Preakness Beyer

[cj]

104

[cj]

I should mention Beyer clearly split the variant between the earlier races and the last two routes. Given the extremely slow pace of the 10th, I think he is on pretty shaky ground.

[keithw84]

I should mention Beyer clearly split the variant between the earlier races and the last two routes. Given the extremely slow pace of the 10th, I think he is on pretty shaky ground.

Can you explain a little what this means?

[cj]

Can you explain a little what this means?

Sure...

The pace for the 10th race was abnormally slow. It is very unlikely that those horses were good enough to still run the "normal" speed figure, that which they are capable of running with an honest pace. Yet, Beyer boosted the figure from what would have been a 92 if he used the same variant as the other races to a 100.

He is, in effect, saying the track slowed over the day. I am not saying that it isn't possible. It happens all the time. However, I think given the pace of that race, and the fast pace of the Preakness, that it is much more likely that the pace caused the figures to be lower than he expected for races 10 and 12, not a changing race track.

[Tom]

So a the Preakness may be only a 96 or so?

[keithw84]

Sure...

The pace for the 10th race was abnormally slow. It is very unlikely that those horses were good enough to still run the "normal" speed figure, that which they are capable of running with an honest pace. Yet, Beyer boosted the figure from what would have been a 92 if he used the same variant as the other races to a 100.

He is, in effect, saying the track slowed over the day. I am not saying that it isn't possible. It happens all the time. However, I think given the pace of that race, and the fast pace of the Preakness, that it is much more likely that the pace caused the figures to be lower than he expected for races 10 and 12, not a changing race track.

Got it...

Not sure if people here look at PFs much, but I see Shackleford got a -64 and that the top three finishers all bested Animal Kingdom's -52 in the Derby.

[cj]

So a the Preakness may be only a 96 or so?

I'll be honest, it is a really tough call. I think it is in the high 90s range since I have the other races a little different as well. I'm still not done.

People might wonder what the difference is if the pace changed the final time.

In the Preakness, if I gave the same 104 final figure as Beyer, that would give Animal Kingdom pretty much the same race as he ran in the Derby? Does anyone believe he ran as well this week as he did with a bias in his favor two weeks ago?

Also, it would give Shackleford pace figures of 132-115-104, meaning he ran HUGE and still held on. Neither of those pass the smell test for me. I think AK regressed a bit and Shackleford ran his usual race, which for me means when combining speed and pace he gets a low 100s rating.

[PhantomOnTour]

What was the Beyer for R4-Gr3 DuPont Distaff? Must be very close to the Preakness fig, huh?

[Steve R]

Got it...

Not sure if people here look at PFs much, but I see Shackleford got a -64 and that the top three finishers all bested Animal Kingdom's -52 in the Derby.
I think the race was about average for recent editions of the Preakness. If you plot the route race variants vs race number (or starting time of the race) and run a regression analysis you get a straight line with a correlation coefficient of 0.99, which is virtual linearity. The line suggests the variant was changing continuously throughout the day with the track getting progressively slower. By the 12th race the variant was 6 to 7 slow so the adjustment brings the Preakness time down to about 1:55.0 or 1:55.1. 1:55.0 is exactly the average Preakness time over the previous 10 runnings on a fast surface. IOW, taking into account the continuous change in track speed throughout the day, this Preakness was about average. Beyer's Preakness par is 110 which I think is a little high. Incidentally, you get an identical linear trend (correlation coefficient 0.99) when analyzing the sprints. It's almost impossible to explain the observed linearity without invoking a continuously changing track variant.

Frankly, I think the calculation of variants is the weakest aspect of figure making. Not many figure maker seem to realize that variants aren't necessarily constant throughout the day or, occasionally, can't simply be split between groups of races. It's a much more dynamic process, especially when environmental conditions change rapidly. It had rained in Baltimore for several days prior to the Preakness, so the excess moisture set the track up for a change in surface characteristics as it was slowly drying out. The turf course remained soggy and was dead slow. The interaction of heat, humidity, wind and sunlight is very complex and I think Beyer may have missed the subtlety of a continuously changing variant scenario. I see this phenomenon quite often and routinely apply some type of regression analysis to variant calculations. Even so, the BSF equivalent to my PF for Shackleford is between 105 and 106, so I don't think Beyer was that far off.

[The Hawk]

What was the Beyer for R4-Gr3 DuPont Distaff? Must be very close to the Preakness fig, huh?

100.

[outofthebox]

Sure...

The pace for the 10th race was abnormally slow. It is very unlikely that those horses were good enough to still run the "normal" speed figure, that which they are capable of running with an honest pace. Yet, Beyer boosted the figure from what would have been a 92 if he used the same variant as the other races to a 100.

He is, in effect, saying the track slowed over the day. I am not saying that it isn't possible. It happens all the time. However, I think given the pace of that race, and the fast pace of the Preakness, that it is much more likely that the pace caused the figures to be lower than he expected for races 10 and 12, not a changing race track.Agree 100%. There was no pace on paper in the 10th. Gomez quoting that they backed up the pace down the backside which is why he moved Apart into it. They came home the last 5/16 in 30, just wasnt fast enough to record a faster final time.

[gm10]

I'll be honest, it is a really tough call. I think it is in the high 90s range since I have the other races a little different as well. I'm still not done.

People might wonder what the difference is if the pace changed the final time.

In the Preakness, if I gave the same 104 final figure as Beyer, that would give Animal Kingdom pretty much the same race as he ran in the Derby? Does anyone believe he ran as well this week as he did with a bias in his favor two weeks ago?

Also, it would give Shackleford pace figures of 132-115-104, meaning he ran HUGE and still held on. Neither of those pass the smell test for me. I think AK regressed a bit and Shackleford ran his usual race, which for me means when combining speed and pace he gets a low 100s rating.

I think AK ran a huge race. To get within half a length from that position, against such a slow pace (yes, a slow pace), was simply brilliant. Shackleford isn't a bad sort but got the perfect set up, and is very unlikely to ever beat AK again over 9-10F (in my opinion). Also, this was vintage Velazquez. He's not a bad rider but he was too far back and too focused on Dialed In. He just makes this kind of mistake a bit too often to be a five star jockey (same with Ramon).

I don't really buy the Kentucky Derby late speed bias. Most of the speed horses that finished up the track were improbable longshots anyway. I acknowledge that late speed probably did a little bit better than usual on the day, but calling it a bias goes too far in my opinion. If that long shot hadn't won the Humana Distaff (the speed easily stayed on for 2nd/3rd), we'd be looking at 4 winners on/near the lead and 5 winners that were 3-6 lengths off the lead. That's not significant enough.

[cj]

I think AK ran a huge race. To get within half a length from that position, against such a slow pace (yes, a slow pace), was simply brilliant. Shackleford isn't a bad sort but got the perfect set up, and is very unlikely to ever beat AK again over 9-10F (in my opinion). Also, this was vintage Velazquez. He's not a bad rider but he was too far back and too focused on Dialed In. He just makes this kind of mistake a bit too often to be a five star jockey (same with Ramon).



A perfect set up? He went faster than he would have liked and still held on. You'd rather give credit for laying well off a fast pace. To each his own, but I think Shackleford is clearly the better horse. I don't boost horses on dirt that don't show enough speed early.

It will be interesting to track those coming out of route races on Derby day in the coming weeks.

[gm10]

A perfect set up? He went faster than he would have liked and still held on. You'd rather give credit for laying well off a fast pace. To each his own, but I think Shackleford is clearly the better horse. I don't boost horses on dirt that don't show enough speed early.

It will be interesting to track those coming out of route races on Derby day in the coming weeks.


He didn't go fast at all. The race went in 72.01 over the first 6F. That's the slowest Preakness fractions I have in my database (=since 2001). He didn't have to duel either, the sprinter Flashpoint just stopped. All he had to do after that was defend his 15 length bonus on AK on a speed favouring surface.

If I could bet the race again, I'd bet AK even harder. All he needed was a better ride. Give me GG or Mike Smith over JV any day.

[cj]

He didn't go fast at all. The race went in 72.01 over the first 6F. That's the slowest Preakness fractions I have in my database (=since 2001). He didn't have to duel either, the sprinter Flashpoint just stopped. All he had to do after that was defend his 15 length bonus on AK on a speed favouring surface.

If I could bet the race again, I'd bet AK even harder. All he needed was a better ride. Give me GG or Mike Smith over JV any day.

How fast did he go compared to other "winners" of the Preakness? I don't care about those that chucked it in.

I've said already I don't think JV did Animal Kingdom any favors, but I still don't think he was the best horse in the race.

How was the surface speed favoring? He was the only horse to win near the front in the four routes all day. The winners were 7th of 8, 5th of 6, and 4th of 6 early.

[PhantomOnTour]

According to the charts most dirt winners stalked wide or came wide into the stretch, and a few even "circled on the turn".
Only Ventana and Shackleford had winning trips near the inside.
He ran a very nice race.

[gm10]

How fast did he go compared to other "winners" of the Preakness? I don't care about those that chucked it in.

I've said already I don't think JV did Animal Kingdom any favors, but I still don't think he was the best horse in the race.

How was the surface speed favoring? He was the only horse to win near the front in the four routes all day. The winners were 7th of 8, 5th of 6, and 4th of 6 early.

Hmmm, race 10 winner wasn't far either, and the sprints were all won by horses who were leading or at least prominent.

If you think that pace was fast, then you're welcome to, I just can't agree to that. Furlongs 3, 4, 5 and 6 were very slow imo, and in the end he was just tracking a speed horse which was spent after 6F. I think he ran the race of his life and I'll be keen to oppose him if the circumstances warrant it in his next race.

[Valuist]

I think AK ran a huge race. To get within half a length from that position, against such a slow pace (yes, a slow pace), was simply brilliant. Shackleford isn't a bad sort but got the perfect set up, and is very unlikely to ever beat AK again over 9-10F (in my opinion). Also, this was vintage Velazquez. He's not a bad rider but he was too far back and too focused on Dialed In. He just makes this kind of mistake a bit too often to be a five star jockey (same with Ramon).

I don't really buy the Kentucky Derby late speed bias. Most of the speed horses that finished up the track were improbable longshots anyway. I acknowledge that late speed probably did a little bit better than usual on the day, but calling it a bias goes too far in my opinion. If that long shot hadn't won the Humana Distaff (the speed easily stayed on for 2nd/3rd), we'd be looking at 4 winners on/near the lead and 5 winners that were 3-6 lengths off the lead. That's not significant enough.

You didn't watch many races on Derby day at Churchill, did you?

[gm10]

You didn't watch many races on Derby day at Churchill, did you?

I saw most of them. I re-watched the Derby and Humana before posting. I think that CD is often biased in some way but I didn't see anything spectacular that day.

From studying the Derby sectionals it is pretty clear to me what happened. Unless the sectionals are wrong of course.

Clearly I am missing something, however, so please enlighten me.

[PaceAdvantage]

gm10 is just pissed off I had the winner and the exacta posted cold using cj's figs. Either that, or Zenyatta and all that European racing has turned his brain to mush.... :lol:

Relax gm10, that was just a joke...

[gm10]

gm10 is just pissed off I had the winner and the exacta posted cold using cj's figs. Either that, or Zenyatta and all that European racing has turned his brain to mush.... :lol:

Relax gm10, that was just a joke...

As I said elsewhere it's not up to the handicapper to legitimize a winner, whether that winner is called Shackleford (or called Zenyatta ;) ).
Joking aside, it was a fine effort by both you and Shack.

Regarding the late speed bias at CD ... I admit my principal test for deciding on whether there was indeed such a bias or not, is different from what most handicappers use, so I am interested to hear how people came to their conclusion.

[rastajenk]

To my eyeball test, I don't think the Derby Day or the Preakness Day tracks were much biased at all. Late runners could sustain stretch-long rallies; some leaders got caught, others didn't. It seems to me the tracks have offered no excuses, nearly everything has been able to run the races they were trained to do.

I usually think too much is made of bias to begin with, so I'm starting with an anti-bias bias. :cool:

[classhandicapper]

I think the very fact that so many informed players can't agree on whether there was a bias demonstrates conclusively that there's a lot of value if you can.

[PhantomOnTour]

I think the very fact that so many informed players can't agree on whether there was a bias demonstrates conclusively that there's a lot of value if you can.
Great point.
I only consider a track bias when it was extreme. The inside was really good or really bad.
I love when I read that a track was "slightly biased" towards speed or whatever....slightly biased? What the hell is that? Slightly fair?

[Tom]

My rule of thumb is that is no bias unless I see very strong evidence of one. When in doubt, there was none.

[Dark Bay]

I don't know how anyone can read the charts and conclude that the Preakness pace was fast.

Preakness 2010 - 22.91 46.47 1.11.22 1.36.26 1.55.47
Preakness 2011 - 22.69 46.87 1.12.01 1.37.22 1.56.47

[cj]

I don't know how anyone can read the charts and conclude that the Preakness pace was fast.

Preakness 2010 - 22.91 46.47 1.11.22 1.36.26 1.55.47
Preakness 2011 - 22.69 46.87 1.12.01 1.37.22 1.56.47

It is all relative. For one, I don't think many would argue that the track was faster in 2010. Second, while those fractions in 2011 are very close to those of the winner since he was about 1/2 length back at most, the same can't be said for the winner in 2010. Lookin At Lucky came from midpack.

Figure wise, which accounts for track speed, I had the Preakness in 2010 as 109 after 6f, and 101 at the finish. This year, I had 110 after 6f, and 99 at the finish. Both qualify as having a fast shape, but the winner of the second was close up. To me, fast is relative to final time and the horses in the race. A 110 isn't fast for G1 older males, but for this crop of young 3yos, it is fast. The year Curlin won, he went 109-111, so a 109 certainly wasn't fast for him. It was, however, for this bunch.

[Dark Bay]

It is all relative. For one, I don't think many would argue that the track was faster in 2010. Second, while those fractions in 2011 are very close to those of the winner since he was about 1/2 length back at most, the same can't be said for the winner in 2010. Lookin At Lucky came from midpack.

Figure wise, which accounts for track speed, I had the Preakness in 2010 as 109 after 6f, and 101 at the finish. This year, I had 110 after 6f, and 99 at the finish. Both qualify as having a fast shape, but the winner of the second was close up. To me, fast is relative to final time and the horses in the race. A 110 isn't fast for G1 older males, but for this crop of young 3yos, it is fast. The year Curlin won, he went 109-111, so a 109 certainly wasn't fast for him. It was, however, for this bunch.


I don't accept that the Pimlico track was faster in 2010. Comparing the two days, the fastest 6F and the fastest 8.5 races were recorded this year. An average filly won the 2011 Allaire Dupont (G3) in a faster time than Blame could manage. Yet, the 2010 Preakness was run 1 full second faster than the 2011 edition. What am I missing?

[Bruddah]

I think the very fact that so many informed players can't agree on whether there was a bias demonstrates conclusively that there's a lot of value if you can.


Very True, but only if it's is determined before one bets and not days/weeks after the race is run. Which is 99.9% of the argument/discussion on this thread. Therefore, it doesn't mean squat. Just a bunch of babble and neither side can validate there positions.