San Felipe Stakes $300,000

[redshift1]

San Felipe S (gr. II), $300,000g, 3yo, 8.5f.140.11

Saturday March 10th

140.11 Stakes record by Consolidator 2005

Shapes up as the best prep so far in 2012 even with the loss of Out Of Bounds.

Creative Cause, Rousing Sermon and Liaison are all in top 15 of graded stakes earnings for the KD

Baffert has multiple entries including Fed Biz and Bodiemeister both making their stakes debut.


Probables:

American Act
Bodemeister
Blingo
Creative Cause
Liaison
Rousing Sermon
Fed Biz
Empire Way
Midnight Transfer


.

[Spalding No!]

Actually, it looks like a rehash of both the Hollywood Futurity and the Robert Lewis, two of the more seemingly mediocre races impacting this year's Triple Crown.

Blingo looks to be this year's Mr. Commons. That's to say a turf horse who will waste the first half of the year on the dirt, then will romp in a low-level stakes race upon his return to the grass, then will hit a ceiling in graded turf stakes, all the while maintaining a bloated reputation as some top American turf horse just waiting for his coming out party.

[The WindfallAngler]

the Hollywood Futurity...mediocre...impacting this year's Triple Crown.

Oh, I dunno. Seems like more than a few prodigies found their legs in this venue, who would later account for various Kentucky Derbies, Preaknesses; even a few Horses of The Year.

Lookin at Lucky, '09; Declan's Moon, '04 (2nd? Giacomo); Point Given,'00; Real Quiet, '97; A.P. Indy, '91; Alysheba 2nd, '86; Snow Chief in '85 (Ferdinand 3rd), going back to Roving Boy--may God rest his broken bones--a divisional champ in '82, only a year after the Stakes rolled out.

[Spalding No!]

Oh, I dunno. Seems like more than a few prodigies found their legs in this venue, who would later account for various Kentucky Derbies, Preaknesses; even a few Horses of The Year.

Lookin at Lucky, '09; Declan's Moon, '04 (2nd? Giacomo); Point Given,'00; Real Quiet, '97; A.P. Indy, '91; Alysheba 2nd, '86; Snow Chief in '85 (Ferdinand 3rd), going back to Roving Boy--may God rest his broken bones--a divisional champ in '82, only a year after the Stakes rolled out.
I was talking about the 2011 edition specifically.

[Blenheim]

San Felipe S (gr. II), $300,000g, 3yo, 8.5f.140.11
Saturday March 10th

140.11 Stakes record by Consolidator 2005

Shapes up as the best prep so far in 2012 even with the loss of Out Of Bounds.

Creative Cause, Rousing Sermon and Liaison are all in top 15 of graded stakes earnings for the KD
Baffert has multiple entries including Fed Biz and Bodiemeister both making their stakes debut.

Probables:

American Act
Bodemeister
Blingo
Creative Cause
Liaison
Rousing Sermon
Fed Biz
Empire Way
Midnight Transfer

.

Thanks for the entries, this looks like a good one. I checked for the past performances - not in yet. Looking forward to the past performances.

Nothin' like the Derby Trail. Lookin' forward to the San Felipe.

[redshift1]

Actually, it looks like a rehash of both the Hollywood Futurity and the Robert Lewis, two of the more seemingly mediocre races impacting this year's Triple Crown.


Only 2 or 3 are returning from the Robert B Lewis.

BodieMeister and Fed Biz make their stakes debut off 97 & 99 Beyers.

Two Grade 1 winners in Creative Cause and Liaison.

and

You're fixated on Blingo?


.

[Spalding No!]

Only 2 or 3 are returning from the Robert B Lewis.
3 from the Lewis, 4 from the CashCall Futurity; a significant portion of the field. Both those races, while certainly contentious on paper, ended up fairly mediocre when actually run. About 2 lengths separated the first 7 or 8 home in the Cashcall, and the Lewis was won by a 40-1 shot coming off a 6 month layoff while making his 3yo and route debut.

BodieMeister and Fed Biz make their stakes debut off 97 & 99 Beyers.
The key point is that they are making their respective stakes debuts (maybe...it remains to be seen if both start). They have yet to validate any hype surrounding them.

Two Grade 1 winners in Creative Cause and Liaison.
Creative Cause, after being all but confirmed for the race last week, is suddenly on the fence after a blazing workout. Not a good sign. In fact, his stablemate Empire Way is now a definite starter for the race. Previously, Mike Harrington suggested he'd show up in the Rebel at Oaklawn next.

You're fixated on Blingo?
That was meant to be a digression.

[redshift1]

Well, here's what to like about the San Felipe:

Some of the top sires:

Empire Maker (2)
Creative Cause (2)
Indian Charlie (1)
Hard Spun (1)

High priced yearlings:

$950,000
$260,000
$250,000 Full brother to Royal Delta
$260,000

Two grade 1 winners

Obviously the highest rated 3 year olds are currently based on the east coast but the San Felipe has some depth where the other preps appeared relatively thin in range of ability.



.

[Spalding No!]

Obviously the highest rated 3 year olds are currently based on the east coast but the San Felipe has some depth where the other preps appeared relatively thin in range of ability.

You're getting way ahead of yourself. You keep listing the San Felipe probables as though it is the drawn field. Bob Baffert has 3 possible and has stated that only 2 will show up. Mike Harrington is likely to run only one of his runners. And anything can happen up until race time. Wasn't the Fountain Of Youth supposed to pit Union Rags against Algorithms? This race has already lost Out Of Bounds, and it will likely lose 2 more.

[surfdog89]

Rousing Sermon......like this one as a two year old.....Road to the derby.....if he runs big this week-end.....

[Spalding No!]

I'm backpedaling on this one. When Harrington flip-flopped on Creative Cause after a fast workout last week, I expected the worse. But the horse worked very strongly again today, and now he's definite for the San Felipe. Considering his solid if unspectacular try in the 7f stakes and the sudden "wake up" in his workouts, it's safe to say that Creative Cause is moving forward. Also taking into account the sudden productivity of the BC Juvenile (Hansen, Union Rags, Alpha), Creative Cause is going to take some beating in this race.

Unless Fed Biz proves to have Congaree-type ability, he has a tall order on tap to beat a horse of Creative Cause's ability and foundation.

[NJ Stinks]

I thought Sabercat was going in the San Felipe but now I hear he might go in the Rebel instead.

At any rate, I believe Sabercat just worked at Santa Anita so I don't get the indecision. Unless the connections believe another week of prep is needed. Anybody else hear anything about Sabercat's status in the San Felipe?

[redshift1]

I thought Sabercat was going in the San Felipe but now I hear he might go in the Rebel instead.

At any rate, I believe Sabercat just worked at Santa Anita so I don't get the indecision. Unless the connections believe another week of prep is needed. Anybody else hear anything about Sabercat's status in the San Felipe?


"Scott Blasi, assistant to Steve Asmussen added that he thinks Asmussen is "leaning towards the (Grade 2) Rebel" at Oaklawn Park on March 17."


The Rebel might be an easier spot but that's just a guess at this point

[NJ Stinks]

"Scott Blasi, assistant to Steve Asmussen added that he thinks Asmussen is "leaning towards the (Grade 2) Rebel" at Oaklawn Park on March 17."


The Rebel might be an easier spot but that's just a guess at this point

Thanks, Redshift1. :ThmbUp:

[bks]

Fed Biz is out. Tied up.

Really wanted to see what he could do against stakes horses. Hope all is well with him.

B

[Striker]

Fed Biz is out. Tied up.

Really wanted to see what he could do against stakes horses. Hope all is well with him.

B
Where does he send this one now if he is healthy? Rebel at Oaklawn?

[PhantomOnTour]

Anxious to see how Empire Way performs....full brother to Royal Delta. Been waiting awhile for his return...let's see what he's got.

[redshift1]

Where does he send this one now if he is healthy? Rebel at Oaklawn?

Might be Sunland Derby, Grade III $800,000 purse. 2nd place pays $176,000 which may be enough to earn a spot in the KD.

[Striker]

Might be Sunland Derby, Grade III $800,000 purse. 2nd place pays $176,000 which may be enough to earn a spot in the KD.
That makes sense, but I think he would have to win that race to get in for sure. I think you are going to need over 200k this year to get a spot in the gate for the KD. He would have to at least get 3rd in 1 more graded stake after that to get over the 200k if he were to only get 2nd in the Sunland Derby.

[ten2oneormore]

Anxious to see how Empire Way performs....full brother to Royal Delta. Been waiting awhile for his return...let's see what he's got.

I was also until B Blanc picked up the mount.I was hoping Empire Way is where Gomez was going to land but he went with Mandella's Tiz Point.

Probably a boring Creative Cause/Bodemeister exacta

[redshift1]

Entries:


1 Blingo
2 Bodemeister
3 American Act
4 Midnight Transfer
5 Groovin' Solo
6 Liaison
7 Creative Cause
8 Rousing Sermon
9 Tiz Point
10 Empire Way

Gomez picks Tiz Point over Empire Way not sure why, maybe a prior commitment but Blanc on Empire Way, wow ?



.

[Blenheim]

Past Performances: http://horseracing.about.com/od/racedayinfo/a/aafree-pps.htm

Go to Baffert . . .

[Robert Fischer]

i like Bodemeister's last effort.

several that can run.

[Blenheim]

Should be a good one.

If Liaison runs his race, he should be tough to beat. Creative Cause should be equally tough but may be pointed towards the SA Derby. Groovin' Solo rested after the Lewis, he drops the blinkers, shows two sharp bullets, gets his jock back and needs the earnings - Kwon goes all in.

:5: :6: :7:

Best of racin' luck.

Nothin' like the Derby Trail. Lookin' forward to the San Felipe!

[Dahoss9698]

I was against Creative Cause after his last, but I like him in this spot.

[The WindfallAngler]

Don't know that he has to lead this fray. I'm looking for Bodemeister to get a stalking postion, cruise to the front, build up a cushion, fend off charges, then move clear for the win.

I'll use Creative Cause, American Act--maybe Midnight Transfer, for exactas.

[Ocala Mike]

Very tough race. Taking an exacta box :6: :7: :10:


Ocala Mike

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Probably a boring Creative Cause/Bodemeister exacta

And it was, with CC wearing down foe late. $2 Exacta $22.20. Snoozeville, for a 3 YO stakes - in terms of wagering.

[redshift1]

102 Beyer for CC. I was expecting a slower number after comparing the Robert B. Lewis.

Robert B Lewis 1:40.4 = 96

San Felipe 1:41.4 = 102

Was the track playing slower yesterday?


.

[cj]

102 Beyer for CC. I was expecting a slower number after comparing the Robert B. Lewis.

Robert B Lewis 1:40.4 = 96

San Felipe 1:41.4 = 102

Was the track playing slower yesterday?


.

Well, pretty obvious it was according to Beyer, no?

[redshift1]

Well, pretty obvious it was according to Beyer, no?

That's why I was asking just wanted a confirmation that some other variable was not responsible. I need to take a look at how Beyer calculates his figures, his methodology is explained in one of his books, yes?

.

[PhantomOnTour]

My figs for the San Felipe (Quirin style):

104-105-108 (par is 106)

I gave the Bob Lewis a 104-104-107, so i have them closer than Beyer does.

[cj]

That's why I was asking just wanted a confirmation that some other variable was not responsible. I need to take a look at how Beyer calculates his figures, his methodology is explained in one of his books, yes?

.

Picking Winners is the first one that details the method.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I don't indulge it a ton or make it a plan of attack but obvious races like these,yeah when the exactas are $8-12 it is a snoozefest but when you are getting $20-25 in a 2 horse race or a 2 way 10-1 why not just take it when it's that apparent?

[redshift1]

Picking Winners is the first one that details the method.

Thanks

[1GCFAN]

I took a shot but threw out CC. He raced green but still won. Still a bet against IMP if goes to the Derby.

[PaceAdvantage]

102 Beyer for CC. I was expecting a slower number after comparing the Robert B. Lewis.

Robert B Lewis 1:40.4 = 96

San Felipe 1:41.4 = 102

Was the track playing slower yesterday?


.This is the one thing that has always bugged me about speed figures. I've never been a figure maker, so take this for what it's worth.

With such limited sample sizes on a day-to-day basis, how accurate really are these assessments of "track speed?" My guess is, not very accurate at all. They have to be at least as wrong as often as they are right.

To me, it's the 10,000lb elephant standing in the corner of the room that is rarely noticed or talked about.

And I haven't even touched on when they conclude a track has sped up or slowed down DURING the day...I mean, come on...now we're talking about a sample size of only a couple of races...

And no, I don't know of a better way to deal with this sort of thing. I'm just saying it's hard to take at face value.

Are racetrack surfaces REALLY this volatile (barring severe changes in weather and/or track maintenance procedures)?

[redshift1]

I ordered a used copy of Picking Winners from Amazon for $5.00 because I don't get it either. Maybe slogging through the calculations will help.


.

[cj]

This is the one thing that has always bugged me about speed figures. I've never been a figure maker, so take this for what it's worth.

With such limited sample sizes on a day-to-day basis, how accurate really are these assessments of "track speed?" My guess is, not very accurate at all. They have to be at least as wrong as often as they are right.

To me, it's the 10,000lb elephant standing in the corner of the room that is rarely noticed or talked about.

And I haven't even touched on when they conclude a track has sped up or slowed down DURING the day...I mean, come on...now we're talking about a sample size of only a couple of races...

And no, I don't know of a better way to deal with this sort of thing. I'm just saying it's hard to take at face value.

Are racetrack surfaces REALLY this volatile (barring severe changes in weather and/or track maintenance procedures)?

A couple races, sure, but how many horses? I know you can't look at every single horse as some throw in clunkers, but I would say at least 50% of the field can be used most times.

Also, how "wildly" is the above variation? It looks bigger on the surface than it really is. The above situation means the tracks changed about 1.5 seconds over 8.5 furlongs, or 17 hundredths of a second per furlong. Moisture and wind can certainly account for that.

To be clear, I'm not saying making variants is a perfect science, far from it. They are a lot more accurate than many would have you believe though. They make speed figures that select more winners than any other single performance related factor.

[aaron]

A couple races, sure, but how many horses? I know you can't look at every single horse as some throw in clunkers, but I would say at least 50% of the field can be used most times.

Also, how "wildly" is the above variation? It looks bigger on the surface than it really is. The above situation means the tracks changed about 1.5 seconds over 8.5 furlongs, or 17 hundredths of a second per furlong. Moisture and wind can certainly account for that.

To be clear, I'm not saying making variants is a perfect science, far from it. They are a lot more accurate than many would have you believe though. They make speed figures that select more winners than any other single performance related factor.
This has to be true,because speed figures get bet more than any other angle in racing.
Years ago before everyone had speed figures,I remember getting $15.00 to $20.00 winners using the sheets. As speed figures became more widely published and cheaper to obtain these $15.00-$20.00 horses became $6.00 to $10.00 horses and sometimes even lower. They continued to win at the same rate,but were no longer are overlays.
Also,I know some big players who for years survived only betting figures. I don't think you could do that today.

[PaceAdvantage]

Also, how "wildly" is the above variation? It looks bigger on the surface than it really is. The above situation means the tracks changed about 1.5 seconds over 8.5 furlongs, or 17 hundredths of a second per furlong. Moisture and wind can certainly account for that.Yes, moisture and wind can account for that, BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW? Maybe the track is responsible for the slowdown or the speedup, but then again, maybe not....the data you have to work with as a figure maker is just so limited in a statistical sense, is it not?

You've read the book Fooled By Randomness, right? Trying to get a handle on inherent track volatility seems like a perfect example of that at times...

Then again, your figures, by many accounts (including my own) are excellent...some of the best if not the best around (never was a sheets user)...so you must be doing something right.

But intellectually, I still have a problem drawing conclusions with such a limited amount of data.

[cj]

Yes, moisture and wind can account for that, BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW? Maybe the track is responsible for the slowdown or the speedup, but then again, maybe not....the data you have to work with as a figure maker is just so limited in a statistical sense, is it not?

You've read the book Fooled By Randomness, right? Trying to get a handle on inherent track volatility seems like a perfect example of that at times...

Then again, your figures, by many accounts (including my own) are excellent...some of the best if not the best around (never was a sheets user)...so you must be doing something right.

But intellectually, I still have a problem drawing conclusions with such a limited amount of data.

Like I said, speed figures (i.e. variants) are not perfect by any means. However, look at how much improved they are over the DRF variant. There has to be something to it. I don't like to look at it as 9 samples, but a full card worth of horses, broken down by surface of course.

Again, if it was as tough as some believe, they wouldn't be the strongest indicator of future performance...but they are.

[Steve R]

Like I said, speed figures (i.e. variants) are not perfect by any means. However, look at how much improved they are over the DRF variant. There has to be something to it. I don't like to look at it as 9 samples, but a full card worth of horses, broken down by surface of course.

Again, if it was as tough as some believe, they wouldn't be the strongest indicator of future performance...but they are.
I can't remember where, but I'm sure I once read about a study done comparing various figure methods including BSFs and Ragozin numbers. I'm pretty sure the outcome was that the old DRF SR+TV method (i.e., before the three-year best time change) came out on top.

[redshift1]

I can't remember where, but I'm sure I once read about a study done comparing various figure methods including BSFs and Ragozin numbers. I'm pretty sure the outcome was that the old DRF SR+TV method (i.e., before the three-year best time change) came out on top.

What's DRF SR+TV and what's three-year best time change?

I'm thinking the first is DRF Speed Rating + Track Variant but what's the second concept time change thing?




Thanks


.

[Red Knave]

I'm thinking the first is DRF Speed Rating + Track Variant
Right

but what's the second concept time change thing?
The DRF used to use the track record at a particular surface/distance to be the 100 rating. Now they use the fastest time at the distance during the previous 3 years (supposing the track surface stayed the same).

[redshift1]

Right


The DRF used to use the track record at a particular surface/distance to be the 100 rating. Now they use the fastest time at the distance during the previous 3 years (supposing the track surface stayed the same).

Ah yes, now I remember, found it on the DRF site PP explanation page.

Thanks.

[Blenheim]

The figures are wonderfully interesting and deserve more discussion and thought.
~
I find it difficult to understand how accurate figures can be built upon what the chart caller sees or what he thinks he sees . . . what he knows, or what he thinks he knows. I think Steve Davidowitz in his book, Betting Thoroughbreds for the 21st Century describes it best. A paragraph from his book:

"If a horse really is fifth, six lengths behind the leader, should that be worth 1 1/2 seconds, or one full second, or 1.30 seconds? Or do we really know? Through the years, the basic formula that one length equals one-fifth of a second has been proven to be inaccurate, and in the 21st century it will remain inaccurate until adjustments are made for the different rates of speed the horses involved are traveling. Visualize, for instance, a front runner tiring badly as it approaches the half-mile pole, and the horse six lengths behind beginning to pick up momentum. Now picture a horse leading by six lengths over another horse, and both are traveling at the same rates of speed. Would six lengths have the same numerical value for both sets of horses? Albert Einstein would not think so and lesser minds such as mine would instantly know he is correct.”
~
With respect to SR+TV method I believe it was Fred Davis who did that study. Davis also found that claimers dropping 30% or more in class represent “the strongest probability factor among handicapping characteristics ever discovered scientifically."

Nothin' like the Triple Crown Trail.

[Tom]

I think it was Sports Stat(?) that did the study, as well as several others.
It was a guy in Vegas. Dave Schwartz might know for sure, or Dick Schmidt.

[Blenheim]

A correction here. I wrote, "With respect to SR+TV method I believe it was Fred Davis who did that study." Upon further review I believe the idea originated from the late, great Mr. Tom Ainslie. A paragraph from his book Ainslie's Complete Guide To Thoroughbred Racing:

Yet the true condition of the track is a component influential enough to make the published variant a useful supplement of its companion speed rating. Many years ago I published a handicapping procedure in which horses that qualified as contenders in playable races got figures that added the most recent and/or relevant speed rating to its variant. Subsequent wrinkles added or subtracted points in a quite satisfactory program from which lots of people extracted fun and profit. More recently, William L. Quirin's computer studies demonstrated that the sum of speed rating and variant was more effective than the speed rating alone. He also showed handicappers how to achieve even better results by using formulas based on each track's average Form variant, which he spelled out in his books.

Lookin' forward to seein' what others might find.

Nothin' like the Derby Trail.

[cj]

I can't remember where, but I'm sure I once read about a study done comparing various figure methods including BSFs and Ragozin numbers. I'm pretty sure the outcome was that the old DRF SR+TV method (i.e., before the three-year best time change) came out on top.

I don't think that is even close to correct.

[RichieP]

I think it was Sports Stat(?) that did the study, as well as several others.
It was a guy in Vegas.

It was Jim Bayle and Sportstats. He did a study comparing Beyer, Ragozin and Drf figs both last race and best of last 3

[Tom]

That's the one - thanks Richie.
I think part of that test was in a Follow Up article - I'll have to check the archives.

[Steve R]

Here's a quote from a PA thread dated 11/29/2003 from a poster named Secretariat:

"3. Jim Bayle of Sports Stat did a study which showed the DRF-SR-TV out performing other Speed figures including Bris and Beyer in his tests."

I haven't been able to find the details.

Here's another from a PA post dated 04/26/2001 from someone named Tom:

"Seems I remember the speed figure study Jim Bale did showed DRF SR+TV as good or better than any."

[redshift1]

Here's a relevant email from another site.


http://homebased2.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-314.html


"Jim Bayle did a small study about 6 years ago that I believe focused on a small sample of Hollywood races in the summertime, as well as a few other major tracks. As I recall, it had the TrackMaster Power Rating, Barry Meadow's Rating, DRF 3yb Speed Rating, Ragozin's speed rating and maybe Beyer. I don't have the study so I may be missing a few.

Several problems:

1) He was comparing apples to oranges, by mixing in speed ratings (which are just numbers assigned to a horse's race, an evaluation of the final time of that race) and power ratings (which are numbers assigned to a horse as an evaluation of the horse in the upcoming race, using whatever factors the power rating creator chooses to use).

2) The sample size was tiny by statistical standards. When Jim is evaluating a change in some part of the methodology he uses for making speed ratings, he uses several independent 20,000 race samples.

3) The time span was late spring and summer. Winter races really seperate the different ratings out, when track variants vary wildly, allowing more room for different interpretations and thus different speed ratings. In other words, in the wintertime, there will be many more disagreements. Jim has found that one can create speed ratings for Hollywood summertime with no daily variant or track to track and have a number quite close to the "real" speed ratings.

4) There was only a small number of tracks involved. Speed ratings differ among themselves due to several methodological issues:

a: Daily track variant - some use pars; some, like Jim, use a complex multitiered projection method to determine what these horses in this race are capable of doing. With lightly raced horses, this becomes especially critical, due to the lack of history and the inherent improvement many make. Sometimes the answer to a projection is 'I don't know. Pars work better than nothing.'

b: Speed points per length - how many lengths does 1 speed rating point equal. Jim and Beyer both use an exponential formula. I believe Beyer had his pencil and paper and Jack Daniels when he came up with his formula. Jim had several computers, several years of data for every race run in north america. Amazingly, their answers were very very close. Some speed numbers use a constant number, regardless of distance, so 1 point = 1/2 length in 6f races and 12f races.

c: Scaling - This goes beyond the obvious difference between Ragozin/Brown scaling (lower numbers are better). The breadth of the scale (possible values are 0 to 120, more or less, for Beyer and Cramer) and the number of ties are also important. These issues are related. If half the horses in every race are tied for #1 last race speed rating, this obviously affects both the evaluation and use of these numbers. The smaller the range of normal values, the more ties one will have.

d: Track to Track adjustments - The classic question. Many use pars. Jim doesn't. I don't understand how he does it, but several years of researching various methods proved to him that pars adjust horses in the wrong direction more often than not.

By making Hollywood the centerpiece of his earlier study, Bayle was basically not testing the differing interpretations of track to track that different speed ratings exhibit. Turf Paradise shippers ocassionally, Northern California shippers more often, and that is basically it. To really evaluate these different speed ratings, one needs to look at tracks like Oaklawn, Gulfstream, Keenland and several of the eastern seabord tracks that have horses coming from all over the place.

I could go on, but the basic point is, the new study to end all studies would have corrected all these issues: 6 months of continuous data, Nov to May, tracks from all over the country, major and minor tracks, etc. Plus power ratings were to be evaluated seperately.

One final point in an already too long post. The earlier study tested several categories and provided win% and roi. Once it was published, the spin doctors went to work in a way that would have made Dick Morris and Bill Clinton proud (like the 2 person race between the Soviet Union and the USA, where the USA team wins; Pravda reports Soviet Union came in 2nd and USA came in next to last). I think somebody had a 2 cent positive roi, so they won in all the advertisements. Somebody had the highest win%, so they won. Barry Meadow, much as I admire him, won the spin contest, something like 'the only one to finish in the top 3 in all the various categories.' Everybody wins!

For the record, Jim broke all ties in the data sent to Bayle (Bayle was throwing out ties) and stands by #1 last race speed rating win and in the money % as, although not the best way to use these numbers, a completely objective measure of the RELATIVE value of his speed ratings. No wiggling or squirming here.

"


.

[Tom]

Here's a quote from a PA thread dated 11/29/2003 from a poster named Secretariat:

"3. Jim Bayle of Sports Stat did a study which showed the DRF-SR-TV out performing other Speed figures including Bris and Beyer in his tests."

I haven't been able to find the details.

Here's another from a PA post dated 04/26/2001 from someone named Tom:

"Seems I remember the speed figure study Jim Bale did showed DRF SR+TV as good or better than any."

Hmmmm. This belongs in the "You know you're getting old when..." :D