Ask Andy Beyer
 

https://promos.drf.com/beyer

Beyer resource page email Beyer quesions via email askbeyer@drf.com:ThmbUp:

It looks like they've done a really good job expanding on the Beyer Par information.

The Top Beyer info is also nice.

I stumbled onto those pars by accident - yes, much improved.:ThmbUp:

Still, can't help but wonder why so many races in the form have no Beyer par listed.

To have a good par time you need a large sample of races at that condition, surface, and usually distance.

They have an internal system where the PARs are entered by the Beyer team. That's probably the source for the newspaper also. Now that they have a much improved PAR report, it may be a matter of time before the newspaper gets updated also, but I don't know that.

I like the Ask Beyer and Jerardi columns. As long as they are willing to take the time to explain some of the nuances of figures and specific races, that's a plus for horse players.

Damn Arrogate had to get a 122 Beyer...otherwise...Holy Bull would share with no other 3yo on that list....

Right. But you would think they have that covered based on the data provided in this thread.

Just about every race indicates "pars not available" when you print the form off the website. I'm not certain, but I think the print edition of the form is better at providing this information.

True. But the question still applies.


Among the possible answers is that racing secretaries...blah blah.. killed condition/class as a usable handicapping feature.

Holy Bull was all over that list. :ThmbUp:

I am able to calculate pars for just about every race from my own DB.

If I had access to DRF's db.........:cool:

Exactly.

1997. The year of the giant beyers.

I hope Mr. Beyer is doing well, and is able to participate in some Derby discussions.

Andy contacted Mike and asked him to relay to Class and that we should submit the questions about lack of pars, so I did tonight.

Nice to know he reads us and reached out!
Class Act!!!

I will post link to his reply.

Not a big fan of his numbers but really like that he takes the time to answer questions. This to me embodies a class act!!!!

Meh. I was able to privately email Beyer for one of my own HRN articles. He answered both of my questions.

Interestingly, he downplayed owning a 100+ Beyer in this crop.

He recently wrote an article in that column about how the top 3yos are all so lightly raced coming into the Derby these days, then tend to run lower figures now and then get much better later.

No foundation anymore.
I thing same with the handicap division - so lightly raced they never into the razor sharp condition horse used to be in for the big races.

It really is amazing to compare what happens now to what Noor and Citation did in 1950 (running every couple of weeks and setting a bunch of world records) or even what Spectacular Bid did at Santa Anita in 1980 (three races in seven weeks, a track record and an American record, and another big win four weeks later).

His reply appeared today.
Hey Wayne! We made the papers and no jail time! :headbanger:

https://www.drf.com/news/preview/ask...l-handicapping

Thanks ANDY!

That's a good column for educating fans on figures. I hope people keep reading it.

because of my skepticism of the absolute value of speed figures I sent this email to the askbeyer address shown above on April 16 and received no response

would like to hear comments

here's what I sent:


"My understanding of how speed figures are calculated is that the times of all the races for the day are compared to the par or average times of races at that track for those levels, at those distances on a given day.

So, for example if 7 of 9 races on a card are all run faster than average and the other 2 races are about the same as average then for that day the track surface will be considered very fast and that will then be used to calculate speed figures.

But isn't it more that a little bit possible that those faster than average speeds occurred for reasons other than the relative fastness or slowness of the surface? For example, couldn't it just be that for random reasons the horses entered happened to be of higher quality on that day?

When blackjack experts run a computer simulation to consider, for example, a rule change, they typically have the computer play one billion hands.

Your designation of a speed figure is the result of usually only around 9 trials.

Isn't it more than a little bit possible that at least on some days the consideration of the track surface based on the speed of the races on that day will not be representative?"

I don't think Beyer is using pars very often any longer to make figures. It is a good place when you are first starting out, but most then move on to projections based on the quality of the field. If I were starting over today, i wouldn't even begin with pars. I'd start with someone else's figures that I thought were of good quality.

I truly wish I understood the validity of that better. I just can't wrap my head around it, but people smarter than me can so I keep trying.

You just try to gauge what you expect the horses to run based on past performance, not some vague par which is really a problem these days with so many different conditions even within the same class. It is tough but over time you can get really good at it. I start with the last four races of the top eight finishers. I toss out races that aren't similar enough to today based on surface, distance, finish position (both today and the races I'm comparing) and how long ago it happened. You can get a big sample sizes this way compared to the small samples you get using pars.

If there are 5 sprints run on a card, I have a chance at 32 data points per race for a total of 160. Of course that rarely happens given today's field sizes and how little horses actually race, but I might have a good 80. I'll narrow it down by tossing out the the possible outliers, so maybe the 15 highest and 15 lowest, and base the track variant on the remaining 50.

The trick with projections is you have to be careful not underrate improving horses. The more horses you use the less likely that is to happen as you'll be using horses that regress as well and again tossing out the outliers before making a variant.

This is another thing that’s changed so much in the game.

In my early years on the board I learned a ton reading here. After a few years I took a dive into par times and received some great tutoring from Tom, Dave Schwartz and JimG (Great turf player) and soon it all changed. It was a ton of fun and understanding pars became 2nd nature and applying that to some big races changed my play completely.

In the game today? I doubt it would be such a revelation. Too many goofy classes etc

Making my own pace figures (using the Beyer variants 90% of the time) I find I get very few standout fig plays, but just as important, I get a lot of horrible races to totally through out horses from. It is handicapping a day's card after the fact trying to figure out what happened. A lot of slow races are just that - VERY slow. I mark the questionable races so when I handicap a race, I am alerted to go past that line.

The best deal is when I suspect a Beyer and am right about it. But he adjusts them so it won't last long.

I don't dig as deeply into pace figures anymore, but I agree 100% that digging into into the races after the fact is how you put yourself in a position of understanding the horses PPs better when they come back. I spend WAY more time on the follow up than the actual handicapping.

Well said, Wayne. I've always believed that furnishing viewers with useful take-aways from a race is more important than the pre-race commentary.

Few (skilled) players tune in to be touted, but interpreting what they just watched provides them with bricks to build future opinions from. And if (even the unlikeliest) of outcomes adhered, in retrospect, to some remotely plausible scenario, explaining the perfect storm that shaped a result can only enlighten good handicappers, sharpen their opinions of the entire field, and strengthen their instincts moving forward.

More and more in this spirit, and also for fun, I not only explore different scenarios in the pre-race, but also argue BOTH sides of contending forms in attempting to explain why one sharp handicapper might side against a certain runner, while another embraces the same horse.

In the end, my opinion is clear, but nowadays subordinated to the more important task of treating a race as an organic mixture of forms and interpretations. Not something dead, pre-ordained, and serving as an excruciating obstacle course that leads to some "correct answer."


Incidentally, sir, I would LOVE for Formulator to incorporate personal notes submitted BEFORE a race has been run. Unlike Nancy, who takes copious notes while prepping for the show, I rely strictly on memory when passing along what my research has discovered. And that sometimes becomes hit -and-miss. LOL!

There's a new version being developed. The early BETA is available at the homepage and has that feature .

Tech idiot here. Please explain, sir. For instance, will the new version incorporate that feature???

Incidentally. Beyer should put me on his xmas list for the 20x a night I invoke his figs. In fact, I almost changed my name here once to "Antibrisman," but that just doesn't roll smoothly off the tongue.

Simple guy here, so a bottle of Old Spice will do, Andy. Chix dig it.

Much appreciated Beyer's tasteful homage to the incomparable Glenn Gallivan, by the way. I loved the guy.

we would disagree there.
i don't think i am just starting out, and there is no way i would use a projection method.
i guess though it depends on your definition of 'projection' as i know how fast any particular race should be run before the event(but it has NOTHING to do with how fast the runners in this race may have run previously), so maybe that would be a 'projection' although i don't see it as such.


pars(or in my case standards, because they are not averages as such) are fine.
if you are projecting, then that is basically saying that you expect this race to be run in that time, or something similar.
not so different to me, but mine will never be changed after the fact.

Yes. There's a notes section related to each horse for today's race that you can use for whatever you want.

Go to the home page. On the left, set it to PPs (instead of wagering) and select a race card. That will take you into the new Classic PPs. Then there's a tab for going into Formulator Beta.

Once you get into the new Formulator beta PPs, there's a box on the right near the earning box for notes.

I get that, Wayne. And tx. But I'm asking if the new Formulator will allow me to print out a card with PRE-RACE annotations BEFORE the races have been run.

I don't think that's available yet. I don't know if it's in the long term plans. You can print the regular Card, Trip, and Race notes in the PPs. I let someone know what you are asking for.

Excellent explanation of the projection method. Takes more time than pars but yields much more accurate figures. Beyer said that he used pars when he was just starting out and had nothing else to work with but switched to projections when he had generated some numbers.

I used to use the same method except I rarely went beyond the top 4 or 5 finishers unless they were close. Horses finishing far back are usually not preservered with and are probably not running representative races. I know this gave me a smaller sample but a more representative one.

Update.

That feature is already in place. ;)