BEYER on the DERBY - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

karlskorner · 04-27-2004, 10:14 AM

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4839998/

kenwoodallpromos · 04-27-2004, 03:27 PM

Obviously Funny Cide was not a history buff! Whichever horse wins the Ky derby this year I am not betting on any that have college degrees in History!!

Dancer's Image · 04-27-2004, 04:01 PM

Ken,
How does Funny Cide not meet Beyer's historical criteria?

He must have raced within the last 28 days.
* He must have raced as a 2-year-old. Otherwise, he is trying to cram too much preparation into too short a time. The last horse who won the Derby without 2-year-old experience was Apollo in 1882.
* He ought to have made at least three starts as a 3-year-old. The only Derby winner in the last half century who broke this rule was Sunny Halo in 1983. Among those who tried and failed in recent years were Point Given (2001), Lemon Drop Kid (1999) and Victory Gallop (1998); all of them subsequently won a race in the Triple Crown series, suggesting that they may have lost the Derby because they didn't have enough preparation.
* He ought to have made at least five career starts. Even though horses are coming into the Derby with shorter and shorter campaigns, and both Fusaichi Pegasus and Grindstone won after five races, no horses with four or fewer starts has won since Exterminator in 1918.

cj · 04-27-2004, 04:05 PM

If Beyer had written the article last year, I'm sure he would have included "can't be a gelding." Another case of backfitting. If a horse unraced at 2 wins this year, someone else will write a similiar article with one less entry in the criteria department.

It's almost as good as James Quinn's HorsePlayer Derby article, he doesn't pick a winner either. He narrows it down to three.

Was dual qualifier, then just dosage, can't be a filly, can't be a frontrunner, can't be the favorite...its all a bunch of you know what. The fittest, fastest horse will win with decent racing luck.

The more people write this stuff, the bigger the odds get!

andicap · 04-27-2004, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
If Beyer had written the article last year, I'm sure he would have included "can't be a gelding." Another case of backfitting. If a horse unraced at 2 wins this year, someone else will write a similiar article with one less entry in the criteria department.

It's almost as good as James Quinn's HorsePlayer Derby article, he doesn't pick a winner either. He narrows it down to three.

Was dual qualifier, then just dosage, can't be a filly, can't be a frontrunner, can't be the favorite...its all a bunch of you know what. The fittest, fastest horse will win with decent racing luck.

The more people write this stuff, the bigger the odds get!

That's the smartest note I will read all week about handicapping the Derby.

Bravo, CJ!

Just proves the best handicappers are not writing books and giving out advice to the public.

Tom · 04-27-2004, 11:17 PM

Racing Star Weekly use dto pick two longshots every wek and write a set of rules around them and then when you tried to use the "system" it never worked.
But RSW was reasonably priced.......

brdman12 · 04-28-2004, 12:16 PM

Although Beyer does make a lot of sense it is also true that horseracing is an ever changing sport. The sets of rules we try to make to find the Derby winner shouldn't be a pat set of rules. I think this year the number of races in the past might not be as critical. Horses coming off layoffs are doing quite well. I also think the number of races in the 3 year old past might not be as critical. Horses are more fragile than ever. Too many races before the triple crown races might be detrimental. This years Kentucky Derby seems more up for grabs than ever.

kenwoodallpromos · 04-28-2004, 01:15 PM

Beyer will make another exception after this year's derby!! What is Beyer's historical Beyer's number qualification for the winner? I think Beyer's point was that with few exceptions, his historical voodoo holds up-- EXCEPT if you count the Very LAST years derby!!lol!! If a gelding does not win a 1 year historical fact is broken- so beyer's exception goes all the way back to the 90's? Big deal! Here is my historical fact, proven the day after the Derby by backfitting= The derby winner will ALWAYS be the most improved 3 yr old including improving on Derby day! Prove me wrong!!

cj · 04-28-2004, 01:58 PM

I'm not sure I understand Ken, but I'll try. War Emblem actually ran a lower Beyer in the Derby while Proud Citizen improved a bunch. So, the winner was not most improved. Did I mis-understand?

andicap · 04-28-2004, 02:02 PM

Are we being fair to Beyer? Did he actually write last year that Funny Cide wouldn't win because he was a gelding or are we taking liberties at his expense.

(That said, I agree these trends are b.s.)

cj · 04-28-2004, 02:06 PM

I never implied he said that. I have no idea who he picked or didn't pick to be honest. Just a generalization on these types of articles.

kenwoodallpromos · 04-28-2004, 11:34 PM

Beyers picked FC for third place in the KY Derby! IMO FC was the most improved up to the derby. What I said in my post, tongue-in-cheek, was that by backfitting AFTER the derby you can make history out of the results. That is what Andy Beyers is doing- backfitting then labeling the non-fitting results as "exceptions". Same thing Andy's Beyers Speed Figures System does with variants, throw out the results that do not fit!! I do not use speed figures.