured. All of geometry is based on postulates that can't be proven, so I'm pretty sure I'm safe making a few speed figures without absolute proof they are correct to the 1/100th of a second.

Agree with you there.

No, the true quantity can't be calculated, but that's where statistics come in, they help you find reasonable estimates of the true quantity.

[gm10]

They probably aren't actually. His first was a prep off the layoff for the big Sun race, and in the big race he was used up making a very big move into very hot pace, while wide as well if memory serves me.

He went from a very difficult trip to a perfect trip in the Derby.

From the point of view of my own figs, I disagree. Everyone of those SUN horses that came back to run within 3 months, ran a higher number in their next.

[gm10]

Then in that case, you want the numbers as accurate as possible. If further information after more races are run give you a better understanding, then you should use it. Why would you purposely allow suspect figs to stay?

Yes I agree.

[gm10]

They are the single best performance related predictor of future performance, both ROI wise and win percentage wise, on a stand alone basis.


That is definitely NOT TRUE. Combined Horse/Jockey/Trainer win rates are a much better indicator of whether a horse will win or not.

[Charlie D]

Are they or are they not intended to be indicative of a horses ability?

jdl



They are a measurement of past performances.

[Charlie D]

Eskenderreya 106
Discreetly mine 98



Measurement of two horses past performances according to my methodology and just like Beyers they do exactly what it says on the tin in my humble opinion.


If you think Beyers or my figures are meant to do something different to the above your way off base in my humble opinion.

[Charlie D]

They are the single best performance related predictor of future performance, both ROI wise and win percentage wise, on a stand alone basis.



I have seen CJ state this before, i do not know if it is correct or not because i'm not a Beyer fig user, but i believe him because i respect his opinion and more importantly i know from experience my figures are also a good predictor of future performances.

[Tom]

One example, figures fail to recognize ability about 70% the time everywhere.

jdl

And just what is the average hit rate for knowledgeable trainers that know better than the numbers?

[Tom]

What I will wager on is that he knows what kind of run will likely win at a particular track. I would doubt that it comes from traditional speed figures, because it appears that he understands track surface much better then any figuremaker.

jdl

Are you 46?
That is a nonsense reply.

[Robert Fischer]

Bitching about a single apparent aberration like Wooley's MTB vs. formation of a so called "TRACK" variant

MTB was about as accurately described in his pace figures as any horse, and his speed figures weren't actually that far off.
The idea that winning the Derby somehow makes him a better horse that doesn't fit his previous numbers, is the fallacy there, not so much his previous numbers.
CJ and TLG were "on point" here. The trip and the running style were so altered as to create a unique situation. Even (ab?)using the figures to represent a given amount of inherent talent, there isn't any reason the results do not fit well within the expected, given the changes in situation.
A lot of middle of the pack human 400Meter olympic runners could probably beat the top bunch if they had some extreme advantage (maybe all others had to run uphill?) as MTB did in the KD.

The so-called "Track" Variant
The greatest difficulty with figs(other than obvious things like single final time figs representing one specific element) that I see is that of making the Track Variant. In theory you would magically see that the track is slower or faster and make an adjustment based on the speed of the track. However in reality, an indirect approach is needed. The Track variant is dependent on "projected", expectations of speed figures for certain consistent and prominant runners. In other words the track variant is based on what HorsesA,B,C shoulda' ran today, rather than a direct measure of the track itself. It is a necessary evil/distinction. The formation of the variant is one of the more interesting aspects of any speed figure, especially final time.