View Full Version : Saturday BC Beyers
Marathon 95
Juvenile Turf 88
Sprint 107
Turf Sprint 102
Dirt Mile 111
Turf 109 (not sure that is exact, but close)
Juvenile 94
Mile 103
Classic 104 (Wow, that sucks!)
classhandicapper
11-06-2011, 10:36 AM
A 104 is not that hard to believe, but in a way it IS hard to believe because some decent horses finished behind that figure. That always happens in very deep fields (some of the good horses have to finish way back), but this is kind of extreme.
I'm starting to come around the point of view that the CD surface is a little quirky. Some horses just don't seem to like it.
Maybe it was also a tad more tiring than usual and that made the 10F race come up a little slower than some of the shorter races.
How did you rate the bias on your numbers?
A 104 is not that hard to believe, but in a way it IS hard to believe because some decent horses finished behind that figure. That always happens in very deep fields (some of the good horses have to finish way back), but this is kind of extreme.
I'm starting to come around the point of view that the CD surface is a little quirky. Some horses just don't seem to like it.
Maybe it was also a tad more tiring than usual and that made the 10F race come up a little slower than some of the shorter races.
How did you rate the bias on your numbers?
I have it a little low, but that is expected on a day with high class races. I'm working on the variants now.
Jasonm921
11-06-2011, 10:48 AM
I could see those numbers as being correct. Caleb's Posse looks to be the star in regards to his specific distance window (7f-mile) and he got the highest number in a range that is consistent with being a division leader.
Steve R
11-06-2011, 01:20 PM
Marathon 95
Juvenile Turf 88
Sprint 107
Turf Sprint 102
Dirt Mile 111
Turf 109 (not sure that is exact, but close)
Juvenile 94
Mile 103
Classic 104 (Wow, that sucks!)
I don't know. I'm looking at the class/distance pars for CD and the comparisons of the actual times to par times for older graded stakes males are as follows
Drosselmeyer, 2:04.1 vs 2:02.1 = 10 slow
Hansen, 1:44.2 vs 1:42.2 = 10 slow
Caleb's Posse, 1:34.2 vs 1:33.4 = 3 slow
Amazombie, 1:09.0 vs 1:08.0 = 5s
The one-turn races are close to each other with the edge to Caleb's Posse, which seems reasonable. And even though Hansen is a 2yo, his parallel time is equivalent to Drosselmeyer's. So how are they 10 Beyer points apart? I'm not counting the Marathon because that is pure guesswork and can only be estimated using projections, a dubious process at best.
I don't know. I'm looking at the class/distance pars for CD and the comparisons of the actual times to par times for older graded stakes males are as follows
Drosselmeyer, 2:04.1 vs 2:02.1 = 10 slow
Hansen, 1:44.2 vs 1:42.2 = 10 slow
Caleb's Posse, 1:34.2 vs 1:33.4 = 3 slow
Amazombie, 1:09.0 vs 1:08.0 = 5s
The one-turn races are close to each other with the edge to Caleb's Posse, which seems reasonable. And even though Hansen is a 2yo, his parallel time is equivalent to Drosselmeyer's. So how are they 10 Beyer points apart? I'm not counting the Marathon because that is pure guesswork and can only be estimated using projections, a dubious process at best.
On the Beyer charts the Juvy and Classic should be about 5 points apart.
Bullet Plane
11-06-2011, 02:43 PM
The raw time of 2:04.27 makes it the slowest BC in over 20 years. The track wasn't playing that slow. This is just a below par group. No standout among the males. The three year olds weren't up to snuff either.
104 sounds just about right.
PhantomOnTour
11-06-2011, 03:38 PM
I think the Classic is way too high and the Juvy is about right. My homemade Quirin style figs are:
Dirt Mile: 115 (~113 Beyer)
Juvy: 105 (~93 Beyer)
Classic: 104 (~92 Beyer)
I see it like this. My top figs for the winner were 103-103-102, which were earned at 9.5f, 10f and 10f. He improved a few points on his JCGC fig, very plausible. Ruler On Ice ran 3rd beaten 2 lengths and my top figs for him are a 105 in the Haskell at 9f and a 101 going 10f in the Travers. He gets a 102 going 10f yesterday....so far so good.
Havre de Grace (4th by 3 lengths) - she's run figs way above what she would be assigned for the Classic if my fig sticks, but I say she peaked two and three back. She won the Beldame easily but regressed in figs and it's reasonable to assume she may have been a bit over the top, finally got a bit of a rough trip, didn't really want 10f in a rugged field full of boys, and took a step backwards.
Flat Out (5th by 3.25 lengths) - he's also run figs way higher than what i'll give him for the Classic, but his last at 10f earned him a 104. He gets a 101 for the Classic, totally possible.
That leaves the runner up Game On Dude (2nd by 1.5 lengths) - he may be the only fly in the fig ointment here. Ran a 110 and a 116 going 10f earlier this year (BigCap & HolGoldCup) but only got a 104 for his 10f effort in the PacClassic off a soft pace trip. He then cranked it up and ran huge all the way around in the Goodwood...fast pace and a 110 final fig...so what gives?
He usually finishes up in 24-25 secs for his last 1/4m going 10f but yesterday it took him over 26. I'm guessing he just got tired after being hounded and surrounded off the turn and into the lane. He was brave and dusted them all...maybe he thought it was over and eased himself a bit? Who knows...
Anyway, i'm sure about my number for the race and i think Beyer and Co. have this one wrong. The key for me is how these horses performed at the 10f distance and not those huge 9f figs.
FWIW, i also disagree with the 107 BSF that Flat Out got for winning the JCGC, and basically any Beyer for 10f and longer.
There is no way in the world I would buy that the Beyer for the Classic is in the 92 range. You would have to think every horse in the field regressed at least 7 or 8 lengths. Even at the 10f distance, that is a bit much. The Classic, on raw times, was run about 5 points faster than the Juvenile using Beyer speed charts. How could you have them the same?
PhantomOnTour
11-06-2011, 04:01 PM
There is no way in the world I would buy that the Beyer for the Classic is in the 92 range. You would have to think every horse in the field regressed at least 7 or 8 lengths. Even at the 10f distance, that is a bit much. The Classic, on raw times, was run about 5 points faster than the Juvenile using Beyer speed charts. How could you have them the same?
Well, the immediate problem is probably in the translation....converting Quirin to Beyer. Do you have a conversion, because mine is old and probably wrong?
If the 202 1/5 par time that was posted earlier is the actual Beyer par for Gr1 males at 10f then we differ right there. Mine is obviously faster.
I don't trust Beyers at 10f and over.
Well, the immediate problem is probably in the translation....converting Quirin to Beyer. Do you have a conversion, because mine is old and probably wrong?
If the 202 1/5 par time that was posted earlier is the actual Beyer par for Gr1 males at 10f then we differ right there. Mine is obviously faster.
I don't trust Beyers at 10f and over.
I have one, but I'll have to look it up.
Forgetting pars though, just on the speed charts alone you have a five point difference. The pars would only come into play once you have raw figures. That five is set in stone.
PhantomOnTour
11-06-2011, 04:15 PM
I have one, but I'll have to look it up.
Forgetting pars though, just on the speed charts alone you have a five point difference. The pars would only come into play once you have raw figures. That five is set in stone.
Those 5pts equate to about 3/5ths of a second?
These races had almost identical internal splits and times up until the point in distance where the Juvy ended so we're about equal so far on raw times. Our only separation if you will comes in the last 3/16ths and I obviously have a different 10f par chart from Beyer.
Those 5pts equate to about 3/5ths of a second?
These races had almost identical internal splits and times up until the point in distance where the Juvy ended so we're about equal so far on raw times. Our only separation if you will comes in the last 3/16ths and I obviously have a different 10f par chart from Beyer.
I really don't want to get into Beyer much any longer. There isn't much left to say. I've posted my feelings on the charts he uses before, so I'll leave it at that.
BRIS conversion:
Beyer = (BRIS - 41.1) / .612;
From that, we can of course go the other way:
BRIS = Beyer * .612 + 41.1
Bullet Plane
11-06-2011, 04:46 PM
This figure makes sense:
Drosslemeyer pairs up his 104 from the JGC of 1 Oct
Game on Dude pairs up his 102 from Gdwd 1 Oct
Ruler On Ice with a one point pair up 100 vs 101 24 Sep at Prx
with Flat Out, Harve de Grace having "off" races...
which makes sense as they were favorites who lost..for whatever reason ..over the top ...didn't like the surface (i.e. too "cuppy").. bad rides, rough trips..... whatever the case may be... pick one...
This figure makes sense:
Drosslemeyer pairs up his 104 from the JGC of 1 Oct
Game on Dude pairs up his 102 from Gdwd 1 Oct
Ruler On Ice with a one point pair up 100 vs 101 24 Sep at Prx
with Flat Out, Harve de Grace having "off" races...
which makes sense as they were favorites who lost..for whatever reason ..over the top ...didn't like the surface (i.e. too "cuppy").. bad rides, rough trips..... whatever the case may be... pick one...
I agree it makes sense, but it doesn't match up with the other route run only two races earlier. If you aren't going to use the other races, they aren't really speed figures.
I agree it makes sense, but it doesn't match up with the other route run only two races earlier. If you aren't going to use the other races, they aren't really speed figures.
Such a huge difference, though, in the configuration of the 1 1/16 and 1 1/4 distances that I'm always wary of lumping them together just because they're both two-turn races. Especially on a drying out track or a windy day, often the figures have to be computed separately.
This figure makes sense:
Drosslemeyer pairs up his 104 from the JGC of 1 Oct
Game on Dude pairs up his 102 from Gdwd 1 Oct
Ruler On Ice with a one point pair up 100 vs 101 24 Sep at Prx
with Flat Out, Harve de Grace having "off" races...
which makes sense as they were favorites who lost..for whatever reason ..over the top ...didn't like the surface (i.e. too "cuppy").. bad rides, rough trips..... whatever the case may be... pick one...
My view is that the JCGC Beyers were nonsensically high, and that Drosselmeyer improved a lot from his previous race, whereas Flat Out and Stay Thirsty regressed slightly.
Figure makers often seem to want to assign high numbers to the winners of the high profile races. For some reason, they prefer to pretend that such races can't be run in a slow time. In sprints it's relatively rare, but over 10F, no way.
Steve R
11-06-2011, 10:08 PM
I think the Classic is way too high and the Juvy is about right. My homemade Quirin style figs are:
Dirt Mile: 115 (~113 Beyer)
Juvy: 105 (~93 Beyer)
Classic: 104 (~92 Beyer)
I see it like this. My top figs for the winner were 103-103-102, which were earned at 9.5f, 10f and 10f. He improved a few points on his JCGC fig, very plausible. Ruler On Ice ran 3rd beaten 2 lengths and my top figs for him are a 105 in the Haskell at 9f and a 101 going 10f in the Travers. He gets a 102 going 10f yesterday....so far so good.
Havre de Grace (4th by 3 lengths) - she's run figs way above what she would be assigned for the Classic if my fig sticks, but I say she peaked two and three back. She won the Beldame easily but regressed in figs and it's reasonable to assume she may have been a bit over the top, finally got a bit of a rough trip, didn't really want 10f in a rugged field full of boys, and took a step backwards.
Flat Out (5th by 3.25 lengths) - he's also run figs way higher than what i'll give him for the Classic, but his last at 10f earned him a 104. He gets a 101 for the Classic, totally possible.
That leaves the runner up Game On Dude (2nd by 1.5 lengths) - he may be the only fly in the fig ointment here. Ran a 110 and a 116 going 10f earlier this year (BigCap & HolGoldCup) but only got a 104 for his 10f effort in the PacClassic off a soft pace trip. He then cranked it up and ran huge all the way around in the Goodwood...fast pace and a 110 final fig...so what gives?
He usually finishes up in 24-25 secs for his last 1/4m going 10f but yesterday it took him over 26. I'm guessing he just got tired after being hounded and surrounded off the turn and into the lane. He was brave and dusted them all...maybe he thought it was over and eased himself a bit? Who knows...
Anyway, i'm sure about my number for the race and i think Beyer and Co. have this one wrong. The key for me is how these horses performed at the 10f distance and not those huge 9f figs.
FWIW, i also disagree with the 107 BSF that Flat Out got for winning the JCGC, and basically any Beyer for 10f and longer.
I'm with you. My Beyer-equivalent figure for the Classic is 95. I had Flat Out with a Beyer-equivalent 98 in the JCGC and Drosselmeyer with the same 95 as he earned in the Classic.
I'm with you. My Beyer-equivalent figure for the Classic is 95. I had Flat Out with a Beyer-equivalent 98 in the JCGC and Drosselmeyer with the same 95 as he earned in the Classic.
And of course that has a big influence on what the Classic was given, right? It really doesn't matter what anyone else has without seeing the history they have coming in as well...you, me, gm10, phantomontour, Thorograph, or anyone else.
One race is part of a much bigger picture that is influenced by years (depending on the figure maker) of projections by the figure maker and also by the tools they are using. Things like speed charts and beaten length charts will differ as will the method for making variants.
It is silly to say Beyer is wrong with a 104, I have it as a 98, or a 92, or a 110, without using his tools and methodologies to build the case. If Beyer gave the Classic a 95, how the hell does he explain that looking at what all the horses had coming in?
dnlgfnk
11-07-2011, 12:34 AM
I agree it makes sense, but it doesn't match up with the other route run only two races earlier. If you aren't going to use the other races, they aren't really speed figures.
The two routes aren't going to match up in any case, using "Beyer methodology". According to Beyer's two turn chart in "Beyer on Speed", which CJ has said elsewhere hasn't changed in years, Drosselmeyer ran about 5 points faster than Hansen. Based on the "history" of the close finishers in both contests, a group of close finishers in each race collectively ran significantly and suspiciously slower or faster, depending on whether one wants to credit Hansen or Drosselmeyer with marginal or dramatic improvement.
JeremyJet
11-07-2011, 05:38 AM
I agree it makes sense, but it doesn't match up with the other route run only two races earlier. If you aren't going to use the other races, they aren't really speed figures.
Cj, why do you assume that he/they didn't utilize the other races on the card? Maybe they're more sophisticated than you give them credit for.
Capper Al
11-07-2011, 05:56 AM
What's more important was how you ranked the winner's spped. It probably was more the traffic than the speed anyway.
FenceBored
11-07-2011, 07:42 AM
The real reason revealed.
Even though it was the second slowest Classic ever (just a smidge faster than the romp through the slop in 1988), Beyer Associates couldn't bring themselves to give it a lower figure than the Ladies Classic (which also got a 104 for their 9f in 1:50.78).
Cj, why do you assume that he/they didn't utilize the other races on the card? Maybe they're more sophisticated than you give them credit for.
There is one other route, run two races earlier. They have different variants. All the sprints, both before and after those two races, have the same variant. That isn't an assumption.
The real reason revealed.
Even though it was the second slowest Classic ever (just a smidge faster than the romp through the slop in 1988), Beyer Associates couldn't bring themselves to give it a lower figure than the Ladies Classic (which also got a 104 for their 9f in 1:50.78).
Where did you see this?
rastajenk
11-07-2011, 09:47 AM
Sounds like something from an uninformed blog.
I'm always amused at how readily people try to link some kind of agenda to Beyer numbers.
Their only real value is in races yet to be run, for those horses that still have running in their futures. Why would the "Beyer Associates" risk any of that to protect the status of an individual race, or horse, or stable, or anything? Makes no sense.
FenceBored
11-07-2011, 10:50 AM
Where did you see this?
I made it up, of course. :)
But, as the conspiracy theorists will remind you: "You don't expect them to admit it, do you?"
FenceBored
11-07-2011, 10:52 AM
Sounds like something from an uninformed blog.
I'm always amused at how readily people try to link some kind of agenda to Beyer numbers.
Their only real value is in races yet to be run, for those horses that still have running in their futures. Why would the "Beyer Associates" risk any of that to protect the status of an individual race, or horse, or stable, or anything? Makes no sense.
Gee, so when I open up the Stallion Register and see the ads bragging about the Beyers that various horses ran, I guess that means they're planning to put them back into training. :rolleyes:
:bang:
rastajenk
11-07-2011, 10:58 AM
Well, if you're going to accuse them of accepting kickbacks to bump up a number for breeding purposes, I would suggest you have some evidence. Yes, I've seen Beyers used for advertising, but that function doesn't give them any additional value.
FenceBored
11-07-2011, 11:25 AM
Well, if you're going to accuse them of accepting kickbacks to bump up a number for breeding purposes, I would suggest you have some evidence. Yes, I've seen Beyers used for advertising, but that function doesn't give them any additional value.
Who the hell said anything about kickbacks? I would suggest that before you accuse someone of accusing someone of something you learn how to read.
rastajenk
11-07-2011, 11:46 AM
You mentioned manipulating the numbers, and then you mentioned breeding ads. I'm just connecting the dots.... :cool:
classhandicapper
11-07-2011, 02:00 PM
I think my original contention earlier in the thread should be considered.
The par time tables used by figure makers that try to equate final times at various distances are generally derived from averages. But just because 6F in "X" might be equal to 7F in "Y" and 10F in "Z" on average, that does not mean it's true every day . Tracks can be more or less tiring on any given day. That could change the relationships even when the speed of the track is the same.
That was a quirky drying out track. Aside from the potential for a change in track speed, it's possible that the track was tiring enough to prevent the horses from recording a good final time at 10F.
That was a below par Classic, but it wasn't a Grade 3 race.
JeremyJet
11-07-2011, 02:25 PM
Let's see what the sheets guys come up with. I think the 104 Beyer might be a little slow. IMHO, 107 or 108 looks about right to me.
The par time tables used by figure makers that try to equate final times at various distances are generally derived from averages. But just because 6F in "X" might be equal to 7F in "Y" and 10F in "Z" on average, that does not mean it's true every day . Tracks can be more or less tiring on any given day. That could change the relationships even when the speed of the track is the same.
That really shouldn't happen very often, and when it does, the differences would not be 4 or 5 Beyer points. The effect between distances because a track is more or less tiring would be very small even at extremes. I posted some examples on here a while back when this came up before.
Care to give us an example of what could change the chart? A very strong wind could, but I don't think that was the case on Saturday.
Steve R
11-07-2011, 02:40 PM
And of course that has a big influence on what the Classic was given, right? It really doesn't matter what anyone else has without seeing the history they have coming in as well...you, me, gm10, phantomontour, Thorograph, or anyone else.
One race is part of a much bigger picture that is influenced by years (depending on the figure maker) of projections by the figure maker and also by the tools they are using. Things like speed charts and beaten length charts will differ as will the method for making variants.
It is silly to say Beyer is wrong with a 104, I have it as a 98, or a 92, or a 110, without using his tools and methodologies to build the case. If Beyer gave the Classic a 95, how the hell does he explain that looking at what all the horses had coming in?
I don't care what figures the horses had coming in or how Beyer would try to explain his numbers. OTOH, since Beyer uses projections, his 104 Classic number likely was partly based on the figure he did assign to the JCGC which I believe was vastly overrated. I don't use projections except in cases where there are no comparison races and those assignments are pretty much speculative. That said, a single figure for a race tells you nothing about the absolute ability of the starters, only how fast the race was run. A race can certainly play out in a manner in which five champions could all run a slow time and earn a low figure. That doesn't mean they aren't truly champions. It just means that particular race sucked. I think the Classic sucked.
Here is one example...
Lets say there are horses on the same card capable of 110 Beyers and they run their best at 5f and a one turn 8f, pretty extreme gap. The 5f horse runs a :56 3/5, a raw 120 Beyer. The one turn mile goes in 1:34 2/5, also a raw 120. On the Beyer chart both races are 10 points fast, a fairly common variant for a racetrack.
Now, a month later, both come back and run the very same races on a very slow track. The 5f goes in 1:00 flat, a raw 62 Beyer. According to Beyer, the mile should go in about 1:40 flat for that same 62. The 5f is 3 2/5ths slower, the mile is, the mile 5 3/5 seconds slower.
According to your theory, the relationship might not hold on extreme tracks. I agree, however, it is always going to be close. Some simple math would show that in this extreme example, the mile should go in about 140.07, or less than 1/10th of a second.
I've researched this before, constructing different parallel time charts for different track speeds, but the differences were so small it would be a huge waste of time. Once you build a good chart, it really should hold up under a huge range of possible track speed.
As I mentioned, the one thing that can change that is races being run into strong winds. A one turn mile run into a strong headwind on the backstretch will be different from one run on the same track over 5f. One faces the wind for 50% of the race, the other for about 20%.
I don't care what figures the horses had coming in or how Beyer would try to explain his numbers. OTOH, since Beyer uses projections, his 104 Classic number likely was partly based on the figure he did assign to the JCGC which I believe was vastly overrated. I don't use projections except in cases where there are no comparison races and those assignments are pretty much speculative. That said, a single figure for a race tells you nothing about the absolute ability of the starters, only how fast the race was run. A race can certainly play out in a manner in which five champions could all run a slow time and earn a low figure. That doesn't mean they aren't truly champions. It just means that particular race sucked. I think the Classic sucked.
Do you publish your figures before the BC races?
We all have our own methodologies, and trying to compare individual figures in isolation to Beyer figures is a waste of time. This is why when I talk about Beyers, I compare them to his figures, nobody else's. If I think he made a bad figure, I base it on his stuff.
By the way, since when does a 104 for the BC Classic, the premier dirt route in this county by a longshot, not suck?
JeremyJet
11-07-2011, 03:10 PM
Here is one example...
Lets say there are horses on the same card capable of 110 Beyers and they run their best at 5f and a one turn 8f, pretty extreme gap. The 5f horse runs a :56 3/5, a raw 120 Beyer. The one turn mile goes in 1:34 2/5, also a raw 120. On the Beyer chart both races are 10 points fast, a fairly common variant for a racetrack.
Now, a month later, both come back and run the very same races on a very slow track. The 5f goes in 1:00 flat, a raw 62 Beyer. According to Beyer, the mile should go in about 1:40 flat for that same 62. The 5f is 3 2/5ths slower, the mile is, the mile 5 3/5 seconds slower.
Who's charts are you useing in this example? Beyers? The relationship between the 5f and the 1-turn mile are not correct, IMHO. I have the 1-turn mile 8 points faster than the 5f race.
Who's charts are you useing in this example? Beyers? The relationship between the 5f and the 1-turn mile are not correct, IMHO. I have the 1-turn mile 8 points faster than the 5f race.
It doesn't matter, but yes, Beyer. You realize he has two different mile charts for one turn and two turn races, right?
Here is one example...
Lets say there are horses on the same card capable of 110 Beyers and they run their best at 5f and a one turn 8f, pretty extreme gap. The 5f horse runs a :56 3/5, a raw 120 Beyer. The one turn mile goes in 1:34 2/5, also a raw 120. On the Beyer chart both races are 10 points fast, a fairly common variant for a racetrack.
Now, a month later, both come back and run the very same races on a very slow track. The 5f goes in 1:00 flat, a raw 62 Beyer. According to Beyer, the mile should go in about 1:40 flat for that same 62. The 5f is 3 2/5ths slower, the mile is, the mile 5 3/5 seconds slower.
According to your theory, the relationship might not hold on extreme tracks. I agree, however, it is always going to be close. Some simple math would show that in this extreme example, the mile should go in about 140.07, or less than 1/10th of a second.
Could you share the math behind that statement?
JeremyJet
11-07-2011, 03:22 PM
It doesn't matter, but yes, Beyer. You realize he has two different mile charts for one turn and two turn races, right?
Re: 1-turn and 2-turn races
Yup, that's why I made it a point to reference the 1-turn mile in my original post.
Could you share the math behind that statement?
You can figure it out.
classhandicapper
11-07-2011, 03:25 PM
Care to give us an example of what could change the chart? A very strong wind could, but I don't think that was the case on Saturday.
I think it's the interrelationship between speed, stamina, and the surface. That sounds more complicated than it is and it's hard to explain, but I'll try.
Speedy horses without much stamina sometimes carry their speed further than usual on a speed favoring track and record bigger figures than they usually do at a longer distance (and vice versa).
These days, many horses are stamina challenged. 10F might be the point at which a lot of them start breaking down on a tiring track and really decelerate and lose their kick.
It may be no coincidence that Drosselmeyer (who is known for being able to run all day) and Ruler on Ice (another Belmont winner) both finished well in that race. You could argue that Game On Dude didn't look like a 10F horse, but he was doing a lot of running on tiring synthetics.
In the US we only think in terms of speed, but IMO having a lot of stamina to deal with a tiring track is a credit to the horse and a quality that makes them better for having it.
If that track was indeed tiring and caused the slowish time, are they 104 horses and the rest of the field sucked or did they run better than that because they deserve credit for that deep stamina and everyone else ran their usual race but the track caused them to run slower than usual?
I hope that makes some sense.
Re: 1-turn and 2-turn races
Yup, that's why I made it a point to reference the 1-turn mile in my original post.
I did a quick search and found this:
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/wahoo/AB.1TSR.html
That is what I used. It doesn't matter if it is right because it wouldn't change anything in the point I was making.
You can figure it out.
I'm struggling. It is way different that what others have suggested.
I think it's the interrelationship between speed, stamina, and the surface. That sounds more complicated than it is and it's hard to explain, but I'll try.
Speedy horses without much stamina sometimes carry their speed further than usual on a speed favoring track and record bigger figures than they usually do at a longer distance (and vice versa).
These days, many horses are stamina challenged. 10F might be the point at which a lot of them start breaking down on a tiring track and really decelerate and lose their kick.
It may be no coincidence that Drosselmeyer (who is known for being able to run all day) and Ruler on Ice (another Belmont winner) both finished well in that race. You could argue that Game On Dude didn't look like a 10F horse, but he was doing a lot of running on tiring synthetics.
In the US we only think in terms of speed, but IMO having a lot of stamina to deal with a tiring track is a credit to the horse and a quality that makes them better for having it.
If that track was indeed tiring and caused the slowish time, are they 104 horses and the rest of the field sucked or did they run better than that because they deserve credit for that deep stamina and everyone else ran their usual race but the track caused them to run slower than usual?
I hope that makes some sense.
No doubt distance ability is something I think a lot of people overlook, but I'm not sure it would really change the charts very much.
I'm struggling. It is way different that what others have suggested.
Just a simple ratio to project the mile time on the slow track. There are many more ways to do it, some much more complicated, but they all produce results that aren't worth trying to exploit in my opinion.
JeremyJet
11-07-2011, 03:36 PM
So what did you come up with for the Classic, CJ?
So what did you come up with for the Classic, CJ?
Man, just a steady barrage of questions with nothing in return...
Just a simple ratio to project the mile time on the slow track. There are many more ways to do it, some much more complicated, but they all produce results that aren't worth trying to exploit in my opinion.
Isn't the whole point that maybe there is no such ratio??
Wilkins in his book showed that there is more than 20% difference in going effect (seconds/furlong) between 5/10F on normal ground and 5/10F on slow ground.
The 0.07 seconds does not make any sense. I can only guess that this is a correction of the rounding in the Beyer chart. The real value is much, much bigger.
JeremyJet
11-07-2011, 03:41 PM
Man, just a steady barrage of questions with nothing in return...
:eek:
We're not living up to your expectations, CJ? Sorry. :(
I just asked what number you gave the race. That's all.
Isn't the whole point that maybe there is no such ratio??
Wilkins in his book showed that there is more than 20% difference in going effect (seconds/furlong) between 5/10F on normal ground and 5/10F on slow ground.
The 0.07 seconds does not make any sense. I can only guess that this is a correction of the rounding in the Beyer chart. The real value is much, much bigger.
Give us an example.
I really think you don't get the Beyer stuff. The 5f race changed 3 3/5 seconds, the route 5 3/5ths. That is much more than 20%. He has a lot of the difference already built in.
EDIT: I see I misread you originally...per furlong...I'll have to check it out.
:eek:
We're not living up to your expectations, CJ? Sorry. :(
I just asked what number you gave the race. That's all.
I don't mind much, but it seems most of the time my responses are not acknowledged and are followed with a different, unrelated question.
Why is the chart I posted wrong?
I gave the race a 102.
Give us an example.
I really think you don't get the Beyer stuff. The 5f race changed 3 3/5 seconds, the route 5 3/5ths. That is much more than 20%. He has a lot of the difference already built in.
And how many seconds per furlong is that? 0.68 and 0.70 (3.4/5 and 5.6/8). In other words, the parallel times are changed by a nearly constant factor.
In CJ-land this is perhaps considered normal, but in GM-land it is considered to be ludicrous. We think that the value for 8F is more like 0.8.
And how many seconds per furlong is that? 0.68 and 0.70 (3.5/5 and 5.6/8). In other words, the parallel times are changed by a nearly constant factor.
In CJ-land this is perhaps considered normal, but in GM-land it is considered to be ludicrous. We think that the value for 8F is more like 0.8.
See my edit, which I posted before your rant.
I will say we are talking about dirt racing here, and track speeds don't vary by anywhere near as much as they do on turf.
JeremyJet
11-07-2011, 04:01 PM
I don't mind much, but it seems most of the time my responses are not acknowledged and are followed with a different, unrelated question.
Why is the chart I posted wrong?
I gave the race a 102.
Yikes! A 102? That's slow, man. I'm thinking the race should be either 107 or 108.
RE: Why is the chart I posted wrong?
My opinion is based on work I have done with some well known figure makers from New York. ;)
Yikes! A 102? That's slow, man. I'm thinking the race should be either 107 or 108.
RE: Why is the chart I posted wrong?
My opinion is based on work I have done with some well known figure makers from New York. ;)
What does that have to do with the Beyer chart? It is published in many places and is a matter of record. I'm not saying I agree with his charts, I'm saying those are the ratings you get using them.
Steve R
11-07-2011, 04:05 PM
Do you publish your figures before the BC races?
We all have our own methodologies, and trying to compare individual figures in isolation to Beyer figures is a waste of time. This is why when I talk about Beyers, I compare them to his figures, nobody else's. If I think he made a bad figure, I base it on his stuff.
By the way, since when does a 104 for the BC Classic, the premier dirt route in this county by a longshot, not suck?
My figures for all BC starters are published well before the event. This year's are at 2011 Breeders' Cup Entries (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/breeders_cup/bc2011/2011_bc.htm).
The scale is quite different from other figures and the pace characteristics of the race are folded into the final figure. The more negative the number, the better. Below are the average figures for BC races going back to 1999 followed by the 2011 figure. There are modest differences in most of the races except the Classic where the difference is huge.
Classic, -79 (avg) vs -52 (in 2011)
F&M Turf, -66 vs -73
Juvenile, -60 vs -65
Juvenile Fillies, -48 vs -42
Ladies' Classic, -65 vs -68
Mile, -75 vs -68
Sprint, -83 vs -85
Turf, -87 vs -87
There is a good reason to compare different sets of figures and that is to try and understand the basis of unusual differences. I think you can learn a lot from such an exercise.
Wilkins in his book showed that there is more than 20% difference in going effect (seconds/furlong) between 5/10F on normal ground and 5/10F on slow ground.
I'm going to order it. Any other recommendations? May as well grab a few since shipping is expensive.
I'm going to order it. Any other recommendations? May as well grab a few since shipping is expensive.
How To Compile Your Own Handicap.
Winning Without Thinking
JeremyJet
11-07-2011, 04:10 PM
What does that have to do with the Beyer chart? It is published in many places and is a matter of record. I'm not saying I agree with his charts, I'm saying those are the ratings you get using them.
Oh, I agree, those are the ratings you will get useing those charts. But how do you know Beyer is still useing those charts?
How To Compile Your Own Handicap.
Winning Without Thinking
I have the second, but I'll get the first.
Oh, I agree, those are the ratings you will get useing those charts. But how do you know Beyer is still useing those charts?
It is pretty easy to figure out. We've been down this road before. Some distances are adjusted by track, including one turn miles. I used to keep track, but I no longer care and do it my own way.
See my edit, which I posted before your rant.
I will say we are talking about dirt racing here, and track speeds don't vary by anywhere near as much as they do on turf.
Regardless of the differences, Beyer's chart is way off. Even if you assume that the difference is only 0.1 seconds/furlong on slow dirt, then the effect is still significant (ie. 0.3 seconds between 5 and 8F).
Regardless of the differences, Beyer's chart is way off. Even if you assume that the difference is only 0.1 seconds/furlong on slow dirt, then the effect is still significant (ie. 0.3 seconds between 5 and 8F).
First off I wouldn't assume that.
I'll have to do my own research and will keep an open mind, but I think if a "slow" track caused that big of a change, there would be a difference in the performance of ratings made over different speed tracks. I have NEVER found that to be the case, and I have nearly a decade in my database. I used the same Beyer scale (though that is changing very soon but irrelevant to this discussion). That can't just be luck.
For example, I took all dirt races and looked at the top rating last out. Restricting that to horses that have raced in the last 30 days returns an ROI of 96.5 cents on the dollar. This has been going on for years with very little fluctuation. Grouping those same horses by variant of the track the figure was earned (15 slow or slower, 15 slow to 0, 0 to 15 fast, and 15 fast or faster) shows virtually no change. The win percentage is also stable. The figures perform the same over all ranges. If there was this gross error you talk about, that wouldn't be possible.
Steve R
11-07-2011, 05:09 PM
I don't know if this has been covered in the thread, but how does Court Vision's 1:37.05 in the Mile translate to a BSF 103 while Wrote's 1:37.41 in the Juvenile Turf gets a BSF 88? Actually, I had Wrote's performance as easily the best in the five-year history of the race. I'm thinking more like 95 for Wrote and 100 for Court Vision.
I don't know if this has been covered in the thread, but how does Court Vision's 1:37.05 in the Mile translate to a BSF 103 while Wrote's 1:37.41 in the Juvenile Turf gets a BSF 88? Actually, I had Wrote's performance as easily the best in the five-year history of the race. I'm thinking more like 95 for Wrote and 100 for Court Vision.
This is why I say Beyer turf ratings are more like Timeform than they are speed figures. This is hardly a rare, or even uncommon, example.
classhandicapper
11-07-2011, 05:41 PM
No doubt distance ability is something I think a lot of people overlook, but I'm not sure it would really change the charts very much.
Here's another way of expressing it.
Suppose every horse in the world was like Safely Kept, but we still ran races from 5F - 12F in this country. The time charts would be massively different than they are now because they would based on the averages for horses like Safely Kept instead of the horses we are used to. (We've discussed things along these lines).
Now just extend that line of reasoning to the surface.
Suppose some surfaces turn average horses that can usually get a 9F-10F well into horses that start to tire after 8F. They would collapse at 10F just like Safely Kept would collapse at a mile. Their figures would drop suddenly as the distances stretched out.
Since so many of our horses don't have much stamina, a track like that might negatively impact many, if not most, US based horses going 10F or longer. A horse like Drosselmeyer would not be impacted nearly as much because he has a ton of stamina and can run right through it just like our great milers can keep going instead of tiring like Safely Kept.
It's a theory that I know is applicable to track biases, but I think it might also be applicable to times.
Here's another way of expressing it.
Suppose every horse in the world was like Safely Kept, but we still ran races from 5F - 12F in this country. The time charts would be massively different than they are now because they would based on the averages for horses like Safely Kept instead of the horses we are used to. (We've discussed things along these lines).
Now just extend that line of reasoning to the surface.
Suppose some surfaces turn average horses that can usually get a 9F-10F well into horses that start to tire after 8F. They would collapse at 10F just like Safely Kept would collapse at a mile. Their figures would drop suddenly as the distances stretched out.
Since so many of our horses don't have much stamina, a track like that might negatively impact many, if not most, US based horses going 10F or longer. A horse like Drosselmeyer would not be impacted nearly as much because he has a ton of stamina and can run right through it just like our great milers can keep going instead of tiring like Safely Kept.
It's a theory that I know is applicable to track biases, but I think it might also be applicable to times.
I get it, I've just never been able to find any evidence it has much of an effect. I don't think track speeds change that much from one extreme to the other. When we say a track is really slow, or really fast, we might be talking about the difference between 1:59 for 10f or 2:04. In the grand scheme of things, that isn't much.
I'm not saying there isn't a difference, I'm just saying I think it is too small to make much difference. A similar phenomenon could exist between classes as well at the same distance, but again, the effect is much smaller than many would believe. If on an average track, a 25k claimer is a second faster than a 2k claimer at a mile, you would think on a very slow track the difference would expand. It does, but not nearly to the extent that it is worth doing all the extra work to adjust for it in my opinion.
classhandicapper
11-07-2011, 07:13 PM
I get it, I've just never been able to find any evidence it has much of an effect. I don't think track speeds change that much from one extreme to the other. When we say a track is really slow, or really fast, we might be talking about the difference between 1:59 for 10f or 2:04. In the grand scheme of things, that isn't much.
I'm not saying there isn't a difference, I'm just saying I think it is too small to make much difference. A similar phenomenon could exist between classes as well at the same distance, but again, the effect is much smaller than many would believe. If on an average track, a 25k claimer is a second faster than a 2k claimer at a mile, you would think on a very slow track the difference would expand. It does, but not nearly to the extent that it is worth doing all the extra work to adjust for it in my opinion.
I'm not talking about a fast track or slow track. I'm talking about a track being more tiring than usual vs. a track that is carrying speed better than usual.
Maybe it's not a huge amount, but I seem to recall a number of times I thought a track was tiring and then one of these long routes came up and they all ran like slugs. Some people may just have assigned a separate variant for the race, but it may have been a legitimate collapse of the race due to the tiring nature of the surface. It's just a theory.
classhandicapper
11-07-2011, 07:20 PM
I don't know if this has been covered in the thread, but how does Court Vision's 1:37.05 in the Mile translate to a BSF 103 while Wrote's 1:37.41 in the Juvenile Turf gets a BSF 88? Actually, I had Wrote's performance as easily the best in the five-year history of the race. I'm thinking more like 95 for Wrote and 100 for Court Vision.
Turf figures are a joke even though they have some predictive value.
There are so many extreme paces playing havoc with the final times, a speed figure maker has a lot of tough choices to make. They can either give you the real speed figures that sometimes wildly understate the ability of the horses or they can try to "guess" at how good the race was based on the finishing positions and the horse's prior speed figures. Obviously, if they start projecting single races like that it's easy to make a mistake. Those mistakes can compound on themselves going forward. But the worst problem is that if a figure maker upgrades a race because of the extremely slow pace, handicappers that don't know that might wildly overrate the horses that closed well into that slow pace. Quite honestly, it's a nightmare.
Steve R
11-07-2011, 07:32 PM
This is why I say Beyer turf ratings are more like Timeform than they are speed figures. This is hardly a rare, or even uncommon, example.
I suppose Racing Post Ratings are similar to Timeform Ratings and they assigned Wrote a 115 and Court Vision a 123. My conversion tables (based on almost 600 North American races in 2011) show RPR 115 is about equal to BSF 97 and RPR 123 is about equal to BSF 105. The correlation coefficient between RPRs and BSFs is 0.85.
It appears the Racing Post evaluated the Mile essentially the same as Beyer did (~BSF 103 to actual BSF 105). They evaluated the Juvenile Turf quite differently (~BSF 97 to actual BSF 88).
I suppose Racing Post Ratings are similar to Timeform Ratings and they assigned Wrote a 115 and Court Vision a 123. My conversion tables (based on almost 600 North American races in 2011) show RPR 115 is about equal to BSF 97 and RPR 123 is about equal to BSF 105. The correlation coefficient between RPRs and BSFs is 0.85.
It appears the Racing Post evaluated the Mile essentially the same as Beyer did (~BSF 103 to actual BSF 105). They evaluated the Juvenile Turf quite differently (~BSF 97 to actual BSF 88).
Yes, I could have just as well said Racing Post Ratings.
FenceBored
11-08-2011, 08:07 AM
You mentioned manipulating the numbers, and then you mentioned breeding ads. I'm just connecting the dots.... :cool:
If you're seeing those dots, you need to tell your doctor(s).
Here we have cj talking about "manipulating the numbers" as you put it.
cj: If Beyer gave the Classic a 95, how the hell does he explain that looking at what all the horses had coming in?
-- http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1185779&postcount=20
But, we don't see you accusing him of anything. Oh my god, the dots, the dots. You're taking kickbacks from Andy Beyer, aren't you? That's why you immediately associate Beyer and kickbacks, and why you thought I thought he's receiving them from the stud farms. It's all becoming clear now. :faint:
No, I don't really think you're getting kickbacks from Andy Beyer. Sheesh.
But, riddle me this batfan, why does the Juvenile which was 1.84 seconds slower this year drop by 14 Beyer points, but the Classic, which slowed by 1.99 secons only drop 7? Funny that they stopped on 104, i.e. the same figure as the LC. Kinda like they didn't want the LC to have a higher number than the Classic. Hmmm?
Also, this is the first Classic to receive less than 110 and some people thought the last two (both 110) were slightly inflated to keep it >=110. So, just imagine the friends he'd make if the figure had dropped by the same amount as the Juvenile and it was below 100 (96). Or, to paraphrase cj, how the hell would he explain the 'biggest race of the year' getting such an unimpressive speed figure?
I suppose Racing Post Ratings are similar to Timeform Ratings and they assigned Wrote a 115 and Court Vision a 123. My conversion tables (based on almost 600 North American races in 2011) show RPR 115 is about equal to BSF 97 and RPR 123 is about equal to BSF 105. The correlation coefficient between RPRs and BSFs is 0.85.
It appears the Racing Post evaluated the Mile essentially the same as Beyer did (~BSF 103 to actual BSF 105). They evaluated the Juvenile Turf quite differently (~BSF 97 to actual BSF 88).
RPR adjust for age, Beyer doesn't. It's inevitable that they will rate Wrote much higher than Beyer.
Steve R
11-08-2011, 08:55 AM
RPR adjust for age, Beyer doesn't. It's inevitable that they will rate Wrote much higher than Beyer.
How can Beyer calculate a race variant if he doesn't consider age (or sex, for that matter)? In a simplistic example, par for a an older male GSW at a mile may be 1:35.0 while par for a 2yo male GSW at a mile on the same surface may be 1:37.0 (depending on the time of year). If the older horse runs 1:37.0 and the 2yo runs 1:37.2, Beyer must certainly conclude that the older horse was 10 slow and the 2yo was 2 slow. Wouldn't his figures be based on a variant of 6 slow with the older horse's figure based on an adjusted 1:35.4 and the 2yo's figure based on an adjusted 1:36.1? Regardless of how he does his variants, a difference of 0.36 sec over a mile can't possibly be 15 points on the Beyer scale.
classhandicapper
11-08-2011, 09:44 AM
How can Beyer calculate a race variant if he doesn't consider age (or sex, for that matter)? In a simplistic example, par for a an older male GSW at a mile may be 1:35.0 while par for a 2yo male GSW at a mile on the same surface may be 1:37.0 (depending on the time of year). If the older horse runs 1:37.0 and the 2yo runs 1:37.2, Beyer must certainly conclude that the older horse was 10 slow and the 2yo was 2 slow. Wouldn't his figures be based on a variant of 6 slow with the older horse's figure based on an adjusted 1:35.4 and the 2yo's figure based on an adjusted 1:36.1? Regardless of how he does his variants, a difference of 0.36 sec over a mile can't possibly be 15 points on the Beyer scale.
Beyer doesn't look at PARS at all once he has a set of figures for the horses (which he already has).
He looks at the result of the race, the prior figures of the horses in the race, and tries to project how fast he thinks the race went.
How can Beyer calculate a race variant if he doesn't consider age (or sex, for that matter)? In a simplistic example, par for a an older male GSW at a mile may be 1:35.0 while par for a 2yo male GSW at a mile on the same surface may be 1:37.0 (depending on the time of year). If the older horse runs 1:37.0 and the 2yo runs 1:37.2, Beyer must certainly conclude that the older horse was 10 slow and the 2yo was 2 slow. Wouldn't his figures be based on a variant of 6 slow with the older horse's figure based on an adjusted 1:35.4 and the 2yo's figure based on an adjusted 1:36.1? Regardless of how he does his variants, a difference of 0.36 sec over a mile can't possibly be 15 points on the Beyer scale.
As I said earlier, and tried to explain to gm10 once before, he often handles turf on a per race basis and doesn't tie them together. It isn't for me to say if it is right or wrong, but that is what he does.
classhandicapper
11-08-2011, 09:59 AM
RPR adjust for age, Beyer doesn't. It's inevitable that they will rate Wrote much higher than Beyer.
There is a downside to adjusting figures for age.
It assumes that all horses will develop at the same rate, to the same extent, and over the same period.
In my personal handicapping, I look at a young horse's actual figures and try to project development based on the horse's overall record, possibly his pedigree, and the average development of all horses. My opinion might be different for each horse instead of using a formula.
I'm not entirely opposed to using formulas that adjust for age. It's better than doing nothing at all. But a system like that is going to overrate and underrate the development of a lot of horses that could have been foreseen with a horse by horse analysis.
classhandicapper
11-08-2011, 10:05 AM
RPR adjust for age, Beyer doesn't. It's inevitable that they will rate Wrote much higher than Beyer.
And if Wrote never develops a step from here his actual performance will be overrated. Implicit in adjusting for age is that the horse will develop in line with the averages. No always true. In fact, rarely true. It is theoretical.
We won't be seeing him here again anytime soon, so who cares?
Steve R
11-08-2011, 11:45 AM
There is a downside to adjusting figures for age.
It assumes that all horses will develop at the same rate, to the same extent, and over the same period.
In my personal handicapping, I look at a young horse's actual figures and try to project development based on the horse's overall record, possibly his pedigree, and the average development of all horses. My opinion might be different for each horse instead of using a formula.
I'm not entirely opposed to using formulas that adjust for age. It's better than doing nothing at all. But a system like that is going to overrate and underrate the development of a lot of horses that could have been foreseen with a horse by horse analysis.
So we're not talking about a speed figure that tries to measure only how fast a race was run, we're talking about how "good" we think the horse is. Is that what you're saying? If a 2yo breaks the Dr. Fager/Najran mile record but never wins another race and winds up at three running in $5K claimers at Fort Erie, wouldn't that singular record-breaking figure still be real? The fact is that high class horses can sometimes run slow races because of the particular race conditions and setup while modest horses can occasionally pop a big one. Why do we have to overlay the "class" of the horse when trying to evaluate how fast it ran? Over a career, the better horses will generate superior figures anyway.
This reminds me of Thunder Gulch's Belmont which went in 2:32.0. A conventional raw figure/variant approach would have put the race in the BSF low 90s. Beyer assigned a 101, so I suppose it was because he couldn't give the 108 BSF Derby winner a figure below 100. Sorry, Thunder Gulch was a really good colt but his Belmont was awful despite his ability to win races with BSFs up to 110.
There is a downside to adjusting figures for age.
It assumes that all horses will develop at the same rate, to the same extent, and over the same period.
In my personal handicapping, I look at a young horse's actual figures and try to project development based on the horse's overall record, possibly his pedigree, and the average development of all horses. My opinion might be different for each horse instead of using a formula.
I'm not entirely opposed to using formulas that adjust for age. It's better than doing nothing at all. But a system like that is going to overrate and underrate the development of a lot of horses that could have been foreseen with a horse by horse analysis.
I agree that it's problematic, I was just explaining why the numbers are so different. Officially, the two year old rating would have been upgraded by 22 pounds, but I'm pretty sure that RPR aren't adjusted by that much, because of the issue that you've highlighted.
dnlgfnk
11-08-2011, 03:52 PM
Beyer doesn't look at PARS at all once he has a set of figures for the horses (which he already has).
He looks at the result of the race, the prior figures of the horses in the race, and tries to project how fast he thinks the race went.
This inevitably leads to shrinking figures over time (tendency to underestimate winner's figure in projecting), so periodically Beyer would match projections against pars to insure that his figs weren't shrinking. I would assume his team still does this.
This inevitably leads to shrinking figures over time (tendency to underestimate winner's figure in projecting), so periodically Beyer would match projections against pars to insure that his figs weren't shrinking. I would assume his team still does this.
That's what I always suspected. If you smooth out the "too high" and "too low" as they seem to be doing, you end up with figures that may look consistent, but they're not very meaningful for races at the top and bottom ends of the spectrum.
That's what I always suspected. If you smooth out the "too high" and "too low" as they seem to be doing, you end up with figures that may look consistent, but they're not very meaningful for races at the top and bottom ends of the spectrum.
That isn't what he does, not the way you seem to be describing.
That isn't what he does, not the way you seem to be describing.
I didn't mean his turf BSF. I wouldn't think that he 'oversmoothes' those.
TexasDolly
11-08-2011, 06:15 PM
CJ posted a conversion formula for Bris to Beyers earlier and it appears to me it retains the same ranking order for low number BSF's. Am I interpreting that correctly ?
Thank you,
TD
I didn't mean his turf BSF. I wouldn't think that he 'oversmoothes' those.
Dirt either. He makes adjustments for track to track adjustments, but he doesn't just bump up or down certain classes because they don't line up with past figures of the same class. How did you get that I mean turf?
I've seen him make adjustments of a point of two for whole tracks/distance in the past. Easy to find out if he has done in now, just compare a Winner's Book today to one from six months ago or so. I used to manually figure out the winner's Beyer from the PPs everyday and hand enter them into a DOS database for Finger Lakes and NYRA ( still have nightmares about that from time to time!)
I would see where all the FL sprints would get a +2 adjustment and could actually figure out the start and stop dates. He uses the DRF database to do Quality Control on his figures - to make sure they in line track to track. At least he used to.
JeremyJet
11-13-2011, 12:44 AM
Yikes! A 102? That's slow, man. I'm thinking the race should be either 107 or 108.
Hey, CJ, Thoro-Graph gave the race a -1.25. You're a little slow, man. :cool:
Hey, CJ, Thoro-Graph gave the race a -1.25. You're a little slow, man. :cool:
Not if I gave credit for ground loss I wouldn't think. What do you think that is equal to on Beyer?
Hey, CJ, Thoro-Graph gave the race a -1.25. You're a little slow, man. :cool:
Or a little right, man!
classhandicapper
11-13-2011, 11:15 AM
So we're not talking about a speed figure that tries to measure only how fast a race was run, we're talking about how "good" we think the horse is. Is that what you're saying? If a 2yo breaks the Dr. Fager/Najran mile record but never wins another race and winds up at three running in $5K claimers at Fort Erie, wouldn't that singular record-breaking figure still be real? The fact is that high class horses can sometimes run slow races because of the particular race conditions and setup while modest horses can occasionally pop a big one. Why do we have to overlay the "class" of the horse when trying to evaluate how fast it ran? Over a career, the better horses will generate superior figures anyway.
This reminds me of Thunder Gulch's Belmont which went in 2:32.0. A conventional raw figure/variant approach would have put the race in the BSF low 90s. Beyer assigned a 101, so I suppose it was because he couldn't give the 108 BSF Derby winner a figure below 100. Sorry, Thunder Gulch was a really good colt but his Belmont was awful despite his ability to win races with BSFs up to 110.
You are misunderstanding my point.
Let's say a 2YO runs a Beyer figure of 108 like Uncle Mo. By 2YO standards, that's an incredible figure. It might be equal to a figure of 120 for an older horse (give or take). If you give him a performance figure of 120 to try to put his race in perspective, you are projecting improvement that may or may not come because all horses develop at different times, rates, etc...
In my own handicapping I just call him a 108 with potential upside that was way ahead of PAR at 2.
classhandicapper
11-13-2011, 11:17 AM
This inevitably leads to shrinking figures over time (tendency to underestimate winner's figure in projecting), so periodically Beyer would match projections against pars to insure that his figs weren't shrinking. I would assume his team still does this.
He may do spot checks for shrinking figures, but Jerry Brown has noted the potential downside of that.
What if the horses are actually improving or getting worse over time and you keep anchoring them back to the PAR?
You will slowly lose the ability to compare horses across years.
classhandicapper
11-13-2011, 11:27 AM
Hey, CJ, Thoro-Graph gave the race a -1.25. You're a little slow, man. :cool:
I almost never think that Thoro-Graph has a race too slow because IMHO Jerry's occasional bias has been to make races too fast (too long an explanation for why I think that), but I thought he may have had last year's Classic a point slow and there were a few races this year that looked a little slow to me.
I say that because Jerry is more apt to break races out from the rest of the day and give horses numbers that fit together well based on prior races than other figure makers. He assumes that the track changed speeds way more often. He's not really into pace and race development issues that may have impacted time.
JeremyJet
11-13-2011, 01:15 PM
Or a little right, man!
Oh, Tommy, wipe your nose.
You da man, J....You da man. :rolleyes:
Oh, Tommy, wipe your nose.
Again, you are really good at asking questions. Answering them, not so much. If you are going to say the TG number proves your Beyer style figure is right, you should be able to answer my question.
maddog42
11-13-2011, 08:56 PM
He may do spot checks for shrinking figures, but Jerry Brown has noted the potential downside of that.
What if the horses are actually C?
You will slowly lose the ability to compare horses across years.
I don't care to compare horses across years. A relatively current par will avoid this "horses getting faster or slower". You will have information that no one else has, and before anyone else. The pars that i have made have taught me more about handicapping than most books.
rastajenk
11-14-2011, 10:26 AM
Yeah, really. How many bets has anyone cashed by comparing horses across years?
Then how will we know when the next Secretariat comes along?
classhandicapper
11-14-2011, 10:50 AM
Figures that translate across years aren't so much about gambling as they are about having a way to put horses into historical perspective. We have debates like that all the time. I don't think anyone gets that kind of thing perfect because of biases in their methodology, but anchoring figures to PARs ensures problems.
It could even screw up figures for a horse with a long career.
The other issue (that's correctable) is that the quality of racing on any circuit can change.
Let's say for example that the new casino at AQU brings in a ton of higher quality horses because of the larger purses. Some classes may get a lot better than they were and the quality of competition at some other circuits that lost horses may get a little worse. If your figures are anchored to the previous PARs, the circuits will move out of sync with each other.
I'm a big fan of using PARs to understand where various classes fit, but this is one of a gigantic list of issues with all numbers. IMO you shouldn't take them too literally.
Dark Horse
12-28-2011, 06:21 PM
Have carefully read the thread, and find myself mostly on the same page as classhandicapper.
Speed figures are approximations. From a scientific perspective that's a problem, but how big of a problem is this within the fluidity of horse racing? The challenging quest to turn these figures into something more precise is admirable, but there may not be a pot of gold at the end of that rainbow. I would love more accurate speed figures, but can't help thinking that if that study doesn't offer a clear advantage, the fight may be on the wrong battlefield.
The question is if approximated speed figures can be good enough. And I think that, depending on their individual use, they may very well be. Perhaps speed figures are most useful in providing a performance range for each individual horse. Based on that range I add a speed conversion depending on the projected form on race day. The precision of such a speed conversion key is more important than the accuracy of every single Beyer in the horse's performance range. On a sidenote, a reliable base figure for a horse (3 years and up), to which to add or from which to subtract, depending on projected form, would be worth the entire Beyer history to me. I would suggest that the difference between such a base figure and the figure on excellent or poor days is remarkably similar for horses across the board.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.