Are These Beyer Figures Correct?

[raybo]

I think Beyer, of the major speed figure makers, comes closest to a true speed figure, as he does not arbitrarily upgrade or downgrade a figure unless the time was extreme. He leaves the interpretation of the figure to the user. Interpretations are opinions, and we all have them, so his approach seems more in the true spirit of the speed figure. I know that if I used figures, I would want the raw figure displayed so that any interpretations I have about the running of the race would not be compounded by a maker's interpretation.

As a matter of fact, the latest version of my program includes my own raw pace and speed figures, just to make comparisons easier than looking at feet per second velocities. I doubt I would ever use them, but some of my users prefer to look at numbers on a more familiar scale. They can then apply their own interpretations as they want, and feel comfortable doing.

[raybo]

CC's speed figure for the Derby was 4 and 5 points higher than the other 2 horses in the Preakness who also ran in the Derby with him, Ride On Curlin and General A Rod, respectively. Those were the only horses who had run 10f races. I don't project to longer or shorter distances, other means must be used to compare horses who have not run the distance before, IMO.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This is correct.

Pace is NOT part of some elaborate formula. However, those guys can recognize extreme paces by looking at the fractions, watching the races and knowing the horses (or using Moss pace figures) just as well as anyone else.

So they can make adjustments to figures that were impacted by extreme paces so they make sense.

There is another problem with these "advanced" adjustments which hasn't been mentioned so far.

Beyer or Cj may indeed be knowledgeable enough to determine how the extreme pace of the race is likely to affect the race's final time...but is it always Beyer or Cj who are making the figures -- or is the task relegated to their "associates". I may have supreme confidence in Beyer's figure-making...but he is no longer locked up in his room, making figures with his red flair pen. His operation has now become widespread...and there are other people who are doing the bulk of the work. I suspect that the same will happen with Cj and HIS figures...now that he too has to cater to a much wider audience. Am I to believe that the "associates" are as capable as Beyer and Cj, in making these fine-line figure adjustments?

[Tom]

Beyer has capable associates who share the load with him.
He has the power to oversee, as I believe I read.
I am sure no one is breaking out race without due diligence.
I know BRIS even does this, according to Ed Derosa on a Byk segment. Just not as often.

I do not worry about the capabilities of the teams. Their leaders are professionals.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not sure where this comment is coming from. The question was whether Beyer includes pace in his numbers.

To make it simple, assume 2 horses ran the following races and all else was equal.

A: 21 3/5 - 43 4/5 - 109
B: 22 ---- 44 3/5 - 109

They have the same final time, but clearly did not run the same race.

Beyer generally focuses on the 109 final time and gives both horses the same number.

There are some figure makers that will look at both the fractions and final time and give Horse A the better number because of the faster pace. When you do that, it becomes a performance figure instead of a final time figure.

Beyer generally chooses to leave pace analysis to the player other than in extreme cases. That's a very simple point.

Where it is coming from is that PACE is an inherent component of speed and that is a scientific fact. There is not anything that any speed figure maker can do to change that. Without pace speed does not exist.

If you are stating that PACE is not recognized by all speed figure makers that is a different story because all or most of all speed figure makers are methodologists and not scientists; and their speed figure making is governed by generally accepted rules, self-imposed rules, or a combination of the two. Scientists are governed by the LAWS of SCIENCE; in other words in science it is what it is.

In your example, Beyer if your assumption is correct, would be correct because it is the Andrew Beyer methodology and you might disagree, but so what? Andrew Beyer has the right to construct a speed figure any way he likes because as aforementioned we are not talking about laws; we are talking about methods.

Therefore when you are speaking of speed a simple understanding is that speed is the rate of change of distance with time or in the language of calculus speed is the first derivative of distance with respect to time.

Furthermore, what should be used to calculate speed figures in my opinion is instantaneous speed, that is, the speed determined over a very small interval of time.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Cratos is correct - making speed figures is an art, not a science. I don't think Andy Beyer or CJ would disagree with that. But for some reason, I suspect Cratos thinks they would.

[letswastemoney]

If DRF could just designate with a star which speed figures were adjusted for any extreme situation, that would go a long way to making people happy.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Cratos is correct - making speed figures is an art, not a science. I don't think Andy Beyer or CJ would disagree with that. But for some reason, I suspect Cratos thinks they would.

Of course it is an art, I agree. Not only that, but a scientist would probably give up and find a new pursuit when he figured out the things he has to deal with in racing. That data is far from foolproof.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Cratos is correct - making speed figures is an art, not a science. I don't think Andy Beyer or CJ would disagree with that. But for some reason, I suspect Cratos thinks they would.

Almost everyone I have ever met that makes figures thinks the process is part science and part art.

The art comes in because we often don't have all the information necessary to be certain what happened. Wind, moisture content, track maintenance, and a list of about 100 other things can impact the times in changing ways throughout a card. Plus, different figure makers are often working with prior speed figures that are not in agreement with each other. Add it all up and that's why 5 very competent people can come to a different conclusion about the same day or race.

Figure makers use the information they have available and their best judgement to estimate what happened.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Where it is coming from is that PACE is an inherent component of speed and that is a scientific fact. There is not anything that any speed figure maker can do to change that. Without pace speed does not exist.

If you are stating that PACE is not recognized by all speed figure makers that is a different story because all or most of all speed figure makers are methodologists and not scientists; and their speed figure making is governed by generally accepted rules, self-imposed rules, or a combination of the two. Scientists are governed by the LAWS of SCIENCE; in other words in science it is what it is.

In your example, Beyer if your assumption is correct, would be correct because it is the Andrew Beyer methodology and you might disagree, but so what? Andrew Beyer has the right to construct a speed figure any way he likes because as aforementioned we are not talking about laws; we are talking about methods.

Therefore when you are speaking of speed a simple understanding is that speed is the rate of change of distance with time or in the language of calculus speed is the first derivative of distance with respect to time.

Furthermore, what should be used to calculate speed figures in my opinion is instantaneous speed, that is, the speed determined over a very small interval of time.

We've covered this ground too many times.

I was clearly talking about what Beyer does in his terms.

Almost everyone uses the term speed figures interchangeably with final time figures. They use the term pace figures to describe the fractions. That's the standard terminology. That's just the way it is.

I already know what you think and by now you should know what I think of your approach. I think some of your ideas have merit but I've never seen them tested in the real world to see if they produce superior results.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

We've covered this ground too many times.

I was clearly talking about what Beyer does in his terms.

Almost everyone uses the term speed figures interchangeably with final time figures. They use the term pace figures to describe the fractions. That's the standard terminology. That's just the way it is.

I already know what you think and by now you should know what I think of your approach. I think some of your ideas have merit but I've never seen them tested in the real world to see if they produce superior results.

I have no idea about “We've covered this ground too many times” because I was merely responding to the thread’s topic and not to you personally.

Also what someone uses does not make it right. The history of this country is littered with false assumptions and false accusations, but there isn’t anyone anywhere that can prove that the final time of an object’s movement is not a function of its pace.

In the most congenial and harmonious manner you do not know what I think and how I think. On the contrary the same applies of me to you; I have no idea how you think or what you think.

Our interaction is tacit at best on an Internet horseracing forum where we come together to form our opinions about different horseracing topics.

Far as what you think of my “approach” (what that is I don’t know because it is a mystery to me) is irrelevant and transcends a response.

Lastly, I do not use speed figures, but I have the acumen to comprehend their application and development very well, I have a strong appreciation for the contributions that Andy Beyer has made to the horseracing handicapping methodology. Through his writings (both in books and his columns) Beyer has informed horseplayers about this game in a way that they had never been informed before.

[classhandicapper]

Cratos,

I'm not going to argue with you over the terminology that most people have been using for decades to communicate to each other about the times of races and classify their style of handicapping. They are called pace and speed figures and the handicappers are called pace or speed handicappers (or a combination). You can either communicate with people on the terms that most will understand or not. If not, you'll endlessly be making posts about how the term "speed" is being misused.

You've spent enough time talking about your approach to get a gist of some of the things you do that are different than the standard speed figure approach. Some of it has been interesting. But like I said, I haven't seen a study on the ability to pick winners using your approach.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

Of course it is an art, I agree. Not only that, but a scientist would probably give up and find a new pursuit when he figured out the things he has to deal with in racing. That data is far from foolproof.

Or a scientist would figure (pardon the pun) out how to scientifically make a representative figure.

What is a representative figure?

Do you want a final time speed figure that represents how fast the horse actually ran or do you want a figure that represents how fast the horse is capable of running?

This year's KY Derby is a good example. Beyer gave Chrome a 97. That was how fast he thought Chrome ran, but he also understood that Chrome was capable of running a bigger number than that in the Preakness and that Chrome had running a bigger number in the SA Derby.

If I had to choose one, I would prefer to look at speed figures that reflect the final time of the race and track variant and use them to predict upcoming races. I will account for a fast or slow pace myself. Some people prefer to look at figures that represent what the horse is capable of running.

Both figures can be useful. It just depends on what you prefer. It probably makes sense to look at both kinds of figures for a particular horses when you are assessing their ability to run a future race.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Whether you are measuring horseracing, car racing, or human racing pace is the independent variable and final time is the dependent variable.

Or final time could be the dependent variable and finish position could be the independent variable.

Intuitively, final time seems like it would have greater predictive value of finish position than pace would have toward final time.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by highnote

Or final time could be the dependent variable and finish position could be the independent variable.

Intuitively, final time seems like it would have greater predictive value of finish position than pace would have toward final time.

Hmmm. I believe that finish position is dependent on both pace and final time, so how could finish position be independent to anything, except possibly final time, when horses are so far back that they quit racing and thus run a slower final time than they would have had they kept racing to the wire?