Beyer Figs Bogus?
 

Oscar Performance ran a mile on the Widener Turf in 1:31 1 and broke a 20 year-old track record at Belmont Park.

For this he gets is a 104 BSF. That's all.

What does a horse have to do these days for Beyer to give a big fig.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what fig Beyer gave Elusive Quality when he set the previous record of 1:31 3?

I think the BSF's have become highly questionable in the last decade or so.

Look at the increasingly large difference between them and the TimeformUS figs. Years ago, I recall there being about a 15 point difference. More recently the difference has increased to about 20 to 22 points.
In this years Triple Crown races the difference was even greater, something like 30 points.

What's going on?

Yes, they are bogus.

You should stop using them immediately.

Problem solved.

Beyer has always said he has difficulty making reliable turf figures. He also sometimes makes adjustments to previous figures after horses have run again.

CJ could probably shed some light on this.

Side note -- a lot of people have criticized Steve Roman for changing a horse's Dosage Index after more of a sire's progeny have run. I think it's good that Beyer and Roman change their ratings after more information becomes available.

A Beyer Speed Figure or a Dosage Index number is similar to a digital snapshot of some quality of a horse. The snapshot is based on sampling, but it's not the complete picture. Just like a digital audio recording is a sampling of the actual sound, but it's not the entire sound.

Beyer Speed Figures and the Dosage Index have proved useful, but they don't contain all information.

It was a VERY fast track. The chart below shows the figures I gave the race and also you can see the prior two races. In the product you can scroll through the entire history of the horse, forwards and backwards. I thought it was a relatively easy day to create a track variant.

https://image.ibb.co/nr0pXy/Poker.png

As for the Beyer figures, we are about 20 points apart usually so know disagreement on this one.

I almost hate replying because I don't want to steal your thunder. You rock! :headbanger:

What IF?
 

Figure makers tried something a little different? For example what if, a study was conducted to measure some or all of these factors and then assign a number, or Ft/sec. that directly correlates to these factors?
Possible factors that may correlate:
a. average depth of soil(dirt) at different points on track from rail
b. compaction number or durometer of track
c. stickiness factor? something like the viscosity of liquids.
d. waviness of surface(ruts, even grade, etc)
e. air humidity and percent of moisture in track surface(top several inches)
d. composition, sand, soil, ground up rubber, etc.
e. surface temperature/air?

To shoot holes in my own idea, these figs would have to measured every day, even throughout the day, and we can't even get timing into the mid-20th century technology at this point. Never having been a trainer like several on PA, some of Ruffian's comments a while back about the depth of the dirt in certain paths from the rail were kind of eye opening to me. I did have the opportunity to walk on the Penn's track many years back, and the depth of the dirt was surprising to me. This past year I was playing and watching races at Parx and after a few races, the track crew came out between races, and re-surfaced the track. 6 furlong times dropped by >3 seconds in the next several sprints, although the classes were relatively the same.

I'm not contending that all of the above factors have the same degree of correlation to ft/sec. but what if two of them are highly correlated? It would be nice to know what those factors were.

Why don't you ask Cratos?

In all honestly, it is easier to measure the sum of the parts than it would be to measure all of the parts individually and then add them up.

No Beyer
 

It's been said that Beyer doesn't make the Beyer figs for the DRF. They are now done by committee that injects a lot of subjectivity into them. Tom Brohamer, many years ago made some Beyer figures using the mathematical precepts laid out in Beyer's book and they were a lot different from the DRF's.

I'm 100% positive that Beyer does the figures for some tracks. He has a team that does the rest, splitting up the tracks among individuals. I'm sure Andy monitors those he doesn't do personally and I would imagine he gets consulted on some of the tougher ones.

As I mentioned in the first post, there seems to be an increasing gap between Beyer and TFUS.

The Preakness - 97 Beyer - 128 TF (cj is that right?) = 31 point diffence.
The differences seem to be growing in size.

Beyer's figs also made it look like Justify was going backwards.

SA Derby - 107
Ky Derby - 101 (from memory, need to verify)
Preakness _ 97

Made Justify appear vulnerable in the Belmont. He wasn't, was he?

Not the case at all with Tineform. CJ might verify if this is true. Believe Justify's numbers were increasing, or at least remained steady.

Sarcastic, are we?

I think DRF should stop using them ASAP and give it's customers something more reliable and accurate.

Not being sarcastic.

I've seen this before he even admitted it. The Jockeys, the trip and the turf condition just adds too many variables to these races. In the summer the track (especially Saratoga) can become speed favoring for days in a row, then change over night. And if the jockeys are playing grab and hold...……..it strengthens the bias. Saving ground and getting an opening are as vital as how fast a horse can run because the races are evenly matched. The odds (and figs)don't match a horses real chance and that's where the money is. I've said this before about grass races. You can take those figs and toss them, it will rarely give you the overlay or bomb that counts during the meet. Where literally, one or two horses like that can make the meet.


The bottom line is on turf you won't get the horses you need to score out by just looking at those figs. There will be many horses that run well on the turf courses that according to those figures make no sense at all.


Looks like Oscar Performance is taking the "cut back" move that World Approval did last year. With the kind of trip horses like these get, they can really be tough to beat when they get hot at the mile distance.

All the hotheads in the Restoring Hope thread still seem to think so.

You do know that tfus has a pace component that Beyer essentially does not? So there have always been pace related discrepancies.


I think the Beyers are ok in getting you to the contenders. They are way ahead of auto generated bris or trackmaster.

In long races like the Belmont, and to a lesser extent the Derby and Preakness, pace adjustments are pretty small. For those races it was +2, +3, and 0.

https://image.ibb.co/mwmTcy/Justify.png

There definitely seems to be an issue with turf.
At Saratoga, Ironicus broke the track record for a mile on the turf.
Think if my memory is correct, he barely broke a hundred on Beyer.

He makes turf horses look slow - even though they run faster times.
I know Beyer made an adjustment, but it wasn't enough.
He still makes turf runners look slower than dirt runners.
Unfair.

Who exactly is the victim of this unfairness? And if there is an unfairness wouldn't you just make large bets on the horses that are being slighted?

Beyer is doing the sport no favors.

Making turf horse appear inferior to dirt runners.

He's also doing the sport no favors by lowering his figures for ALL TRIPLE CROWN races.

He makes horses appear to be getting worse.

I think horses are every bit as fast as they've ever been and think the numbers should support that.

Beyer needs an adjustment to his figure making process to reflect what horse really do.

His method is outdated and keeps going backwards because it's based on comparisons and expected values - not reality.

Once again, who is the victim? And why do you care if you know these numbers are so biased and wrong?

No reason to think the beyer is wrong.



Ever hear of a variant?

Ratings are simply ratings. Some are right, some not so right.

Beyer numbers are good numbers. Not perfect or even close, but certainly not fake.

Stepen Foster.

Winner - Pavel

TFUS - 128
BSF - 101

Beyer again makes a good horse look so so.

___

Ironicus set a track record at Saratoga last year on turf.

Beyer had him barely breaking 100.

Beyer makes a superb effort and horse look ordinary.

Makes a turf horse look inferior.

His numbers are BOGUS and fit the definition of the word.

Best example I recall.

A few years ago in the Wood Memorial. He gave Outplay a far better number than the filly, have to look up her name, that won the 3yo filly stake a half hour earlier. The fiilly ran a FASTER time at the same distance on the same track.
It was a wet track and didn't get any better or worse.

Beyer fudged the fig for the Repole/Pletcher trained Outplay.

You could look it up.

His numbers are BOGUS.

Yeah, that's what he did...because he gives a shit what Repole/Pletcher think of him or the numbers he gives their horses.

Why, I see Beyer dining and hobnobbing with Repole/Pletcher every chance he gets...:pound::pound::pound:

Come on man...this isn't even a good episode of Punk'd

I don't know why he did it PA.
Just stated a fact about who the horse belonged to.
A lower number also would make the race look very bad for a TC prep.
Just sayin'.

Don't tell me people aren't politically motivated, for appearances sake, at times.
Jut my opinion on that.

There are numerous examples of fudged figures by Beyer over the years.
This is well documented.

He purposely increased the BSFigure for Outplay, but, left the filly number lower - even though she ran significantly faster on the same track, at the same distance!

PS. PA,

You do know that DRF is now using Beyer figs to promote breeding, don't you?

Well documented where? Denny's house?

So why aren't all the Repole/Pletcher horses sporting 120s and higher all the way down their PPs?

What? Now that's funny:pound::pound::pound::pound::pound: They still have the grand slam breakfast?

Prove 1 case.

Nobody goes to Denny's, people end up at Denny's.

i don't have any idea about the horse in question, but there is absolutely nothing unsual about a horse winning going forwards, and dropping numbers at the same time



they only need to do what they need to do.

numbers are simply that.....numbers

Tom,

I already pointed one out - Outplay, winning Wood Memorial at Aqueduct.

There are many more times where the figures have been changed after the fact.

Do the research yourself. I'm not doing it for you.

Also, many of his figures are fudged because there isn't enough data to base the figure on. Only previous races the horses ran, which may also be inaccurate.

Idiotic question PA.

It would be too obvious.

He doesn't just fudge for those people, They were just the ones in my example.

You're smarter than that and just being derogatory towards me because you don't like me.

That's rather obvious too.

\

Numbers are FREQUENTLY changed after the face.
I have posted that several times.
It's called Quality Control.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it bogus or fudged.
You should stick to the DRF SR+TV. It is what you want. Your grasp of Beyers is rather low.

Tom,
You asked for an example and I gave one.

Outplay ran almost second slower than the Filly did winning her race.
Outplay recileived a Beyer considerably higher.
Same track, same distance, same track condition, races less than hour apart.

Beyer fudged the numbers.

I understand how they are computed. I read Beyers books, all of them.

You're ignoring stuff again that you don't agree with.

Better Than Beyers
 

There was a guy in the 90's that proved with statistical evidence that the much maligned DRF SR numbers were better than Beyers in pointing out winners, although neith ercould be counted on to produce profits. His name was Jim Bayles I think, and DR Sartin used DRF SR's in a lot of his programs and not Beyer numbers. One reason I'm thinking is that Beyers, since published in bold type in the DRF have lost a lot of their value.

That's because the DRF SR is an objective, factual number.

Beyer's have never been such.