Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 06-30-2018, 01:05 AM   #166
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hawk View Post
If a horse ran winning figures of 82, 83, 81 and 59, you wouldn't readjust that 59 based on his figures, and basically ignore the clock, if it also didn't make sense per the also-rans? I know that's simplistic but you understand what I'm saying. That race would have to be broken out and projected, regardless of the time, no? (And it should be, I might add).
I'm not sure I do understand, but the 59 would require a lot of investigation. I was trying to say I try to go with the clock when in doubt, but of course there are times when it is just too far of a reach and you need to dig deeper.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-30-2018, 01:12 AM   #167
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by P Matties Jr View Post
Thought about this race for a week.... I decided to take the two 7f races out for the day and use a separate variant for them. I made that decision because the whole weekend was relatively easy to do with all three days basically having the same variant, with the exception of the American Anthem race coming up so fast. Also the pace figures didn't make much sense in both of those 7f races, either. I wish I could come up with an explanation, though, because I don't like arbitrarily taking races out, like Beyer does routinely. I think that philosophy gets you in more trouble than it helps you.....I'm sure Craig will agree with me here but if you want your figures to be real tight, you have to project, but when you do, you face tough situations like this one, all the time.
Well said. I came close to going with treating the 7f races separately but went the other way and just broke the last one away, something I really don't do very often. In this case I'll be keeping a close eye on R4 as well, the other 7f race.

I think both of those are much better in this case than playing it straight. For the San Carlos I had 19 projections I considered relevant and only three fell below the variant I used for the other races. Two of those three barely made the cut. I'm very confident this was not the fast race that lumping with the others would make it.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-30-2018, 01:17 AM   #168
PaceAdvantage
PA Steward
 
PaceAdvantage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hawk View Post
Denny is trying to make the following point (albeit poorly, in my opinion):

ALL speed figures that are not automated can be viewed as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words: Beyer largely bases figures on past figures, and that sometimes means that in order to make the figures fit it is deemed that the surface changed from one race to the next. That certainly happens, but Denny would contend that it doesn't happen as often as the figure makers portend, that the figures are simply based on past figures and then twisted to fit. Then, when a figure turns out to clearly be wrong, the speed figure defenders will point to any number of reasons why you can't take the figure at face value, and you're an idiot if you do. You can't have it both ways -- you can't say "you can't play profitably without them" and then say "we know there are huge flaws." Denny is simply saying there are more flaws than others would suggest, or think. He also correctly points out the lack of pace influence makes figures suspect in some cases.

In the end, he has a right to say what he's saying without being flogged, in my opinion. And what he's saying has a hint of validity. Speed figures aren't "bogus" by and large, but there is reason to view them -- all of them, not just Beyers -- with skepticism.
Holy cow man. WHO or what WOKE YOU UP after 16 months?
__________________
@paceadvantage | Support the site and become a today!
PaceAdvantage is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-30-2018, 09:22 AM   #169
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,446
Denny's constant hollering!
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-30-2018, 11:00 AM   #170
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
Beyer gets a lot of flack when he breaks a race out. In this case, I'm guessing he did not. I actually did for a few reasons (last dirt race with turf races on both sides, top two would have been 130+, fast pace, etc), but it wasn't an easy decision.
I just checked. It looks like Beyer trimmed it a little also, but I didn't look at the rest of the day.

He gave the winner of the 4th race an 81 for 7F in 124.43

He gave American Anthem 105 for 7F in 122.12

Those are broken from each other by about 5 points. I guess the debate would be did he trim it enough.

This is the kind of race where I think a subjective analysis in non speed figure terms can help. We sort of know what American Anthem has been so far. He's been competitive against very good Grade 1 older horse and won a couple of graded stakes against 3yos before that. A Grade 2 stake for older horses is pretty much exactly where be belonged now at 4.

St Joe's Bay hasn't been sharp lately, but on his best day he could hang with Grade 2 and Grade 3 sprinters. He was off the claim. So let's see what finished behind him.

The horses behind the top 2 were mostly solid sharp multiple winning ALW horses you would expect to run well in a stakes but not beat American Anthem if he fired his best shot (unless they were crushing those ALW foes).

So I would say it looks like American Anthem fired his "A" race (Grade 2), St. Joe's Bay returned to his best form (Grade 2/Grade3), and the most of the ALW horses ran their race. It just wasn't good enough to handle the top 2.

I'd call it an average Grade 2 and move on. 105 is fine. I'm not worried about a couple of points one way or the other. There were things going on trip wise that matter more than 1-2 points.

(Note: Horse Greedy is a little tricky. Beyer went back and upgraded his prior race to a 101 from 96. So on Beyer his figure fits better into that 105. Of course these are the kinds of things that make a qualitative analysis worthwhile )
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 06-30-2018 at 11:05 AM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-30-2018, 11:11 AM   #171
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hawk View Post
Denny is trying to make the following point (albeit poorly, in my opinion):

ALL speed figures that are not automated can be viewed as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words: Beyer largely bases figures on past figures, and that sometimes means that in order to make the figures fit it is deemed that the surface changed from one race to the next. That certainly happens, but Denny would contend that it doesn't happen as often as the figure makers portend, that the figures are simply based on past figures and then twisted to fit. Then, when a figure turns out to clearly be wrong, the speed figure defenders will point to any number of reasons why you can't take the figure at face value, and you're an idiot if you do. You can't have it both ways -- you can't say "you can't play profitably without them" and then say "we know there are huge flaws." Denny is simply saying there are more flaws than others would suggest, or think. He also correctly points out the lack of pace influence makes figures suspect in some cases.

In the end, he has a right to say what he's saying without being flogged, in my opinion. And what he's saying has a hint of validity. Speed figures aren't "bogus" by and large, but there is reason to view them -- all of them, not just Beyers -- with skepticism.
I've been pretty much saying the same things.

That's why I am encouraging people to learn more about the process. Then people would be less likely to make very strong pronouncements about the quality of certain horses based primarily on their favorite figure maker (when there are often disagreements between figure makers) and when there's so much more going on in races that impact time. If we got to that stage, then everyone would stop trashing the figure makers also. They are doing the best they can ( outstanding work imo), but it's a really tough job.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 06-30-2018 at 11:14 AM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-30-2018, 03:12 PM   #172
JohnGalt1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
Adjustments like that are pretty complicated.

Part of the improvement you see with 2yos that turn 3 and 3yos as the season moves forward is related to physical maturity (the horse is getting bigger and stronger) and part of it is development that comes from getting fitter, more seasoned, and better with more racing.

Occasionally you will see a relatively lightly raced 4yo or 5yo that finally gets over whatever delayed their career. They will often develop and improve their figures as the season moves forward just like younger horses (though maybe not as quickly or extreme). That's telling you that part of it is not just "age". It's experience.

That makes it really tough to put that kind of thing in a formula of some kind. It's hard to isolate how much each factor contributes on average.

Then of course it gets even trickier with some pedigrees and/or trainers that develop horses differently than the average.

Great subject.

I make my own Hambleton pace figures. I make many adjustments to them.


Track to track, distance to distance--from Cynthia par book.


I mentioned my 2 year to 3 year old adjustments I make after a long lay off, and that's because as you stated horses gain muscle from 2-3. But only for lightly raced horses,1-2 races.


I made an adjustment chart. If the horse's race was December one tick adjustment faster, to races in May 8 tick faster.

I use these ratings as guidelines or advisory.

I read here that second time starters vastly improve generally in their second race. And that it's an average of a 5 tick gain. Some improve much more than that or not at all, so again, any rating is advisory.


I present my figures in 3 forms.


Last race I write the numbers, 85 82 167


Other than last race I put numbers in parentheses.


If a troubled race I put numbers in brackets.

If I have too many questions after handicapping, I'll pass the race.
JohnGalt1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.