PDA

View Full Version : Are these statements from Andrew Beyer correct?


Crush
08-20-2010, 02:05 PM
Hi!

Well I'm reading Andrew Beyer's book Picking Winners. I have to say, if I had a dollar for every time his speed figures have let me down, I think I'd be rich.

Since I'm new to handicapping, I'd like to check with you guys for some of his statements that sound fishy. I could be very wrong that is why I'm checking with you guys.

In the book he talks about 'sucker horses'. These are horses that continue to show and never win the race. Here's the comment he makes about 'sucker horses' and 'winner horses':

"But when such horses fulfill all the important handicapping requirements, they will usually find a way to win because they posses the determination and competitive spirit that animals like 'the sucker horse' do not have.

Question: He's Implying that a horse knows he's in a race, where the finish line is, and the horse is trying to win a race through some mean of determination like he is a human. I thought the horse was an animal and does not understand he's in a race? Isn't it the jockeys job to drive the horse and whip it until the finish? Isn't s consistency of falling off late race just a sign of lack of energy reserve and part of the horses genetics? I'm just curious. Please comment.


He later talks about money management and how it's good advice to stay basically with favorites on a win bet if they meet all the requirements. He advocates betting on horses with very low odds and balks at going after the horses with the higher odds. Here's what he says:

"But a handicapper equipped with good figures and good judgment should be able to hit at least 50% of his most solid selections. If he wins half of the 7-5 shots he bets, he will make a profit of 20 percent on his investments. That is a healthy rate of return."

Can someone please clarify this for me? The below is the impression I am under:

-If you bet 10 horses at $100 each that is $1000 total investment.
-If you lose half, you lose $100 each horse. That's a $500 loss total.
-If you win half, you will make $140 each horse. That is $700 Won.

Isn't this a NET LOSS of 30% ROI??

DeanT
08-20-2010, 02:16 PM
Those are most excellent newbie questions! You cover two important parts of racing (betting and understanding horses) with them.

Have you been to Hello Race Fans?

http://helloracefans.com/

The beginners corner answers a lot of these type questions.

Your first one has to do with desire of the horse to run through a race. Think Tour De France. The best riders are killer on the hills. Pain sets in and you are tired, but you keep going while the guy beside you packs it in. The grit rider will get the glory.

The second one is odds lines. You are forgetting you are getting $2.40 for each bet for a horse who wins half the time - that is profitable. It's like a coin flip game - you give me a dollar if it comes up heads and I give you $1.20 if it comes up tails. Over time you will win more money, even though half the time I win, and half the time you win.

speed
08-20-2010, 02:17 PM
Can someone please clarify this for me? The below is the impression I am under:

-If you bet 10 horses at $100 each that is $1000 total investment.
-If you lose half, you lose $100 each horse. That's a $500 loss total.
-If you win half, you will make $140 each horse. That is $700 Won.

Isn't this a NET LOSS of 30% ROI??[/QUOTE]




$1000 total bet

$100 to win @ 7/5 returns $240

5 wins times $240 = $1200

$1000 bet with $1200 returned is 20% ROI

mountainman
08-20-2010, 04:05 PM
Hi!

Well I'm reading Andrew Beyer's book Picking Winners. I have to say, if I had a dollar for every time his speed figures have let me down, I think I'd be rich.

Since I'm new to handicapping, I'd like to check with you guys for some of his statements that sound fishy. I could be very wrong that is why I'm checking with you guys.

In the book he talks about 'sucker horses'. These are horses that continue to show and never win the race. Here's the comment he makes about 'sucker horses' and 'winner horses':

"But when such horses fulfill all the important handicapping requirements, they will usually find a way to win because they posses the determination and competitive spirit that animals like 'the sucker horse' do not have.

Question: He's Implying that a horse knows he's in a race, where the finish line is, and the horse is trying to win a race through some mean of determination like he is a human. I thought the horse was an animal and does not understand he's in a race? Isn't it the jockeys job to drive the horse and whip it until the finish? Isn't s consistency of falling off late race just a sign of lack of energy reserve and part of the horses genetics? I'm just curious. Please comment.


He later talks about money management and how it's good advice to stay basically with favorites on a win bet if they meet all the requirements. He advocates betting on horses with very low odds and balks at going after the horses with the higher odds. Here's what he says:

"But a handicapper equipped with good figures and good judgment should be able to hit at least 50% of his most solid selections. If he wins half of the 7-5 shots he bets, he will make a profit of 20 percent on his investments. That is a healthy rate of return."

Can someone please clarify this for me? The below is the impression I am under:

-If you bet 10 horses at $100 each that is $1000 total investment.
-If you lose half, you lose $100 each horse. That's a $500 loss total.
-If you win half, you will make $140 each horse. That is $700 Won.

Isn't this a NET LOSS of 30% ROI??

When Beyer's figs were proprietary and unique, i'm sure he COULD find 7/5 shots that were more than likely to maul their fields. The same horses today flip 4/5 (on the far turn)- and still lose half the time.

PhantomOnTour
08-20-2010, 04:09 PM
Horses have different personalities (or horse-ities if you will). Some are just more competitive than others. While they may not know they are in a 'race' and have to go 7f to the finish, some do know that they want to get their head in front of the others, and will run their ass off trying to do it. Others are more content to 'run with the pack' and simply will not pass the others; no matter how slow the pace or how hard the jock urges. Some run brilliantly when alone on the lead but will cower when looked in the eye or challenged, while others will dig in and fight their rival no matter how tired they may be (see Presious Passion).

The sucker horses Beyer refers to are the kind who will 'wait' on the others once he hits the lead, or will simply run with the pack. They almost never win despite having favorable circumstances....that's their nature. I am sure others have more to add and I am no expert on equine behavior, but after watching your home track awhile you will notice different levels of competitiveness among the horses.

Dave Schwartz
08-20-2010, 04:22 PM
And Beyer's book addresses how fast the horse was in the past. It does not tell you how fast the horse will likely run today.

Oh, if it were only that easy.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Fastracehorse
08-20-2010, 05:32 PM
And Beyer's book addresses how fast the horse was in the past. It does not tell you how fast the horse will likely run today.

Oh, if it were only that easy.





Regards,
Dave Schwartz

.......................you can make situations advanatageous - IOWs: Beyer speed figs aren't just about the best last-out figs- they can project improvement or flattenings; and uncover live overlays.

fffastt

PaceAdvantage
08-20-2010, 05:54 PM
Speed figures are simply a more accurate representation of final running time. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fastracehorse
08-20-2010, 07:25 PM
Speed figures are simply a more accurate representation of final running time. Nothing more, nothing less.

.......the manipulation of speed figs lead to fantastic overlays; that is their real utility - their ability to b adjusted

as speed figs can't possibly tell the whole story

fffastt

thaskalos
08-20-2010, 07:35 PM
Don't place too much emphasis on Beyer's opinions in the book "Picking Winners".

His handicapping approach is considerably different in his later books...

jonnielu
08-20-2010, 09:18 PM
Speed figures will always let you down because they are only one dimension of the race that you are looking at today. As such, they are not completely "in tune" with what will be taking place out on the track today. Besides that, the stupidest of trainers knows that the public prefers high speed ratings, and knows how to give his horse a decent race while causing the speed figure to be low. So the figure itself is always suspect, and to use them at face value is simply engaging in a shell game. The question is always how will the horse run today, the time and/or speed figure is never more then a vague clue.

While you read every handicapping book that you can get your hands on, remember that this discipline is well over 100 years old, and still no one has it very close to right. I believe that it is reasonable to say that handicapping has come to its limit a few decades ago. Many disagree while they tend to get 2 winners out of 10 and chase after the magic formula. May God bless them for their fortitude and persistence, but I wouldn't choose to wait on their improvement.

There is only one worthwhile piece of advise in every handicapping book that I ever read, and that is to do something different from what the general public is doing. Most people do some form of handicapping. I believe that to be the first thing any newcomer should drop.

jdl

Valuist
08-20-2010, 11:18 PM
I am a big believer that there are "sucker horses"; it doesn't matter why they have trouble passing the final horse; who knows why. But we've seen far too many horses like that to deny it.

Yes, even sucker horses occasionally win. And win they do, its usually at low odds against a field they overwhelm and draw off by a decent margin.

bisket
08-20-2010, 11:47 PM
you can sometimes use a sucker horse in the back end of the tri and super...... take a good hard look at :5: quite a handful tomorrow in the arlington million. i know in the figs he's "not fast enough" but i think that might be relative to who he's running with? "running with" and not "against" being the exact language to make my point!!

Java Gold@TFT
08-21-2010, 03:06 AM
Like it or not horses are pack animals by nature. Some are just comfortable running WITH other horses but some have type A personalities and want to dominate the pack. It's just nature. It's in part why some horses 'hang' when they get a lead. They just want to be in a pack. It's not to say that that can't be trained out of them but there are really only so many Alpha horses before they hit the track.

Fastracehorse
08-21-2010, 09:27 PM
Like it or not horses are pack animals by nature. Some are just comfortable running WITH other horses but some have type A personalities and want to dominate the pack. It's just nature. It's in part why some horses 'hang' when they get a lead. They just want to be in a pack. It's not to say that that can't be trained out of them but there are really only so many Alpha horses before they hit the track.

that is what a good machine gunning jock ( whip ) is for

fffastt