Special Guest Andy Beyer THURSDAY on Winning Ponies Radio Show!

[winningponies]

On Thursday 8/12 at 8pm ET (5pm PT), on our live Internet radio horse racing show Winning Ponies, we welcome handicapper Andy Beyer!

Andy is one of the greatest minds in the thoroughbred racing industry. While attending Harvard in the 1960s, he decided to pursue his passion -- beating the horse races. Over the past four decades, his research and insights have revolutionized and legitimized the industry. Using his math skills, Mr. Beyer created a new way to rate the speed of a horse in a race. The formula he created, known as the "Beyer Figures", has allowed horse enthusiasts around the world to better gauge how well a horse ran in previous races and from this information, deduce the potential speed of the horse in future races.

You can hear the show live (as well as the past archived shows) at: http://www.modavox.com/voiceamerica/vshow.aspx?sid=1448

We hope you tune in live, and feel free to call in (888-346-9144) to speak with our special guest. We are offering a free WinningPonies.com baseball cap to everyone who calls into the show!

Our show airs live every Thursday at the same time, and we always try to book exciting guests. Our host, Ed Meyer, is very knowledgeable, with many years of hands-on experience in the industry. We also have a segment where we preview the big races for the upcoming weekend and give out some free hot plays.

We hope you listen in, and any feedback about the show would be appreciated.

[thaskalos]

It wasn't Andy Beyer who created the formula by which the famous "Beyer" figures were made.

The math genius who created the formula was Sheldon Kovitz...his Harvard classmate.

[PaceAdvantage]

It wasn't Andy Beyer who created the formula by which the famous "Beyer" figures were made.

The math genius who created the formula was Sheldon Kovitz...his Harvard classmate.Did not Beyer acknowledge this in Picking Winners? Yes he did. Called Kovitz a genius in fact...

[thaskalos]

Did not Beyer acknowledge this in Picking Winners? Yes he did. Called Kovitz a genius in fact...Yes he did. He also mentioned him in his book, "The Winning Horseplayer".

[thaskalos]

Did not Beyer acknowledge this in Picking Winners? Yes he did. Called Kovitz a genius in fact...PA...do you want me to call the radio show...and ask Andy Beyer for his opinion, on our Rachel-Zenyatta debate? :)

[Pick6]

Yes he did. He also mentioned him in his book, "The Winning Horseplayer".
Has he ever compared beyers to ragozin numbers?

[PaceAdvantage]

PA...do you want me to call the radio show...and ask Andy Beyer for his opinion, on our Rachel-Zenyatta debate? :)I want you to do whatever your little heart desires.

[thaskalos]

Has he ever compared beyers to ragozin numbers?As I recall, he had compimentary words to say about Len Ragozin...but he was skeptical about the concept of making figure adjustments based on ground loss.

[Pick6]

I developed a chart reading program that used fairly simple logic to deduce where a horse was placed around the turns, and thus implied distance run.

It was one of my better pure numbers tools for dirt. It worked great at the CA tracks until they brought the wax in.

[thaskalos]

Beyer's criticism of the concept was valid, in my opinion.

He asked the question:

Suppose 2 horses were involved in a heated head-to-head speed duel, until the turn for home...at which point, a stretch runner came at them, four wide.

Let's say that these 3 horses finished in a photo for the win.

How in the world can we justify giving extra credit to the wide-circling horse, when the dueling speed horses obviously ran the more impressive race?

[winningponies]

PA...do you want me to call the radio show...and ask Andy Beyer for his opinion, on our Rachel-Zenyatta debate? :)

That would be a great topic to discuss on the air IMO.

[thaskalos]

That would be a great topic to discuss on the air IMO.I would love to call the show and talk to Beyer. A class act, with a ton of integrity IMO.

[The_Knight_Sky]

The math genius who created the formula was Sheldon Kovitz
...his Harvard classmate.




I wonder if the genius has retired to the proverbial "villa in Marrakesh" :confused:

[Tom]

Looking forward to listening.
Andy is always entertaining.

[Mike at A+]

I remember a long time ago, probably 15-25 years ago, we were up in Saratoga and Andy Beyer was doing commentary for an good upcoming race. My figures pointed to a shipper that looked like a monster on paper (I think from Finger Lakes if I'm not mistaken) and took a lot of early money (including mine) in the win pool. I remember the morning line being somewhere around 6/1 and the early betting knocked my horse down to 5/2. Andy Beyer said (about my horse) something to the effect of "If that horse wins, they will have to carry me out of the track". He liked a more classy horse ridden by Angel Cordero, Jr. that eventually went off as the odds on favorite as my horse drifted up to closing odds of 9/2 (thanks to Mr. Beyer's comments). My horse got the early lead and as they began the turn from the backstretch, Cordero moved up on the outside and drew even looking like he would blow by. But my horse had another gear and drew off winning easily. To this day, I thank Mr. Beyer for helping me win a lot more on one of the biggest win bets I ever made.

[Pick6]

Beyer's criticism of the concept was valid, in my opinion.

He asked the question:

Suppose 2 horses were involved in a heated head-to-head speed duel, until the turn for home...at which point, a stretch runner came at them, four wide.

Let's say that these 3 horses finished in a photo for the win.

How in the world can we justify giving extra credit to the wide-circling horse, when the dueling speed horses obviously ran the more impressive race?
Assuming it takes that closer an extra 50 feet of ground to photo out the front runners, is that not more impressive than if that same horse saves ground and wins by the same photo? Ground saved/lost cannot be simply ignored.

[jonnielu]

Beyer's criticism of the concept was valid, in my opinion.

He asked the question:

Suppose 2 horses were involved in a heated head-to-head speed duel, until the turn for home...at which point, a stretch runner came at them, four wide.

Let's say that these 3 horses finished in a photo for the win.

How in the world can we justify giving extra credit to the wide-circling horse, when the dueling speed horses obviously ran the more impressive race?

How is it obvious that the two speed duelers ran a more impressive race when the stretch runner let them go ahead, ran farther, and then caught them at the wire?? What exactly is so impressive about a few horses knocking the piss out of themselves early so that they can come up short?

jdl

[Tom]

How is it obvious that the two speed duelers ran a more impressive race when the stretch runner let them go ahead, ran farther, and then caught them at the wire?? What exactly is so impressive about a few horses knocking the piss out of themselves early so that they can come up short?

jdl

Well, when you put it that way.....sounds pretty logical to me.
Spot them ground, give them a head start, then tie them.
I eagerly await the reply.

[cj]

Assuming it takes that closer an extra 50 feet of ground to photo out the front runners, is that not more impressive than if that same horse saves ground and wins by the same photo? Ground saved/lost cannot be simply ignored.

Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't. There are times the outside of the track is better, faster.

The point Beyer is making is that maybe the horse benefited from a speed duel. It is tough to handle these things with only a final time number. I find it odd that Rags and TG give credit for ground loss, but none for expending too much energy early. I also find it odd they value the loss of ground equally. Why should a horse that loses two lengths dueling three wide around the first turn in very fast time get less credit than a horse that goes four wide on the second turn in very slow time while the race is collapsing? Clearly the first horse was hurt a lot more being three wide than the latter being four wide.

[cj]

How is it obvious that the two speed duelers ran a more impressive race when the stretch runner let them go ahead, ran farther, and then caught them at the wire?? What exactly is so impressive about a few horses knocking the piss out of themselves early so that they can come up short?

jdl

Go race me at 1500 meters running alongside as long as you can, then do it against the Olympic champion. In which do you think you'll keep up longer? You might finish, even beat me. You'll be walking halfway through the second race if you make it that long, probably with a few vomiting spells.

[Pick6]

Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't. There are times the outside of the track is better, faster.

The point Beyer is making is that maybe the horse benefited from a speed duel. It is tough to handle these things with only a final time number. I find it odd that Rags and TG give credit for ground loss, but none for expending too much energy early. I also find it odd they value the loss of ground equally. Why should a horse that loses two lengths dueling three wide around the first turn in very fast time get less credit than a horse that goes four wide on the second turn in very slow time while the race is collapsing? Clearly the first horse was hurt a lot more being three wide than the latter being four wide.
Generally speaking ground lost is not good, and even if there is a bias it generally does not compensate for ground lost.

You are confusing a closer pattern vs. the path taken to win the race. I want to know if a closer took an extra 50 feet to win a race, than if he got a clear inside path. It obviously matters.

Again, ground saved/lost cannot be simply ignored.

[thaskalos]

How is it obvious that the two speed duelers ran a more impressive race when the stretch runner let them go ahead, ran farther, and then caught them at the wire?? What exactly is so impressive about a few horses knocking the piss out of themselves early so that they can come up short?

jdlBeyer was pointing out that there are some "bad trips" that are worse than going wide. Any trip handicapper will tell you that, sometimes...the wide trip is the prefferred trip.

In the example given...the 2 horses "involved in the heated, head-to-head speed duel", which lasted to the wire, expanded much more energy due to the dynamics of the race...than the wide closer did, because of the geometrical disadvantage.

PS...

Closers don't just "let other horses go ahead" of them, and then catch up...that's their running style.

[cj]

Generally speaking ground lost is not good, and even if there is a bias it generally does not compensate for ground lost.

You are confusing a closer pattern vs. the path taken to win the race. I want to know if a closer took an extra 50 feet to win a race, than if he got a clear inside path. It obviously matters.

Again, ground saved/lost cannot be simply ignored.

First off, I'm not confusing anything.

The point I was making is that it probably makes sense to ignore ground loss if you are ignoring other factors that are just as, or more, important. These guys don't even differentiate between when ground loss occurs and it can make a huge difference. But, they ignore pace, which is at least as important and probably more so. Therefore, they cannot differentiate. Accounting for ground loss in the scenario I mentioned is at best misleading, and at worst blatantly wrong.

[Cratos]

Beyer's criticism of the concept was valid, in my opinion.

He asked the question:

Suppose 2 horses were involved in a heated head-to-head speed duel, until the turn for home...at which point, a stretch runner came at them, four wide.

Let's say that these 3 horses finished in a photo for the win.

How in the world can we justify giving extra credit to the wide-circling horse, when the dueling speed horses obviously ran the more impressive race?

This is not a knock against you or Andy Beyer (whom I admire as a journalist), but in all due respect you are mixing qualitative effort with quantitative effort. That is like mixing oil and water.

[Pick6]

You are confusing energy expended vs. path taken. They are not interchangeable. Just because closers and ground lost might be somewhat correlated does not mean there is a cause-effect.

Obviously energy expended is a factor in how a horse can finish a race. But you are applying subjective criteria in saying that a horse running fast wide on the first turn means more than a horse running slower on the final turn but going wider. In fact the horse going extremely wide on the final turn is actually expending more effort because of the run endured up to that point.

[thaskalos]

This is not a knock against you or Andy Beyer (whom I admire as a journalist), but in all due respect you are mixing qualitative effort with quantitative effort. That is like mixing oil and water.This is not a knock against you as an engineer Cratos, but you fail to realize that in handicapping a race, the horseplayer has to deal with BOTH...the qualitative AND the quantitative efforts.

We are not "mixing" them; we try to deal with them individually.

[cj]

You are confusing energy expended vs. path taken. They are not interchangeable. Just because closers and ground lost might be somewhat correlated does not mean there is a cause-effect.

Obviously energy expended is a factor in how a horse can finish a race. But you are applying subjective criteria in saying that a horse running fast wide on the first turn means more than a horse running slower on the final turn but going wider. In fact the horse going extremely wide on the final turn is actually expending more effort because of the run endured up to that point.

Well, that is certainly debatable. I know for certain I cash far more tickets on horses that were wide on the first turn during fast fractions than horses that lost ground on the second turn in a similar race.

And again, I'm not confusing anything except apparently you. I never said the two things were interchangeable. I'm saying they need to be evaluated together. Ground loss just means a horse ran a further distance during a certain amount of time.

[George Sands]

CJ,

Let's leave aside, for a second, the issue of adjusting figures for groundloss. When you are making and using figures, do you KNOW the groundloss for all the horses?

[cj]

CJ,

Let's leave aside, for a second, the issue of adjusting figures for groundloss. When you are making and using figures, do you KNOW the groundloss for all the horses?

Exactly, of course not, but a reasonable estimate is pretty easy with a few viewings of the race. Nothing is this game is exact unfortunately, be it ground loss or lengths behind or run up or even fractions.

[Pick6]

You confused a closer pattern necessarily dictates less effort taken. This is not always true.

And I would say basically the exact opposite: horses who take a wide path during the contentious portion of the race (i.e. final turn) perform worse than a horse running wide earlier in the race (i.e. first turn), due to the horse's condition and exertion leading up to those respective portions of the race.

When I see a horse running 4 wide around the final turn trying to keep up with the well-placed rail horse saving ground, I feel pretty safe to assume that horse will have just about nothing left in the stretch, compared to the horse running not as wide on the first turn who has time to recover and get well placed for the final turn, thus avoiding the poor placement. Of course this leads to their performance in the next race. You have your results, and I have mine. To each his own, I guess.

[Pick6]

Dmr has distance run for each horse.

[cj]

You confused a closer pattern necessarily dictates less effort taken. This is not always true.

And I would say basically the exact opposite: horses who take a wide path during the contentious portion of the race (i.e. final turn) perform worse than a horse running wide earlier in the race (i.e. first turn), due to the horse's condition and exertion leading up to those respective portions of the race.

When I see a horse running 4 wide around the final turn trying to keep up with the well-placed rail horse saving ground, I feel pretty safe to assume that horse will have just about nothing left in the stretch, compared to the horse running not as wide on the first turn who has time to recover and get well placed for the final turn, thus avoiding the poor placement. Of course this leads to their performance in the next race. You have your results, and I have mine. To each his own, I guess.

I am again, for the third time, not confused. If you continue to repeat the same nonsense you will be confused when your posts disappear.

I agree with you that horses running during the contentious portion of the race perform worse. Where we disagree is that you seem to think that is always on the second turn. That is simply not true, especially in dirt racing. Turf and synthetics are another story. But even then, each individual race may be different.

[George Sands]

Exactly, of course not, but a reasonable estimate is pretty easy with a few viewings of the race. Nothing is this game is exact unfortunately, be it ground loss or lengths behind or run up or even fractions.

When you are making figures, have you usually watched each race a few times with an eye toward getting a reasonable estimate of the groundloss?

[thaskalos]

You confused a closer pattern necessarily dictates less effort taken. This is not always true.

And I would say basically the exact opposite: horses who take a wide path during the contentious portion of the race (i.e. final turn) perform worse than a horse running wide earlier in the race (i.e. first turn), due to the horse's condition and exertion leading up to those respective portions of the race.

When I see a horse running 4 wide around the final turn trying to keep up with the well-placed rail horse saving ground, I feel pretty safe to assume that horse will have just about nothing left in the stretch, compared to the horse running not as wide on the first turn who has time to recover and get well placed for the final turn, thus avoiding the poor placement. Of course this leads to their performance in the next race. You have your results, and I have mine. To each his own, I guess.Pick6...allow me to ask you a question:

You are witnessing a race in which 2 horses get involved in a heated speed duel from the start of the race, to the turn for home.

Based on your horseplaying experience...what do you consider most likely to happen?

Will one of the dueling leaders probably last for the win...or will a closer probably blow by them both...usually while traveling wide?

[cj]

When you are making figures, have you usually watched each race a few times with an eye toward getting a reasonable estimate of the groundloss?

What is it with everyone asking questions and giving nothing in return? I mean really, is that fair? How about you make your point and I respond. This really does get old, nothing personal.

[Pick6]

I am again, for the third time, not confused. If you continue to repeat the same nonsense you will be confused when your posts disappear.

I agree with you that horses running during the contentious portion of the race perform worse. Where we disagree is that you seem to think that is always on the second turn. That is simply not true, especially in dirt racing. Turf and synthetics are another story. But even then, each individual race may be different.
Did you not imply that closers expend less effort than pace setters? This is not always true, correct? This is leading to my statement of you being confused. I don't mean it in an insulting way, just that those who make blanket assumptions without looking into how a horse runs a race can lead to some bad conclusions.

I remember a quote Bill Shoemaker made about Exceller. I am paraphrasing, but he basically said that closers also expend a lot of effort just trying to catch up with the leaders. In general this is true; closers forfeit strategic position at the start of the race, and expend a lot of effort to make that up. Most closers are poor-performing horses, very few are champions that can do this consistently.

[cj]

Did you not imply that closers expend less effort than pace setters? This is not always true, correct? This is leading to my statement of you being confused. I don't mean it in an insulting way, just that those who make blanket assumptions without looking into how a horse runs a race can lead to some bad conclusions.

I remember a quote Bill Shoemaker made about Exceller. I am paraphrasing, but he basically said that closers also expend a lot of effort just trying to catch up with the leaders. In general this is true; closers forfeit strategic position at the start of the race, and expend a lot of effort to make that up. Most closers are poor-performing horses, very few are champions that can do this consistently.

I was not implying they expend less energy. I was implying that sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It all depends on race dynamics. Because closers are slow early, it is usually out of there hands.

[thaskalos]

Pick6...you keep making comments like: "this is not always true".

There is very little in this game that is always true!

[Pick6]

Fair enough.

Closers are that for several reasons. Sometimes they are poor starters and are forced to expend more effort to make up for their bad starting habits.

Path taken is a completely different subject, that also derives effort expended in many instances.

[Pick6]

Pick6...you keep making comments like: "this is not always true".

There is very little in this game that is always true!
I have found that handicapping for averages does not usually work too well.

Catching the exceptions is generally more lucrative.

And closers expending more effort than front runners is not all that uncommon.

[Cardus]

What is it with everyone asking questions and giving nothing in return? I mean really, is that fair? How about you make your point and I respond. This really does get old, nothing personal.

Do you expend more energy making figures or in answering Internet Land questions?

[George Sands]

What is it with everyone asking questions and giving nothing in return? I mean really, is that fair? How about you make your point and I respond.

I read your negative comments about how people on other websites use groundloss. A question came to my mind. So I asked you my question. Answer it. Don't answer it. It's fine with me either way. And, as you say, certainly nothing personal.

[cj]

I read your negative comments about how people on other websites use groundloss. A question came to my mind. So I asked you my question. Answer it. Don't answer it. It's fine with me either way. And, as you say, certainly nothing personal.

I did answer your first question, and all I got in response was another question. Nothing else. No opinion, whether in agreement or disagreement, just another question. See where that might get old?

I believe what I said about ground loss is true. I also believe many horses that lose a lot of ground are going to lose ground in most other races as well. They lose ground for a reason...lack of early speed. I see no reason to reward that flaw.

If you disagree, say why. Tell me why you think ground loss matters but pace doesn't. Tell me why you believe all ground loss is equal.

I certainly think ground loss matters, but it is only part of the equation.

[thaskalos]

I did answer your first question, and all I got in response was another question. Nothing else. No opinion, whether in agreement or disagreement, just another question. See where that might get old?

I believe what I said about ground loss is true. I also believe many horses that lose a lot of ground are going to lose ground in most other races as well. They lose ground for a reason...lack of early speed. I see no reason to reward that flaw.

If you disagree, say why. Tell me why you think ground loss matters but pace doesn't. Tell me why you believe all ground loss is equal.

I certainly think ground loss matters, but it is only part of the equation.I could not have said it better myself!:ThmbUp:

[cj]

I could not have said it better myself!:ThmbUp:

You'll get no argument from me.

[thaskalos]

You'll get no argument from me.Now this comment...I am not so crazy about...:)

[Pick6]

Pick6...allow me to ask you a question:

You are witnessing a race in which 2 horses get involved in a heated speed duel from the start of the race, to the turn for home.

Based on your horseplaying experience...what do you consider most likely to happen?

Will one of the dueling leaders probably last for the win...or will a closer probably blow by them both...usually while traveling wide?
I would say I typically observe one of the front runners disposing of the other and win going away. I believe jockeys have a fair idea of pace, and I doubt both of them will make the same mistake and give a closer a big chance to outkick them in the stretch. Usually one of the two front runners is the real deal, perhaps both.

But obviously closers win often enough, and it's fair to judge if the riders properly paced their respective horses.

[Stillriledup]

I'd love to hear Mr Beyer discuss two things. Breakage and the IRS Signer laws and how both are destroying racing. Thanks.

[andymays]

Groundloss is irrelevant in a race like the one Zenyatta just ran in. When the pace is slow and a horse isn't being used around a turn then the groundloss really doesn't matter as long as a horse settles into stride. On the other hand when a pace is quick or moderate and a horse is being ridden or used while losing ground then it's a huge deal. I don't think I explained that well but I'm too tired to change the effing comment. ;)

[Cratos]

This is not a knock against you as an engineer Cratos, but you fail to realize that in handicapping a race, the horseplayer has to deal with BOTH...the qualitative AND the quantitative efforts.

We are not "mixing" them; we try to deal with them individually.

I am not going to get into a long drawn out debate about ground loss because it doesn’t make any difference whether a horse is in the straight away of the racetrack or the turns; each time it changes position during the running of the race it either gains or lose ground.

But it does make a difference if you are assigning a number to a horse’s effort and how that number was developed. Parametric numbers are unique different from each other depending on the assumptions in the development of the numbers.

What I am saying is that the effort for a horse that runs a 6f in 1:08 toting a 126 pounds and go 3 wide is quantitatively different than a horse running 6f in 1:08 on the same day, on the same track, toting a 113 pounds, and “hugging” the rail every inch of the way.

This is not rocket science it can be calculated.

[JeremyJet]

Did not Beyer acknowledge this in Picking Winners? Yes he did. Called Kovitz a genius in fact...

You and thaskalos would both be very surprised what Kovitz told me in a correspondence I had with the man in the mid 90's. Not everything is as it seems.

But it is true that Kovitz tutored Beyer.

Regards,

JeremyJet

[Pick6]

Groundloss is irrelevant in a race like the one Zenyatta just ran in. When the pace is slow and a horse isn't being used around a turn then the groundloss really doesn't matter as long as a horse settles into stride. On the other hand when a pace is quick or moderate and a horse is being ridden or used while losing ground then it's a huge deal. I don't think I explained that well but I'm too tired to change the effing comment. ;)
Watch Zenyatta break out of the gate. Almost from the start she concedes at least 5 lengths, sometimes more.

Obviously beating those cupcakes does not prove much. But spotting a field 5+ lengths is not really the best way to run a race.

[andymays]

Watch Zenyatta break out of the gate. Almost from the start she concedes at least 5 lengths, sometimes more.

Obviously beating those cupcakes does not prove much. But spotting a field 5+ lengths is not really the best way to run a race.

It was irrelevant in that race.

In the Breeders Cup Classic she was in the best spot early on the Pro Ride.

[thaskalos]

I am not going to get into a long drawn out debate about ground loss because it doesn’t make any difference whether a horse is in the straight away of the racetrack or the turns; each time it changes position during the running of the race it either gains or lose ground.

But it does make a difference if you are assigning a number to a horse’s effort and how that number was developed. Parametric numbers are unique different from each other depending on the assumptions in the development of the numbers.

What I am saying is that the effort for a horse that runs a 6f in 1:08 toting a 126 pounds and go 3 wide is quantitatively different than a horse running 6f in 1:08 on the same day, on the same track, toting a 113 pounds, and “hugging” the rail every inch of the way.

This is not rocket science it can be calculated.Cratos, I agree with you...but like Cj says...how useful are these calculations when it comes to handicapping a race?

How can I blindly credit a stretch runner for going wide in a race...when I am fairly certain that he will suffer the same fate today?

[cj]

It was irrelevant in that race. In the Breeders Cup Classic she was in the best spot early on Pro Ride.

Not to mention the pace was pretty brutal.

[Pick6]

Cratos, I agree with you...but like Cj says...how useful are these calculations when it comes to handicapping a race?

How can I blindly credit a stretch runner for going wide in a race...when I am fairly certain that he will suffer the same fate today?
If the field has 4 fewer horses, he broke bad in the last race and raced EXTREMELY wide when the race was in its contentious phase.

One example. Often overlooked as well.

[thaskalos]

You and thaskalos would both be very surprised what Kovitz told me in a correspondence I had with the man in the mid 90's. Not everything is as it seems.

But it is true that Kovitz tutored Beyer.

Regards,

JeremyJetTwo questions:

What did Kovitz tell you...and why did you choose to highlight my name?

PS...

I watched every single race that Jeremy Jet ran in Illinois...

[PaceAdvantage]

It's amazing to see how a thread about Beyer appearing on an an internet radio show has evolved (or devolved, depending on your outlook).

[Pick6]

It was irrelevant in that race.

In the Breeders Cup Classic she was in the best spot early on the Pro Ride.
Yes, if you can run sub-23 final quarters.

[andymays]

Not to mention the pace was pretty brutal.


I didn't notice I took a nap and woke up in 1:45 and change later! ;)

[andymays]

Yes, if you can run sub-23 final quarters.
When you go that slow early it's not all that impressive.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, if you can run sub-23 final quarters.And it's much easier to run sub-23 final quarters on that surface with her kind of running style...she expends such little energy early on, she simply has to run fast late, or she is up the track.

Given the above, how much credit should we really give her for being able to run fast late? Why is that such a shockingly amazing feat given the surface and the fact that she often comes from way out of it?

[thaskalos]

It's amazing to see how a thread about Beyer appearing on an an internet radio show has evolved (or devolved, depending on your outlook).I don't know why it would surprise you. Haven't you noticed how evolved the "Beyer figure" threads can get? Why should their creator be cheated of the attention?

[Pick6]

When you go that slow early it's not all that impressive.
Don't see too many other runners doing this fairly routinely.

[jonnielu]

Go race me at 1500 meters running alongside as long as you can, then do it against the Olympic champion. In which do you think you'll keep up longer? You might finish, even beat me. You'll be walking halfway through the second race if you make it that long, probably with a few vomiting spells.

If you don't have anything to work with, you don't have to attempt an answer. But if you want to attempt an answer anyway, you could at least frame it within the question.

jdl

[andymays]

Don't see too many other runners doing this fairly routinely.
Then you would have to like the one that finished second as well. She came home fairly well the last eighth.

When they go that slow early 50k claimers can come home that fast on that Polytrack.

[JeremyJet]

Two questions:

What did Kovitz tell you...and why did you choose to highlight my name?

PS...

I watched every single race that Jeremy Jet ran in Illinois...

Oh, I couldn't divulge everything Kovitz told me on a public forum like this. I will just say that the two men are not friends, and haven't been for a long time, and leave it at that.

Your username is highlighted because I couldn't remember how to spell it, so I just did a copy/paste. :)

Regards,

JeremyJet

[George Sands]

I did answer your first question, and all I got in response was another question. Nothing else. No opinion, whether in agreement or disagreement, just another question.

You misunderstood my first question. You seemed to take it as me asking you if you knew the EXACT groundloss, down to the inch, when in fact all I wanted to know was more like whether you made a habit of watching all the replays a few times so that you had reasonably accurate groundloss when you made or used figures. That's why I asked the question again.

[jonnielu]

Beyer was pointing out that there are some "bad trips" that are worse than going wide. Any trip handicapper will tell you that, sometimes...the wide trip is the prefferred trip.

In the example given...the 2 horses "involved in the heated, head-to-head speed duel", which lasted to the wire, expanded much more energy due to the dynamics of the race...than the wide closer did, because of the geometrical disadvantage.

PS...

Closers don't just "let other horses go ahead" of them, and then catch up...that's their running style.

Most of the time, the trip-handicapper prefers the wide trip when his horse just lost a rail trip. They prefer the rail trip right after their horse loses the wide trip.

I don't know if I have ever seen two horses in a heated head to head speed duel to the wire. Do you think Beyer has some examples?

jdl

[Cratos]

Cratos, I agree with you...but like Cj says...how useful are these calculations when it comes to handicapping a race?

How can I blindly credit a stretch runner for going wide in a race...when I am fairly certain that he will suffer the same fate today?

I believe this is where this discussion is getting off track; to me it is not the horse’s running style, but its effort. In the example that I gave, it would be disingenuous to give both horses the same number and when I said it could (and should) be calculated, I was implying that you could easily calculate energy expended by both horses and convert that into velocity (speed) and into a speed figure.

[Cratos]

Oh, I couldn't divulge everything Kovitz told me on a public forum like this. I will just say that the two men are not friends, and haven't been for a long time, and leave it at that.

Your username is highlighted because I couldn't remember how to spell it, so I just did a copy/paste. :)

Regards,

JeremyJet


Don’t take offense, that is not news.

[Pick6]

Then you would have to like the one that finished second as well. She came home fairly well the last eighth.

When they go that slow early 50k claimers can come home that fast on that Polytrack.
Of course the 2nd place finisher did not go 5 wide around the turn, and did not concede, what, 7 lengths at the beginning of the race.

Anybody have the distance run for these two? Does Dmr or anybody else archive this info?

[cj]

As to ground loss and running style, Pick6 seems to indicate there is some gold mine by finding closers that lose ground. Just for the heck of it, I tested my database by running style, E, EP, P, PS, S, and NA. I only rate horses based on good performances, which is 1st, 2nd, or 3rd within X number of lengths at the finish. I will have to look up the X later and only applies to 3rd place finishes. These are for winners only and 100% is break even.

On dirt, the rankings are as such, style and ROI:


E - 79%
EP - 77%
P - 75%
PS - 72%
S - 65%
1st - 61%
NA - 59%
Clearly, S types are not being underbet as a whole.

Maybe it is just dirt I thought, so lets try turf:


E - 81%
EP - 86%
P - 78%
PS - 68%
S - 68%
NA - 60%
1st - 9% (small sample)
Well, maybe synthetics will do better:

1st - 100% (small sample)
E - 81%
EP - 84%
P - 82%
PS - 75%
NA - 70%
S - 68%
All I am trying to show is that ground loss around the second turn is going to be a problem mostly for backrunners, PS and S types. Where is the value? You may find a few horses worth betting, but you are climbing a much tougher hill based on nothing but previous running style alone.

[cj]

Of course the 2nd place finisher did not go 5 wide around the turn, and did not concede, what, 7 lengths at the beginning of the race.

Anybody have the distance run for these two? Does Dmr or anybody else archive this info?

She didn't concede anything at the break. She is slow and doesn't expend any energy at that point in time.

[JeremyJet]

Don’t take offense, that is not news.

Maybe not, but the germination of the methodology would be. ;)

Regards,

JeremyJet

[Pick6]

Of course these things are situation dependent. If I see a horse whose jockey cannot get into proper position on the first turn, and again is stuck on the 2nd turn, obviously I am looking for a bounce. The assumption here is that a jockey has some time to recover for a horse's early bad placement and can get his horse into a better position later in the race. He has less of an opportunity late in the race.

I observe this pattern: jockeys do not seem to have a problem going wide early, but on the final turn they will generally not do it until around the 1/4 pole. Maybe others observe something else.

[jonnielu]

Did you not imply that closers expend less effort than pace setters? This is not always true, correct? This is leading to my statement of you being confused. I don't mean it in an insulting way, just that those who make blanket assumptions without looking into how a horse runs a race can lead to some bad conclusions.

I remember a quote Bill Shoemaker made about Exceller. I am paraphrasing, but he basically said that closers also expend a lot of effort just trying to catch up with the leaders. In general this is true; closers forfeit strategic position at the start of the race, and expend a lot of effort to make that up. Most closers are poor-performing horses, very few are champions that can do this consistently.

Looks like a lot of blanket assumptions on all sides, I guess it amounts to whose sounds best and what do you really like to hear? I don't see where Beyer's assumptions are worth any more then anyone elses.

jdl

[cj]

You misunderstood my first question. You seemed to take it as me asking you if you knew the EXACT groundloss, down to the inch, when in fact all I wanted to know was more like whether you made a habit of watching all the replays a few times so that you had reasonably accurate groundloss when you made or used figures. That's why I asked the question again.

Then my response would be why do you want to know? What is the point?

[thaskalos]

I believe this is where this discussion is getting off track; to me it is not the horse’s running style, but its effort. In the example that I gave, it would be disingenuous to give both horses the same number and when I said it could (and should) be calculated, I was implying that you could easily calculate energy expended by both horses and convert that into velocity (speed) and into a speed figure.Yes...I agree.

But the term "energy expended", should encompass more than just ground loss. What about the energy expended while setting a "hot" pace...or dealing with a "brutal" speed duel.

These energy expenditures are not easy to calculate...but they remain obstacles in the handicapping process.

Shouldn't we include THOSE into the speed figure?

[Cratos]

Maybe not, but the germination of the methodology would be. ;)

Regards,

JeremyJet


I undersatnd what you are saying

[Cratos]

Yes...I agree.

But the term "energy expended", should encompass more than just ground loss. What about the energy expended while setting a "hot" pace...or dealing with a "brutal" speed duel.

These energy expenditures are not easy to calculate...but they remain obstacles in the handicapping process.

Shouldn't we include THOSE into the speed figure?

You calculate the energy expended for the entire race and convert the difference to velocity (speed) based on your assumptions.

[jonnielu]

Watch Zenyatta break out of the gate. Almost from the start she concedes at least 5 lengths, sometimes more.

Obviously beating those cupcakes does not prove much. But spotting a field 5+ lengths is not really the best way to run a race.

Assumptions, assumptions, just a good thing that Zenyatta has track propulsion working for her.

jdl

[thaskalos]

You calculate the energy expended for the entire race and convert the difference to velocity (speed) based on your assumptions.Cratos...this is where the discussion starts veering off course.

The original question - which started all this - was whether Andy Beyer has commented on the Ragozin figures.

I replied that, yes...I remember him having complimentary words to say about Len Ragozin, but that Beyer was also skeptical of his ground loss adjustments...mainly because they ignored pace...and some other special circumstances, sometimes present in the race.

I thought we were talking about ground loss, as applied in "the sheets".

If you are suggesting the creation of a "compound" figure...that would include EVERYTHING...then that is a different matter.

[NYPlayer]

Go race me at 1500 meters running alongside as long as you can, then do it against the Olympic champion. In which do you think you'll keep up longer? You might finish, even beat me. You'll be walking halfway through the second race if you make it that long, probably with a few vomiting spells.

It's the totality of the effort that counts. My time for 1500 meters will not be any different whether I try to keep pace with you or an olympian. The better athlete will eventually pull ahead and win. It's that simple.

[PaceAdvantage]

At least everyone knows about winningponies.com and the fact that Beyer will be on their show tonight...:ThmbUp:

[jonnielu]

At least everyone knows about winningponies.com and the fact that Beyer will be on their show tonight...:ThmbUp:

Maybe I should record some of the non-sensical diatribe to post later.

jdl

[cj]

It's the totality of the effort that counts. My time for 1500 meters will not be any different whether I try to keep pace with you or an olympian. The better athlete will eventually pull ahead and win. It's that simple.

If you run at the pace of an elite Olympic champion for as long as you can, there is no way in hell your time will be the same at the finish unless you are in the same class.

[bigmack]

The math genius who created the formula was Sheldon Kovitz...his Harvard classmate.
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_12_10_15_44_38.jpg
From Picking Winners/A.Beyer

A bandage on the foreleg and an IBM Model 40. Hardy-har.

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/images/2423PH2040.jpg

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe I should record some of the non-sensical diatribe to post later.

jdlNot without permission from winningponies you won't.

[jonnielu]

Not without permission from winningponies you won't.

Well, nothing there worth recording anyway. I did find interesting that he doesn't like poly because he doesn't want to have to learn anything, and that he's much happier when racing works in the one dimensional way that he sees it, as opposed to him seeing it as it is.

jdl

[Relwob Owner]

Well, nothing there worth recording anyway. I did find interesting that he doesn't like poly because he doesn't want to have to learn anything, and that he's much happier when racing works in the one dimensional way that he sees it, as opposed to him seeing it as it is.

jdl


You could say that about his first few books but if you bothered to read his subsequent ones, you would realize he is anything but one dimensional in the way he sees racing......

[Saratoga_Mike]

Well, nothing there worth recording anyway. I did find interesting that he doesn't like poly because he doesn't want to have to learn anything, and that he's much happier when racing works in the one dimensional way that he sees it, as opposed to him seeing it as it is.

jdl

And yet you are consumed by his success and fame

[jonnielu]

And yet you are consumed by his success and fame

No, I'm totally amazed at the time and effort people will put in trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

jdl

[Tom]

Which is basically what you do in every thread with the name Beyer in it.
If you think everyone is nuts, maybe it's not them.

[George Sands]

Then my response would be why do you want to know? What is the point?

My point is going to depend on your answer to the question. And if you don't want to answer the question, then I'm going to drop it because I simply don't care that much.

[Saratoga_Mike]

No, I'm totally amazed at the time and effort people will put in trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

jdl

How many books have you sold? I'd like a serious answer, if you wouldn't mind.

[Tom]

Do encyclopedias count?

[thaskalos]

Do encyclopedias count?That's funny.:ThmbUp:

[jonnielu]

You could say that about his first few books but if you bothered to read his subsequent ones, you would realize he is anything but one dimensional in the way he sees racing......

Well, I listened to him run his yap for ten minutes in 1981, then I listened to him run his yap tonight, and it's the same yappage. There was more quality information to be found in today's races then in all the books written in the last 25 years.

If the bookwriters actually know something, why would they need to write subsequent books, or you need to read them? If half of the book writers had put something of substance into half of the books over the past 50 years, how could there have been 2 $20 winners at Saratoga today. Or the $97 winner at Woodbine yesterday, or the $240 winner at Monmouth a couple of weeks ago. Why isn't the favorite winning 50%, if you and the crowd are learning something from all of the book reading.

A couple of hours ago, Beyer said that if a horse is rated, it messes up his figures. It was just as true in 1975, why hasn't the genius done anything about it in 35 years? The truth is that after a mountain of publication, your still guessing between the favorite and two other horses with good records, and still missing most of the winning horses with "bad" form. Just like always.

Just my humble opinion, keep reading.

jdl

[Charlie D]

Enjoyed show. Thanks Ed


Enjoyed debate. Thanks guys.

[cj]

Enjoyed show. Thanks Ed


Enjoyed debate. Thanks guys.

Good to see you back Charlie!

[cj]

My point is going to depend on your answer to the question. And if you don't want to answer the question, then I'm going to drop it because I simply don't care that much.

I don't want to come off as an ass, I didn't mean it that way and I know you are a good guy.

I don't include ground loss in my figures. I do, however, watch lots of replays when I think it is necessary to get a better idea of how a trip may have affected a horse. I have no doubt there is some value to including ground loss, but I think it could be done a lot better.

I've used this analogy a few times, but I think it is pretty good. If two people race a quarter mile, but both decide to turn it to a 200 meter sprint and walk around the first turn, one in the inner lane and one in the outer, does the fact the person in the outer had to walk a little faster change anything? I would say no because while the person in the outer land did expend a little more energy to keep pace, it isn't enough to effect his speed over the last 200 meters.

I believe all ground loss is not equal, and at times the differences can be quite dramatic. Are those differences enough to make very basic adjustments for ground loss worthless? My guess is no, they are not worthless, but a lot of the value is lost.

Sorry if I was a bit cross. The trolls can wear on you a bit after a while.

[Robert Goren]

Well, I listened to him run his yap for ten minutes in 1981, then I listened to him run his yap tonight, and it's the same yappage. There was more quality information to be found in today's races then in all the books written in the last 25 years.

If the bookwriters actually know something, why would they need to write subsequent books, or you need to read them? If half of the book writers had put something of substance into half of the books over the past 50 years, how could there have been 2 $20 winners at Saratoga today. Or the $97 winner at Woodbine yesterday, or the $240 winner at Monmouth a couple of weeks ago. Why isn't the favorite winning 50%, if you and the crowd are learning something from all of the book reading.

A couple of hours ago, Beyer said that if a horse is rated, it messes up his figures. It was just as true in 1975, why hasn't the genius done anything about it in 35 years? The truth is that after a mountain of publication, your still guessing between the favorite and two other horses with good records, and still missing most of the winning horses with "bad" form. Just like always.

Just my humble opinion, keep reading.

jdlSo why did you write a book?

[dnlgfnk]

The most fascinating figure regarding the whole Beyer story is/was? his friend "Charlie", the visual handicapper, in "My 50k Year, and "The Winning Horseplayer". Having spent the last 30 years trying to, like Charlie, "see what nobody else sees", I have gained a few insights through many torn tickets (I concluded that Charlie was a fictional character on more than one occasion-- I still wonder sometimes):

I assumed that what Charlie focused on was the jockey's hands, more than a timed fraction, to gauge pace. It has been a revelation to see horses urged soon after the gate much of the early qtr. and earn a :23 split at 6f. A week later one of those leaders gains the lead without as much urging and records a :22-3 or so, variants and all. I learned that either a furlong can be too long to run at high speed without some deceleration, or else horses are a bit like cars...a jackrabbit increase in pace causes a disproportionate use of energy. I know that timed fractions are so misleading as to be virtually useless, except in obvious "quarterhorse" early fractions, or stranglehold crawls.

I've learned that the straightaways are subtlely harder and faster on the outside rather than the rail, and the turns of course mathematically benefit railers, all else being equal. This is not to the degree of dictating outcomes, but subtlely affecting them, especially when a change is present (Big Brown's Belmont, in retrospect). I reject the claims of a pronounced, daily-changing bias, considering them to be an exaggeration of the subtle, chronic tendencies of the track. In "My 50k Year...", "Charlie" liked Glorious Sheik, a longshot who I'm certain he saw rush up inside on the backstretch to a comfortable pace and tired late, and "today" was facing a probable speed duel of the three main contenders while Glorious Sheik would relax and ease up to them from outside on the backside to rail on the turn- the epitome of a perfect trip (which he accomplished at 12-1 odds).

As for crediting ground loss on turns, from decades of experience, it is an exercise in futility. A horse who strided comfortably while the pressured strides of the leaders caused them to decelerate, allowing him to ease up and "inherit" (as Charlie would say, as related by Beyer) a striking position from which to deliver a killer stretch run though well wide, simply will not repeat that effort (and not because of the nonexistent "bounce") in a race where the leaders comfortably race ahead with light urging, and our closer needs rousing and effort to reach that same striking position by the stretch turn, even if inside.

[Charlie D]

Good to see you back Charlie!


Thanks CJ.


By the way. I don't include ground loss in my Match Up's . :)

[Charlie D]

... or in the figs i compile. :)

[the little guy]

The most fascinating figure regarding the whole Beyer story is/was? his friend "Charlie", the visual handicapper, in "My 50k Year, and "The Winning Horseplayer". Having spent the last 30 years trying to, like Charlie, "see what nobody else sees", I have gained a few insights through many torn tickets (I concluded that Charlie was a fictional character on more than one occasion-- I still wonder sometimes):

I assumed that what Charlie focused on was the jockey's hands, more than a timed fraction, to gauge pace. It has been a revelation to see horses urged soon after the gate much of the early qtr. and earn a :23 split at 6f. A week later one of those leaders gains the lead without as much urging and records a :22-3 or so, variants and all. I learned that either a furlong can be too long to run at high speed without some deceleration, or else horses are a bit like cars...a jackrabbit increase in pace causes a disproportionate use of energy. I know that timed fractions are so misleading as to be virtually useless, except in obvious "quarterhorse" early fractions, or stranglehold crawls.

I've learned that the straightaways are subtlely harder and faster on the outside rather than the rail, and the turns of course mathematically benefit railers, all else being equal. This is not to the degree of dictating outcomes, but subtlely affecting them, especially when a change is present (Big Brown's Belmont, in retrospect). I reject the claims of a pronounced, daily-changing bias, considering them to be an exaggeration of the subtle, chronic tendencies of the track. In "My 50k Year...", "Charlie" liked Glorious Sheik, a longshot who I'm certain he saw rush up inside on the backstretch to a comfortable pace and tired late, and "today" was facing a probable speed duel of the three main contenders while Glorious Sheik would relax and ease up to them from outside on the backside to rail on the turn- the epitome of a perfect trip (which he accomplished at 12-1 odds).

As for crediting ground loss on turns, from decades of experience, it is an exercise in futility. A horse who strided comfortably while the pressured strides of the leaders caused them to decelerate, allowing him to ease up and "inherit" (as Charlie would say, as related by Beyer) a striking position from which to deliver a killer stretch run though well wide, simply will not repeat that effort (and not because of the nonexistent "bounce") in a race where the leaders comfortably race ahead with light urging, and our closer needs rousing and effort to reach that same striking position by the stretch turn, even if inside.


He's not fictional.....I saw him today.

[KingChas]

I remember the morning line being somewhere around 6/1 and the early betting knocked my horse down to 5/2. Andy Beyer said (about my horse) something to the effect of "If that horse wins, they will have to carry me out of the track". He liked a more classy horse ridden by Angel Cordero, Jr. that eventually went off as the odds on favorite as my horse drifted up to closing odds of 9/2 (thanks to Mr. Beyer's comments).

That was probably around the time the Spa results really pissed Andy off.
He did leave vowing he would never come back to Saratoga.
Man of his word,he stayed away a long time.

Believe he finally did return recently....I think :confused:

First time I met Andy at the Spa he was walking in with breifcases and folders weighing more than most horses carried on their back that day.
But the man always did do his homework.......... :ThmbUp:

[KingChas]

First time I met Andy at the Spa he was walking in with breifcases and folders weighing more than most horses carried on their back that day.
But the man always did do his homework.......... :ThmbUp:

Off course he was used to the weight carrying TLG around back in the days.
:eek: :lol:

[Cratos]

Cratos...this is where the discussion starts veering off course.

The original question - which started all this - was whether Andy Beyer has commented on the Ragozin figures.

I replied that, yes...I remember him having complimentary words to say about Len Ragozin, but that Beyer was also skeptical of his ground loss adjustments...mainly because they ignored pace...and some other special circumstances, sometimes present in the race.

I thought we were talking about ground loss, as applied in "the sheets".

If you are suggesting the creation of a "compound" figure...that would include EVERYTHING...then that is a different matter.

I don’t want to get into either the speed figure or the Andy Beyer argument because it is useless.

Andy Beyer over the last 30 years has been both a great ambassador and a great contributor to thoroughbred racing as we know it today.

However having said that and by his own admission Beyer is neither a scientist nor a statistician and that is where his speed figure concept needs work. Phil Bull, a mathematician did great work with speed figures nearly 40 years before Beyer and others like Len Ragozin have continued the quantitative approach.

But the problem appears to be if one disagrees with the Beyer speed figure concept they are somehow demeaning the accomplishments and achievements of Beyer which I think is a fallacious assumption.

Also by definition speed is the ratio between distance and time and if the measurement of either of those are faulty (for instance not accounting for ground loss) the speed figure is not as true as it could be in representing a horse’s performance with respect to speed.

[Robert Goren]

What Beyers did was bring the idea of daily variants to forefront of handicapping. Was he the first to use them? No. But a lot of handicappers had not thought of them until he wrote his book.

[George Sands]

I don't want to come off as an ass, I didn't mean it that way and I know you are a good guy.

I don't include ground loss in my figures. I do, however, watch lots of replays when I think it is necessary to get a better idea of how a trip may have affected a horse. I have no doubt there is some value to including ground loss, but I think it could be done a lot better.

I've used this analogy a few times, but I think it is pretty good. If two people race a quarter mile, but both decide to turn it to a 200 meter sprint and walk around the first turn, one in the inner lane and one in the outer, does the fact the person in the outer had to walk a little faster change anything? I would say no because while the person in the outer land did expend a little more energy to keep pace, it isn't enough to effect his speed over the last 200 meters.

I believe all ground loss is not equal, and at times the differences can be quite dramatic. Are those differences enough to make very basic adjustments for ground loss worthless? My guess is no, they are not worthless, but a lot of the value is lost.

Sorry if I was a bit cross. The trolls can wear on you a bit after a while.

I appreciate the post, CJ, and there's no need at all to be sorry. You deal with an awful lot of people here, while I show up only once in a while. Moreover, I respect your knowledge of these subjects even when I disagree with you on one matter or another.

OK, let's see:

Your analogy: I first saw it from you several years ago. I thought it was good then. I think it is good now. I have never believed that all groundloss is equal. Fortunately, Thoro-Graph (which is what I use) labels the groundloss on each turn, which allows me to adjust the numbers for my occasionally heretical views.

On sheets "ignoring" pace: They don't. They adjust for pace when they think they ought to. Ragozin will adjust horses (including Zenyatta) individually for pace, while Thoro-Graph will adjust horses as a group for slow paces and label a lot of races as "slow pace" or "fast pace." Do sheets adjust as often as you and I think pace affects figures? No. But I'm fine with that because I don't particularly want these guys wearing too many hats and getting involved in areas where they are only half-hearted. I'd rather have unadjusted figures and adjust them myself--because I've never seen pace adjustments from others that I wholly agree with. Therefore, I very much prefer the Thoro-Graph approach over the Ragozin approach because Thoro-Graph makes it easier for me to back out of the occasional figure-making situation that I disagree with.

On adjusting closers for groundloss even though they often lose ground due to their running style: I agree with this practice because a central (though often overlooked by non-sheet players) part of sheet handicapping is adjusting for TODAY'S likely groundloss. Therefore, if a closer went four-wide last out, a sheet player will NOT be crediting him unjustly by using ground-adjusted figures. Instead, the sheet player will look at the ground-adjusted previous figures and then penalize him based on today's likely groundloss. So all is well. And if the closer happened to get lucky last time and get a rail trip, as they sometimes do, then the sheets will adjust for this the next time the horse races--an advantage, to my mind, over making blanket assumptions based on general tendencies.

On sheets giving credit for racing wide when the rail is bad: Yes, one must back out the adjustment in these cases, but this is double-edged--because sometimes the rail is the best part of the racetrack, in which case adjusting for groundloss is even more important. Therefore, I don't see this issue as a potent indictment of groundloss adjustments.

This point I will address toward Beyer rather than toward you because I don't know much about your approach. When Beyer is handicapping seriously, he expends a lot of energy obtaining groundloss off videotapes, for both dirt and turf races. In addition, I believe he is on record (in that Formulator promotional book Bet With The Best?) as saying that in turf races, every inch of groundloss matters. OK, by Beyer's terms, would not this groundloss information be extremely helpful toward the process of projecting figures year-round, especially for turf races? If so, shouldn't someone be getting Beyer this information year-round? And if Beyer ever gets it year-round, why not print it in the DRF so that handicappers can use it as they see fit, even if Beyer believes that his figures should remain unadjusted for groundloss? My hunch is that it would be too much work, and that Beyer therefore makes a virtue out of a vice by nitpicking groundloss adjustments--on the grounds that the fruit he can't reach is best thought sour.

[senortout]

Beyer's criticism of the concept was valid, in my opinion.

He asked the question:

Suppose 2 horses were involved in a heated head-to-head speed duel, until the turn for home...at which point, a stretch runner came at them, four wide.

Let's say that these 3 horses finished in a photo for the win.

How in the world can we justify giving extra credit to the wide-circling horse, when the dueling speed horses obviously ran the more impressive race?

Extra credit CAN, IN FACT, be attached to the late closer in this instance, especially being wide and running a greater distance. If you don't bring enough speed to the dance, you will always have a partner, pardner.

senortout

[cj]

This point I will address toward Beyer rather than toward you because I don't know much about your approach. When Beyer is handicapping seriously, he expends a lot of energy obtaining groundloss off videotapes, for both dirt and turf races. In addition, I believe he is on record (in that Formulator promotional book Bet With The Best?) as saying that in turf races, every inch of groundloss matters. OK, by Beyer's terms, would not this groundloss information be extremely helpful toward the process of projecting figures year-round, especially for turf races? If so, shouldn't someone be getting Beyer this information year-round? And if Beyer ever gets it year-round, why not print it in the DRF so that handicappers can use it as they see fit, even if Beyer believes that his figures should remain unadjusted for groundloss? My hunch is that it would be too much work, and that Beyer therefore makes a virtue out of a vice by nitpicking groundloss adjustments--on the grounds that the fruit he can't reach is best thought sour.

I think it would be a great thing if ground loss, and where it is lost, is eventually a part of the PPs. It is clearly a time/value dilemma now. As I said earlier, I have no doubt there is some value in ground loss.

I always believe in giving the customer all possible information. Let them figure out how to best use it.

[Pick6]

Anyone want to respond if Del Mar posts distance run for each horse somewhere? I know they post it visually after each race. I am more interested in actual downloadable data for analysis.

[winningponies]

Wow this turned into a great thread! For those of you who didn't catch the live show, you can listen to the archived episode here:

http://www.voiceamerica.com/voiceamerica/vepisode.aspx?aid=48031

(Or, you can just search for the podcast "Winning Ponies" on iTunes.)

I think it would great if we had some debates (such as the one in this thread) live on the show between several callers. Could be quite interesting and informative for the listeners...

[bigmack]

I think it would great if we had some debates (such as the one in this thread) live on the show between several callers. Could be quite interesting and informative for the listeners...
You'd best get a 6 second delay/kill button or expletives/fur will fly.

[Tom]

Anyone want to respond if Del Mar posts distance run for each horse somewhere? I know they post it visually after each race. I am more interested in actual downloadable data for analysis.

Go the Del Mar website and then Site Map - look for TRAKUS.
There are several variations of the Trackus data that goes back a couple of years. I don't think you can download it, though. KEE had a database you can download or access online.

Anyone know if Woodbine offers any Trakus data?

http://www.dmtc.com/racinginfo/trakus.php

[jonnielu]

What Beyers did was bring the idea of daily variants to forefront of handicapping. Was he the first to use them? No. But a lot of handicappers had not thought of them until he wrote his book.

Yeah, and a great deal of thought and study went into that variant too. Like if the predicted number didn't win, it must be because the track varied. Then track propulsion was born, where the lower number gets propelled, and the higher number runs in quicksand.

jdl

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yeah, and a great deal of thought and study went into that variant too. Like if the predicted number didn't win, it must be because the track varied. Then track propulsion was born, where the lower number gets propelled, and the higher number runs in quicksand.

jdl

JDL,

Assuming Beyer were the only one in the world using speed figures, would they be of value* to him? Please answer the question with a clear YES or NO, then feel free to elaborate. Thanks.

*by value, I mean increase his chances of winning at the track

[dnlgfnk]

Little Guy...

Can you tell me all that you are willing to divulge about "Charlie" that Beyer did not elaborate on? I tried to directly contact him about Charlie at the WAPO when he was still there but no response.

Am I in the ballpark with regard to Charlie's methods?

[NYPlayer]

If you run at the pace of an elite Olympic champion for as long as you can, there is no way in hell your time will be the same at the finish unless you are in the same class.

I think you're missing something. The point is if I try to run with a fast athlete it's doubtful I could keep up with him/her for very long. If the initial pace is faster than I'm used too, I will eventually have to slow down to recover, but my overall time for 1500 meters would be about the same as what I am capable of.

[cj]

I think you're missing something. The point is if I try to run with a fast athlete it's doubtful I could keep up with him/her for very long. If the initial pace is faster than I'm used too, I will eventually have to slow down to recover, but my overall time for 1500 meters would be about the same as what I am capable of.

Highly doubtful in my opinion. This is actually the same reason Beyer said in his original book that pace didn't matter, but changed it later and admitted that thinking was flawed...very flawed.

[NYPlayer]

Highly doubtful in my opinion. This is actually the same reason Beyer said in his original book that pace didn't matter, but changed it later and admitted that thinking was flawed...very flawed.

...and both of you not offering any proof.

[NYPlayer]

...I've used this analogy a few times, but I think it is pretty good. If two people race a quarter mile, but both decide to turn it to a 200 meter sprint and walk around the first turn, one in the inner lane and one in the outer, does the fact the person in the outer had to walk a little faster change anything? I would say no because while the person in the outer land did expend a little more energy to keep pace, it isn't enough to effect his speed over the last 200 meters.

My understanding is that the starting positions for these sprints are staggered so that all lanes measure the same distance at the finish line.

[WinterTriangle]

I ignore anything from Winning Ponies now because of the junk mail they generated once I was on their mailing list.

Maybe they'll read this. I got email that isn't even racing related, tied to them. One was "how to be a forensic scientist". I traced it and that's how it originated.

thanks, but no thanks. I really dislike having my email addy distributed like this, and even moreso when it generates NON RACING RELATED mail :mad:

[cj]

My understanding is that the starting positions for these sprints are staggered so that all lanes measure the same distance at the finish line.

I didn't say it was an official race.

As for your other post, believe what you like. There is plenty of proof out there with regard to horses and people.

[speed]

Unrecoverable energy