Talking Speed Figures with Andy Beyer. Q & A

[andymays]

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/paulick-report-forum-brought-to-you-by-breeders-cup-talking-speed-figures-with-beyer/

Excerpt:

How many people actually do the calculations, and has there been much turnover in who works on the figures?

My partner, Mark Hopkins, and I have five employees; each of the seven of us has tracks for which he is responsible. In addition, Mark and I take an overview of the whole operation. We have had very little turnover. Randy Moss and Dick Jerardi have been calculating figures since they read “Picking Winners” in 1975 and they have been part of our fig-making team since the very beginning.

[Gapfire]

Interesting read,

I'd be interested to know if he arbitrarily decides which tracks he is going to compare shippers moving in and out. Seems to me that if you are doing that, you have to compare every shipper going to every track. Obviously, many permutations arise. Seems to me that his way would skew the whole Beyer base.

[Gekish]

Before Beyer about 1970 Prof. Gordon Jones (handicaper for the LA. Examaner) published a book on making speed figures and before him Bob Hebert around 1965 (handicaper for LA. Times) also gave the bases of constructing speed figures in his book. I used my own figures in the early 70's per Prof. Jones made with help of a HP programmable calculator. Cleaned up big time especialy on the grass. Then came Beyer..........

[cj]

Before Beyer about 1970 Prof. Gordon Jones (handicaper for the LA. Examaner) published a book on making speed figures and before him Bob Hebert around 1965 (handicaper for LA. Times) also gave the bases of constructing speed figures in his book. I used my own figures in the early 70's per Prof. Jones made with help of a HP programmable calculator. Cleaned up big time especialy on the grass. Then came Beyer..........

I recently read Jones book. It was ok, but didn't really address variants. That was probably fine in California at the time, but it won't work most places.

[cj]

Here is the biggest flaw with Beyer figures:

"The Beyer Speed Figures purport to do only one thing: express how fast a horse has run in any previous race."

Really?

"The early pace on synthetics is sometimes so slow that the horses can’t accelerate fast enough at the end to run the fastest final time of which they are capable. If a horse is capable of running a mile in 1:36, but the first six furlongs of a race have been run in 1:14, he won’t get to the wire in 1:36. In such cases, we don’t want to give the horses in the field figures that are ridiculously low, so we’ll assign a figure to the race that more accurately reflects the horses’ true level of ability."

Clearly, this contradicts the first quote. It also doesn't just happen on synthetics, it happens on dirt and turf too. Figures are also manipulated like this when the pace is very fast as well.

The problem with this is that the pace doesn't effect all horses the same way, but Beyer adjusts all horses like it does.

[PhantomOnTour]

I would like a lineup of each guy on his team and what tracks he handles.

[Greyfox]

. Figures are also manipulated like this when the pace is very fast as well.

.

I don't recall that his original figures were adjusted for Pace.
If he's now doing that, then he's been influenced by the Sartin crowd.

[gm10]

Here is the biggest flaw with Beyer figures:

"The Beyer Speed Figures purport to do only one thing: express how fast a horse has run in any previous race."

Really?

"The early pace on synthetics is sometimes so slow that the horses can’t accelerate fast enough at the end to run the fastest final time of which they are capable. If a horse is capable of running a mile in 1:36, but the first six furlongs of a race have been run in 1:14, he won’t get to the wire in 1:36. In such cases, we don’t want to give the horses in the field figures that are ridiculously low, so we’ll assign a figure to the race that more accurately reflects the horses’ true level of ability."

Clearly, this contradicts the first quote. It also doesn't just happen on synthetics, it happens on dirt and turf too. Figures are also manipulated like this when the pace is very fast as well.

The problem with this is that the pace doesn't effect all horses the same way, but Beyer adjusts all horses like it does.

if they are adjusted for pace, do you think that they should still be called Speed Figures?

[cj]

I don't recall that his original figures were adjusted for Pace.
If he's now doing that, then he's been influenced by the Sartin crowd.

He doesn't advertise it, but with a little work it is easy to figure out when it is done...well, maybe a lot of work.

I formerly, many years ago, used the Beyer figure and made my own pace number to put along side of it. However, I found far too many races where this caused problems. This is why I decided to do both pace and speed myself.

Here is an example. A frontrunner that normally runs around an 80 battles for the lead with two others, puts them away, then hangs on by a nose over a closer that normally runs 65 on his best days. All the other races would point to the variant being stable, yet sometimes this race will be broken out an given an 80.

I calculate the pace figure as 30 points faster than the speed figure. In the old days, I would give the race a 110 next to Beyer's 80, which was just wrong. Today, I give it a 95/65 which is much better. It represents why the frontrunner didn't run as fast to the finish, and it also doesn't overstate how well the closer ran.

I'm not saying this happens often, but it happens enough that if I didn't account for it I'd be making some very bad figures. I have seen it have the same effect on the Moss figures on occasion. If I had to guess how many races are broken out by Beyer like this, I would say around 7-10%, which really adds up.

[cj]

if they are adjusted for pace, do you think that they should still be called Speed Figures?

See my post after yours...it isn't advertised, probably for this reason. Personally I don't care what they call them.

[illinoisbred]

I see the same here CJ but think they're altered/adjusted with a little greater frequency on AP synthetic races.

[cj]

I see the same here CJ but think they're altered/adjusted with a little greater frequency on AP synthetic races.

Oh, no doubt, the percentage is higher on turf and rubber. Sometimes they are just comical.

This is why when people tell me you can't convert foreign ratings to Beyers on turf I laugh, neither one are actually speed figures.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Beyer...."I don’t take seriously any speed figures that are purely computer-generated. There are too many situations that require human oversight. A strictly computerized methodology will too often produce a figure that defies common sense."


Andy is pretty sharp.....I guess he doesn't take seriously a couple of computer guys who win millions, maybe tens of millions, each year using this exact method that Andy scoffs at.

[cj]

Beyer...."I don’t take seriously any speed figures that are purely computer-generated. There are too many situations that require human oversight. A strictly computerized methodology will too often produce a figure that defies common sense."


Andy is pretty sharp.....I guess he doesn't take seriously a couple of computer guys who win millions, maybe tens of millions, each year using this exact method that Andy scoffs at.

I think they are using their computers for a lot more than making speed figures to win that kind of money. Am I wrong? They just make computerized figures and bet from those and nothing else?

[mrhorseplayer]

How can you give a number to a horses ability? The pace and chaos of a race and current conditions have more to do with it and how can you incorprate a number for each horse in a race then try to predict how the horse will run with a number rather then pace, prevailing conditions and chaos.

[Charlie D]

if they are adjusted for pace, do you think that they should still be called Speed Figures?


Beyer Rating or DRF rating or may be, we just plucked this number and that from out of the sky :D

[Cratos]

I am not a Beyer-basher or a speed figure antagonist, but I do believe that speed figures are too one-dimensional to determine accuracy and precision of a horse’s performance.

Accuracy in this context indicates proximity of measurement results to the true value and precision to the repeatability or reproducibility of the measurement

Can accuracy be obtained or should accuracy be obtained in horseracing?

My answer is yes if we are going to measure wins and losses by .007 of a second, the time equivalent of Zenyatta’s lost to Blame in the BC Classic.

Additionally, I find it disingenuous to disregard pace in assessing a horse’s performance in its past races.

Pace as I understand it is the rate of speed at which a horse runs or more succinctly a gait of a horse in which both feet on one side are lifted and put down together (if my understanding is incorrect I will hope that “Joanied” or someone who is knowledgeable corrects me)

Also there other impacts to be included in the calculation of the final time effort of a horse such as rate of turn and turn radius of the racetrack which the race is run.

This is all science which Beyer introduced when he mentioned in the article “mathematical underpinnings” and “accelerate.”

[Valuist]

I think they are using their computers for a lot more than making speed figures to win that kind of money. Am I wrong? They just make computerized figures and bet from those and nothing else?

I've heard its heavily trip oriented and they have a staff of 50-75 people who scrutinize the trips of all the horses that run in that part of the world.

[thaskalos]

Additionally, I find it disingenuous to disregard pace in assessing a horse’s performance in its past races.

Pace as I understand it is the rate of speed at which a horse runs or more succinctly a gait of a horse in which both feet on one side are lifted and put down together (if my understanding is incorrect I will hope that “Joanied” or someone who is knowledgeable corrects me)

Just because "pace" is excluded from most speed figures doesn't mean that we also should exclude it from our handicapping.

IMO...pace is a vital component of the "overall" handicapping process, especially when dealing with sprints...and it involves more than just identifying the pace setters in a race.

As CJ already stated, pace ratings should be independantly calculated and placed alongside of the speed figures...in order to form as accurate an opinion as possible about the ability of a given horse.

Speed figures deal with the totality of the race...whereas accurate PACE figures identify sudden quick bursts of speed WITHIN the race, which often indicate improving form, and which - more importantly - often explain why a particular horse's speed figure(s) might be lacking.

[cj]

How can you give a number to a horses ability? The pace and chaos of a race and current conditions have more to do with it and how can you incorprate a number for each horse in a race then try to predict how the horse will run with a number rather then pace, prevailing conditions and chaos.

You can't, but you can give one for the ability the horse showed in prior races.

Regardless of the knocks on figures, variant adjusted final time figures are still the best performance related, stand alone factor for predicting future race outcomes.

[cj]

I've heard its heavily trip oriented and they have a staff of 50-75 people who scrutinize the trips of all the horses that run in that part of the world.

If that is true, then what ITP wrote nothing to do with what Beyer was talking about.

[Gapfire]

You can't, but you can give one for the ability the horse showed in prior races.

Regardless of the knocks on figures, variant adjusted final time figures are still the best performance related, stand alone factor for predicting future race outcomes.

Overall this is true, but in certain types of races, and at different times there are aspects of pace that prevail over final speed figure time.

[Cratos]

Just because "pace" is excluded from most speed figures doesn't mean that we also should exclude it from our handicapping.

IMO...pace is a vital component of the "overall" handicapping process, especially when dealing with sprints...and it involves more than just identifying the pace setters in a race.

As CJ already stated, pace ratings should be independantly calculated and placed alongside of the speed figures...in order to form as accurate an opinion as possible about the ability of a given horse.

Speed figures deal with the totality of the race...whereas accurate PACE figures identify sudden quick bursts of speed WITHIN the race, which often indicate improving form, and which - more importantly - often explain why a particular horse's speed figure(s) might be lacking.

Thank you, but that is not what I was inferring. The inference is and not to belabor the point, but to ask can we not plot a time curve with respect to distance using the pace increments (at any length) of the race to determine the final time effort?

Therefore pace and final time becomes interdependent and if not you have a disjointed time curve for a discrete time result and that does not make sense.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

If that is true, then what ITP wrote nothing to do with what Beyer was talking about.

Sorry.....Had no idea there was only one computer guy/group betting on racing.....I thought there might be more than one but I guess not.

[cj]

Sorry.....Had no idea there was only one computer guy/group betting on racing.....I thought there might be more than one but I guess not.

I asked you to clarify, but you would rather give a smart ass reply. Beyer was talking about people making figures with no human judgment. Possible? I guess, but I guarantee in that case there is a lot of judgment built in by the human programmers. That is not what happens with BRIS and Equibase, the figures Beyer addressed.

They were specifically mentioned. No others, which is why I asked. I could point out tons of examples where those he were asked about are terribly flawed. Check out the current fastest older males in America according to Equibase:

Quality Road, 134
Understatement, 129
Green Spring, 127

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I asked you to clarify, but you would rather give a smart ass reply.

What do you want me to clarify......their entire operation, formula for making numbers or wagering strategies?

Beyer was talking about people making figures with no human judgment.

I can read and I knew exactly what he was talking about.

Possible? I guess, but I guarantee in that case there is a lot of judgment built in by the human programmers.

What most number makers don't understand fully or understand at all is that wagering is what seperates the men from the boys.

A sharp bettor can take somebody else's sharp numbers and make lets say ten times as much as the number maker can betting the same amount to start with. Now because of that, its much easier to bet more and in more pools which maybe by the end of year it might equal 1000's, even 10's of thousands times more profit than the number maker makes.

I was with a ultra-sharp numbers guy/handicapper years ago (I would bet his opinion blind but he's very tough to deal with). I was on vacation, just came back from being out at the farm looking at babies and went to the track for the last couple. Our friend had the favorite in the feature, we both hated him because we knew he worked bad and I saw the 2nd choice looked horrible on the track. I borrowed my friend's form for 30 seconds, realized that 6 horses had some chance, threw out the 2 favs and one other horse that had no possible chance. Made a $10 tri-bx and a $2 sup-bx with the remaining 6. He attacked the race by betting the 4th fav to win and 2 ex boxes with 3rd fav and 5th fav and 2 other small ex boxes with the 2 favs, just in case. Both favs were out. He lost, I got back 36K. He knew before and he knows after that I bet a million times better than him but he can't change or even mimic what I did/would do.

So yes, they just make numbers like Andy scoffed at that are strictly computer generated, no human judgement, but because they/the computer knows when to wager and wagers better than 99% of other number makers, obviously they overcome the times when their numbers are misguided, but all number makers have numbers that are misguided.

If you have a great opinion on horses that can't win or you don't like and they are short prices.....just follow one rule......bet like the race is fixed.....don't use them on a single ticket.....don't bet on "A" horse as a way to attack the race.....bet at least 80%+ of your wager on tri's and supers.....And get a Betfair account if you are able to.

[owlet]

Arthur Brooks--owner of the Racing Digest at one time--once told me that Beyer's figures are a "performance rating", not a "speed figure." After thinking it over, I had to agree with him and, for me, that is what is disturbing about Andy's attempt to disavow any influence of trip, pace, etc. He hides behind this paradox--hey, it's just a speed figure; uh, no Andy, it really isn't.

Example: in 2004 Sweet Return wins the Hollywood Derby in the presposterously slow time of 2:04.27. A friend and I calculated the raw figure at 87 max on the Beyer scale. The next Wednesday, Andy comes back with a fig of 100. The race was run on an absurdly slow pace, which he obviously accounted for in reaching the final fig.

[cj]

What most number makers don't understand fully or understand at all is that wagering is what seperates the men from the boys.


I would agree with that, no doubt about it. I just think the point was that you can't do well with numbers from Equibase or BRIS, because they are not very good.

[gm10]

I would agree with that, no doubt about it. I just think the point was that you can't do well with numbers from Equibase or BRIS, because they are not very good.

The only way to be sure of that is by testing them and as far as I know, nobody has published such results yet.

[Greyfox]

What most number makers don't understand fully or understand at all is that wagering is what seperates the men from the boys.

.

Obviously wagering and making numbers are two distinct areas.
Figuring out winners is one thing. Betting them is another.
What evidence do you have that "most number makers don't fully or understand at all that wagering is what separates the men from the boys."??

I see where cj agreed with you somewhat on that.
I don't. What proof do you have for that statement?
That's a silly statement to make without supportive evidence.

[cj]

Obviously wagering and making numbers are two distinct areas.
Figuring out winners is one thing. Betting them is another.
What evidence do you have that "most number makers don't fully or understand at all that wagering is what separates the men from the boys."??

I see where cj agreed with you somewhat on that.
I don't. What proof do you have for that statement?
That's a silly statement to make without supportive evidence.

That isn't what I was agreeing with in my post.

[Greyfox]

That isn't what I was agreeing with in my post.

I'm glad to read that.
I didn't think that you'd agree with that. But you did quote that comment and say: "I would agree with that, no doubt about it."

That's why I was wondering. I responded because I felt that your reply may have unintentionally given that Insidethepylons reinforcement for an idea that likely doesn't hold water.

[cj]

I'm glad to read that.
I didn't think that you'd agree with that. But you did quote that comment and say: "I would agree with that, no doubt about it."

That's why I was wondering. I responded because I felt that your reply may have unintentionally given that Insidethepylons reinforcement for an idea that likely doesn't hold water.

I meant the second part, that was all. Bad quote by me.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Obviously wagering and making numbers are two distinct areas.
Figuring out winners is one thing. Betting them is another.
What evidence do you have that "most number makers don't fully or understand at all that wagering is what separates the men from the boys."??

I see where cj agreed with you somewhat on that.
I don't. What proof do you have for that statement?
That's a silly statement to make without supportive evidence.

No evidence Your Honor.

Just an observation based on 25 years of being a professional horseplayer.

Don't take it personal......most people, not just number makers, underachieve at the wagering aspect of the game.

If you give me a random winning bettor whose main focus is on making numbers vs a random winning bettor who doesn't make numbers......I'm betting that the non-number maker has more betting skill/more wagering creativity/a better understanding of how to extract money from a race-opinion than the number maker.....I'm not going be right all the time, but I'm going to be right most of the time.

[Greyfox]

No evidence Your Honor.

.

Objection sustained. The jury will ignore that specific statement of Mr. Pylon's
re: players who are number makers.

(I wasn't questioning your creativity as a bettor or horseplayer. You probably can beat most players who are blindly plugging in numbers. But I think that you'd find that those people who actually make their own numbers are a different subset than the anecdotal samples you have observed. I don't have proof for that either.)

[mrhorseplayer]

another thing is I do not waste my time on numbers. They are right there on the form with the drf speed and track variant numbers. I think ticket construction has a lot to do with it also as insidethepylons touched on this a little. I am a tri and super player and know all about constructing tickets. What to use as fillers is part of it where I do not think the numbers give you a clear picture of what to use as fillers or how a race is going to shape up.

[Cratos]

Arthur Brooks--owner of the Racing Digest at one time--once told me that Beyer's figures are a "performance rating", not a "speed figure." After thinking it over, I had to agree with him and,..............

You are very right and if you are wrong, Beyer and others should have some "science" (not opinion or conjecture) to refute you.

This doesn't say that they (speed figures) shouldn’t be used, but it does say that their use is because of popularity and not because of "science."

[Saratoga_Mike]

You are very right and if you are wrong, Beyer and others should have some "science" (not opinion or conjecture) to refute you.

This doesn't say that they (speed figures) shouldn’t be used, but it does say that their use is because of popularity and not because of "science."

Please already. You want to apply engineering principles learned at MIT to horse racing.* You don't view that as a stretch? Does the irony ever dawn on you? Your calculations are much more PRECISE, but I highly doubt they are much more ACCURATE. But I understand - you're an engineer at heart - you must have structure and precision.

*gleaned from reading tons of your posts

[Cratos]

Please already. You want to apply engineering principles learned at MIT to horse racing.* You don't view that as a stretch? Does the irony ever dawn on you? Your calculations are much more PRECISE, but I highly doubt they are much more ACCURATE. But I understand - you're an engineer at heart - you must have structure and precision.

*gleaned from reading tons of your posts

You need to stop the inferences and comment on what is being written. If you click on the link in post #1 of this thread and read the linked article you clearly see that “math and science” was stated.

My comment was to the finding of the poster in post #27 of this thread. If you think speed figures are a science then prove it. I am always willing to learn something new.

[thaskalos]

If you think speed figures are a science then prove it. I am always willing to learn something new.
Whoever claimed that speed figures - or handicapping itself, for that matter - were a science?

We may borrow something from science in order to make the handicapping process a little more accurate, but profitable horseplaying was, is, and always will be...AN ART!

[Saratoga_Mike]

You need to stop the inferences and comment on what is being written. If you click on the link in post #1 of this thread and read the linked article you clearly see that “math and science” was stated.

My comment was to the finding of the poster in post #27 of this thread. If you think speed figures are a science then prove it. I am always willing to learn something new.

My comments were based on reading a large number of your posted comments on this message board, as stated in my prior post. Did I read your every post in this thread? No, but I did read your "I'm not a Beyer-basher" post. You aren't? Beyer drives you crazy, which is very odd given you have a very controlled personality.

When did I or Andy Beyer say speed figures were pure science? You're the king of drawing that inference. You constantly imply things about Beyer and his handicapping beliefs that are completely untrue.

"Prove it." You love that phrase. Beyers are part art and part science. How can I prove that? I can't, which of course makes you very uncomfortable.

Why don't you PROVE your approach is superior? Start posting your picks.

[Cratos]

Whoever claimed that speed figures - or handicapping itself, for that matter - were a science?

We may borrow something from science in order to make the handicapping process a little more accurate, but profitable horseplaying was, is, and always will be...AN ART!


And where is that proof?

[thaskalos]

And where is that proof?Do YOU think that you have supplied enough proof to the contrary?

[Saratoga_Mike]

And where is that proof?

Okay, what do you want this poster to prove?

[cj's dad]

The kid s# work - Next comment

[Saratoga_Mike]

The kid s# work - Next comment

But can you PROVE IT??? :rolleyes:

[thaskalos]

The numbers work ONLY if you interpret them right...and that's where the art comes in.

[JustRalph]

But can you PROVE IT??? :rolleyes:

i proved it during the breeder's cup.......... and I never use his numbers

in fact reading them drive me crazy, but I paid attention to them and played all weekend on CJ money..............next.............

[Saratoga_Mike]

i proved it during the breeder's cup.......... and I never use his numbers

in fact reading them drive me crazy, but I paid attention to them and played all weekend on CJ money..............next.............

Nothing to prove to me. I'm a believer in speed figures. It's others who want the proof.

[cj's dad]

The numbers work ONLY if you interpret them right...and that's where the art comes in.

Well Duh ?

[Cratos]

My comments were based on reading a large number of your posted comments on this message board, as stated in my prior post. Did I read your every post in this thread? No, but I did read your "I'm not a Beyer-basher" post. You aren't? Beyer drives you crazy, which is very odd given you have a very controlled personality.

When did I or Andy Beyer say speed figures were pure science? You're the king of drawing that inference. You constantly imply things about Beyer and his handicapping beliefs that are completely untrue.

"Prove it." You love that phrase. Beyers are part art and part science. How can I prove that? I can't, which of course makes you very uncomfortable.

Why don't you PROVE your approach is superior? Start posting your picks.




Although I appreciate your characterization of me with your perception of my respect for Andy Beyer, I found it wrongly directed and not substantiated. I do not know Mr. Beyer personally and could not and will not make a make a remark, good or bad in that direction.

However if you read the ‘Paulick Report” linked in post #1 of this thread and read the following Beyer comment: “I question the logic of taking one aspect of a horse’s trip (ground loss) and incorporating that into his figure while ignoring other aspects that might be even more important (particularly pace.)” you might wonder what is being stated because the LOGIC is accurately defining the numerator in the speed formula regardless how you are using the formula.

If you read on in the same article it got better with this comment: “I don’t take seriously any speed figures that are purely computer-generated.” I am not clearly sure of what he is not sure about, but the principle of using computers to aid horseplayers in the process of handicapping is to utilize the computing power and analysis capabilities of software systems such that computing and visualization of the race can be accomplished with a manageable effort.

Incidentally, I sorry to disappoint you, but I rarely post any picks on this forum or any Internet forum and when I do it is typically one of the TC races or the BC races; the reason being is that I am not a public handicapper.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If you read on in the same article it got better with this comment: “I don’t take seriously any speed figures that are purely computer-generated.” I am not clearly sure of what he is not sure about, but the principle of using computers to aid horseplayers in the process of handicapping is to utilize the computing power and analysis capabilities of software systems such that computing and visualization of the race can be accomplished with a manageable effort.

Incidentally, I sorry to disappoint you, but I rarely post any picks on this forum or any Internet forum and when I do it is typically one of the TC races or the BC races; the reason being is that I am not a public handicapper.

To borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan, there you go again... It is you who is trying to making handicapping a science, not Andy Beyer. Perhaps you don't even deny this?

Why not just generate speed figures with a computer (i.e., load in par times and have the variant calculated automatically)? Because believe it or not sometimes the human mind is more powerful and insightful than a computer. You disagree with that statement, don't you? Unusual things happen on a daily basis (e.g., a monster firster runs a huge raw number or a split variant is required), which require the tinkering of a dumb human.

Is there a requirement that you be a public handicapper to post your selections on a consistent basis? PROVE IT!

[Cratos]

To borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan, there you go again... It is you who is trying to making handicapping a science, not Andy Beyer. Perhaps you don't even deny this?

Why not just generate speed figures with a computer (i.e., load in par times and have the variant calculated automatically)? Because believe it or not sometimes the human mind is more powerful and insightful than a computer. You disagree with that statement, don't you? Unusual things happen on a daily basis (e.g., a monster firster runs a huge raw number or a split variant is required), which require the tinkering of a dumb human.

Is there a requirement that you be a public handicapper to post your selections on a consistent basis? PROVE IT!


You win because it’s difficult for me to respond to out of context and disjointed statements.

However there aren’t any requirements to make public your handicapping picks, but it is foolish to do so without motive.

Also the science comes from this partial statement in the Paulick Report: “….made some technical changes to the mathematical underpinnings of our calculations” Since math is a science the partial statement can be rewritten as “…..made some technical changes to the scientific underpinnings of our calculations”

Ronald Reagan also said " ...trust must be verified."

[Saratoga_Mike]

You win because it’s difficult for me to respond to out of context and disjointed statements.

However there aren’t any requirements to make public your handicapping picks, but it is foolish to do so without motive.

Also the science comes from this partial statement in the Paulick Report: “….made some technical changes to the mathematical underpinnings of our calculations” Since math is a science the partial statement can be rewritten as “…..made some technical changes to the scientific underpinnings of our calculations”

Ronald Reagan also said " ...trust must be verified."

First, Reagan said "trust but verify," not "trust must be verified."

There was nothing disjointed about my post. You simply want to look at racing as a physics project, whereas I don't.

[Cratos]

First, Reagan said "trust but verify," not "trust must be verified."

There was nothing disjointed about my post. You simply want to look at racing as a physics project, whereas I don't.

Thanks

[Saratoga_Mike]

Thanks

You're welcome.

[Gallop58]

Just a two-cent comment:
If Beyer figs are the sign of the apocolypse, aren't they the perfect disinformation opportunity taking public money in the wrong direction? If they're so useless, one could likely make a buck or two strictly by studying Beyer figures and betting those situations where the public's been led astray.

Of course you all know that, but I just didn't see any comment about it. All this stuff is just information. It isn't good, isn't bad, it just is.

OK, enough philosophy.... Sorry about that.

[ronsmac]

The problem with fig's are, that the track is never exactly the same from race to race because of wind, watering,sun,and run up. Though Ragozin adjust for run up, and supposedly wind, but wind changes subtlely while the race is run. Beyer doesn't account for run up and this is disastrous when dealing with races with long run ups like mile races at Santa Anita.

[cj]

The problem with fig's are, that the track is never exactly the same from race to race because of wind, watering,sun,and run up. Though Ragozin adjust for run up, and supposedly wind, but wind changes subtlely while the race is run. Beyer doesn't account for run up and this is disastrous when dealing with races with long run ups like mile races at Santa Anita.

What makes you think he doesn't account for run up?

[illinoisbred]

I don't believe the Ragozin sheets adjust for wind. Don't they use a symbol(use to be the letter G=gusty) to denote windy days?

[Tom]

Mark Hopkins wrote an article for DRF once about how he accounted for the run ups.

[cj]

Mark Hopkins wrote an article for DRF once about how he accounted for the run ups.

This was my point, of course they try.

I will say, however, that accounting for run ups is not as cut and dried as many would believe. Since they have been published I have studied thousands of races at all different distances. The conclusions you can draw about the effect of various run ups on final time are cloudy at best.

[gm10]

This was my point, of course they try.

I will say, however, that accounting for run ups is not as cut and dried as many would believe. Since they have been published I have studied thousands of races at all different distances. The conclusions you can draw about the effect of various run ups on final time are cloudy at best.

Then don't draw any. There is no need to.

[cj]

Then don't draw any. There is no need to.

I haven't.

[Valuist]

I don't believe the Ragozin sheets adjust for wind. Don't they use a symbol(use to be the letter G=gusty) to denote windy days?

I'm not a Ragozin sheet player but I did attend a seminar of theirs about 10 years ago and they do use wind as a factor. They may make a notation on VERY gusty days, but it is taken into account by both T-Graph and Ragozin.

[Cratos]

The problem with fig's are, that the track is never exactly the same from race to race because of wind, watering,sun,and run up. Though Ragozin adjust for run up, and supposedly wind, but wind changes subtlely while the race is run. Beyer doesn't account for run up and this is disastrous when dealing with races with long run ups like mile races at Santa Anita.

Wind is the number one problem when an object is moving through space and it doesn’t make any difference if it is a horse or a jumbo jet; Phil Bull’s treatise proved it for horses.

More importantly the Beyer figures do not account for distance travelled which is incorrectly called “ground lost.”

[Pell Mell]

This may be a dumb question coming from a dummy but doesn't Trakus or whatever it's called, in use at WO and another track, give each horse an individual time for the whole race and include distance traveled? If so, and if figures are so important, why isn't anybody cleaning up at these tracks. :confused:

[PaceAdvantage]

If so, and if figures are so important, why isn't anybody cleaning up at these tracks. :confused:What leads you to believe they aren't?

[gm10]

What leads you to believe they aren't?

I doubt that they are on the basis of speed figures alone. Some clever use of figs might lead to a positive ROI, but they won't be 'cleaning up' without being very good bettors. IMO

[PaceAdvantage]

I doubt that they are on the basis of speed figures alone. Some clever use of figs might lead to a positive ROI, but they won't be 'cleaning up' without being very good bettors. IMONo kidding. A good bettor with a good set of figures can easily clean up anywhere. The hard part is becoming a good bettor...it's somewhat easier to get your hands on good figures.

[Pell Mell]

What leads you to believe they aren't?

I suppose I thought that the chalk would win a lot more. :blush:

[thaskalos]

No kidding. A good bettor with a good set of figures can easily clean up anywhere. The hard part is becoming a good bettor...it's somewhat easier to get your hands on good figures.It's pretty easy to get your hands on some good figures...the difficult part is in relating these figures to the race "dynamics" that the horses are asked to face.

Things like wide trips, premature moves, contested leads, slight hesitations at the start, outside posts, too fast or too slow early fractions, inappropriate class levels, etc...all play an important role in interpreting the figures the right way.

As Andy Beyer has said..."HOW the horse's figure was earned is more important than the figure itself."

[cj]

It's pretty easy to get your hands on some good figures...the difficult part is in relating these figures to the race "dynamics" that the horses are asked to face.

Things like wide trips, premature moves, contested leads, slight hesitations at the start, outside posts, too fast or too slow early fractions, inappropriate class levels, etc...all play an important role in interpreting the figures the right way.

As Andy Beyer has said..."HOW the horse's figure was earned is more important than the figure itself."

You need both...I wouldn't say one trumps the other, but if it did it would be figures. There are no trips in slow races.

[thaskalos]

You need both...I wouldn't say one trumps the other, but if it did it would be figures. There are no trips in slow races.I agree, you do need both...and I don't think that one trumps the other.

I just think that - with the widespread availability of accurate figures - there is a tendency for some players to get lazy, and place too much emphasis on the figures...while ignoring the equally important task of properly analyzing the circumstances under which these figures were earned.

[gm10]

No kidding. A good bettor with a good set of figures can easily clean up anywhere. The hard part is becoming a good bettor...it's somewhat easier to get your hands on good figures.

Well there you go. For once we agree.

Note that you don't need figs to 'clean up'. You can be a great bettor without figs. In my opinion anyway.

[shoelessjoe]

Years ago Bill Olmstead produced some really great pace and speed figures his key figure races worked well too.Eventually he got burned out doing them by hand.