Songbird

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by cj

Who does this? I know personally i don't care if I somehow insult a horse with a figure. I'm sure Beyer doesn't either.

Beyer admitted h adjusted it up, and there are tons of examples I've read over the past few years and here he did that.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Beyer admitted h adjusted it up, and there are tons of examples I've read over the past few years and here he did that.

Tons? Okay, give me five from last year. You ever notice you rarely hear about these adjusted figures later on after the horses race back?

Here is the thing people are missing. The big name horses are high profile and people notice more when things don't add up in their eyes figure wise. But that doesn't mean the figure maker isn't using the same exact methods and making the same type of decisions he does all for races every day around the country.

I also noted "add up in their eyes" because frankly most people don't know what they are talking about. Reading Picking Winners or Handicapping Speed doesn't make somebody an expert on the day to day machinations of making speed figures. It is way more complicated than most people can imagine. I'm not trying to make out what I and others like me do to be rocket science. But it isn't flipping burgers at McDonald's either. Any time I break out a figure I have a good reason, not just "it looked too slow", and I'm more than happy to explain it.

Back to the thread topic, the thing with the Songbird race is I played it straight like I do the vast majority of numbers. I was surprised it as high as it was, even if that was still below par for a G1 for females. The track was slow compared to most ovals and there were plenty other races for comparison. I'll be watching every horse that runs back like I do for most figures I have even some doubt for going forward.

[AltonKelsey]

Not surprised the fig for Songbird came back 'decent'.

There was nothing visually that implied the race fell apart, other than the close finish.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by cj

Tons? Okay, give me five from last year. You ever notice you rarely hear about these adjusted figures later on after the horses race back?

Here is the thing people are missing. The big name horses are high profile and people notice more when things don't add up in their eyes figure wise. But that doesn't mean the figure maker isn't using the same exact methods and making the same type of decisions he does all for races every day around the country.

I also noted "add up in their eyes" because frankly most people don't know what they are talking about. Reading Picking Winners or Handicapping Speed doesn't make somebody an expert on the day to day machinations of making speed figures. It is way more complicated than most people can imagine. I'm not trying to make out what I and others like me do to be rocket science. But it isn't flipping burgers at McDonald's either. Any time I break out a figure I have a good reason, not just "it looked too slow", and I'm more than happy to explain it.

Back to the thread topic, the thing with the Songbird race is I played it straight like I do the vast majority of numbers. I was surprised it as high as it was, even if that was still below par for a G1 for females. The track was slow compared to most ovals and there were plenty other races for comparison. I'll be watching every horse that runs back like I do for most figures I have even some doubt for going forward.

Isn't Chrome's San Pasquale egregious enough?

CC and company weren’t going to run a fast final time after going the first half in 49.12 (compared to 47.77 for the allowance race). If we had given the San Pasqual a “true” figure, California Chrome would have earned a 95—the same as Follow Me Crev. Imperative, Hoppertunity and Hard Case would have received figures of 93, 91 and 86 - all far below their normal performances. The 103 may be imperfect but it makes a lot more sense than 95.

He admits he actually gave a horse a false number because that horse set a slow pace. It'd be absurd if he did that when another horse set a slow pace, but when the winner and recipient of the false figure is the one who set the slow pace, it's off the charts absurd.

There have been plenty of times that a horse received a Beyer only to see a day or three later the number had been adjusted up or down. I'm not talking about the prelim figures either, but the ones posted officially at DRF in their charts.

Serling claimed at the time that it was no big deal that he adjusted the figure due to pace, that he did it a lot with Zenyatta. I can't verify that, just reporting what he said.

I just want a true fig. Horses can and should go up and down. How can we trust Arrogate putting up 3 fantastic numbers, for example, if we can't trust Beyer is publishing the true number?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

Tons? Okay, give me five from last year. You ever notice you rarely hear about these adjusted figures later on after the horses race back?

Here is the thing people are missing. The big name horses are high profile and people notice more when things don't add up in their eyes figure wise. But that doesn't mean the figure maker isn't using the same exact methods and making the same type of decisions he does all for races every day around the country.

I also noted "add up in their eyes" because frankly most people don't know what they are talking about. Reading Picking Winners or Handicapping Speed doesn't make somebody an expert on the day to day machinations of making speed figures. It is way more complicated than most people can imagine. I'm not trying to make out what I and others like me do to be rocket science. But it isn't flipping burgers at McDonald's either. Any time I break out a figure I have a good reason, not just "it looked too slow", and I'm more than happy to explain it.

Back to the thread topic, the thing with the Songbird race is I played it straight like I do the vast majority of numbers. I was surprised it as high as it was, even if that was still below par for a G1 for females. The track was slow compared to most ovals and there were plenty other races for comparison. I'll be watching every horse that runs back like I do for most figures I have even some doubt for going forward.

Beyer was notoriously slow in recognizing the role that pace played in a horse's final time...and there has been no indication that he has become proficient in pace handicapping even NOW. When the Beyer Associates presume to artificially adjust the Beyer figures to reflect the effect of the pace of the race...how does the customer know that these figure-makers understand pace better than he does HIMSELF?

Why doesn't Beyer supply the race's original speed figure, as WELL as the adjusted figure...so the customer can choose for HIMSELF if he wants to accept the adjusted figure, or not?

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

I don't have a specific case, but I believe I've heard Beyer say he will adjust a very low figure UPWARD if he thinks it doesn't represent the true 'ability' of the runners.

I don't remember the reason stated for the adjustment, but the original 93 BSF awarded to Hence in this year's Sunland Derby was later changed to 97.

Mule

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Beyer was notoriously slow in recognizing the role that pace played in a horse's final time...and there has been no indication that he has become proficient in pace handicapping even NOW. When the Beyer Associates presume to artificially adjust the Beyer figures to reflect the effect of the pace of the race...how does the customer know that these figure-makers understand pace better than he does HIMSELF?

Why doesn't Beyer supply the race's original speed figure, as WELL as the adjusted figure...so the customer can choose for HIMSELF if he wants to accept the adjusted figure, or not?

I don't want to get into being the defender of Andy Beyer. He has his methods, I have mine. I learned a ton from his work but have went in my own direction. I can't answer your question because I don't know the answer. We alert users to issues with a coding system at TimeformUS. It isn't perfect but it does indicate when I don't have as much confidence in a number.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Isn't Chrome's San Pasquale egregious enough?

CC and company weren’t going to run a fast final time after going the first half in 49.12 (compared to 47.77 for the allowance race). If we had given the San Pasqual a “true” figure, California Chrome would have earned a 95—the same as Follow Me Crev. Imperative, Hoppertunity and Hard Case would have received figures of 93, 91 and 86 - all far below their normal performances. The 103 may be imperfect but it makes a lot more sense than 95.

He admits he actually gave a horse a false number because that horse set a slow pace. It'd be absurd if he did that when another horse set a slow pace, but when the winner and recipient of the false figure is the one who set the slow pace, it's off the charts absurd.

There have been plenty of times that a horse received a Beyer only to see a day or three later the number had been adjusted up or down. I'm not talking about the prelim figures either, but the ones posted officially at DRF in their charts.

Serling claimed at the time that it was no big deal that he adjusted the figure due to pace, that he did it a lot with Zenyatta. I can't verify that, just reporting what he said.

I just want a true fig. Horses can and should go up and down. How can we trust Arrogate putting up 3 fantastic numbers, for example, if we can't trust Beyer is publishing the true number?

Like I said, I'm not here to defend or explain Andy Beyer. He is a legend and a smart guy and can explain himself way better than I can. I just think as the leader in the area, he gets a lot of unfounded criticism. He isn't perfect like none of us are. I obviously think I do some things better or I'd still be using Beyer figures myself!

I don't remember what the Chrome number was from Beyer. I gave it a 119, which is at or just below a G3 par. It equates to about a 99 Beyer figure. It was a very slow pace and we at TimeformUS have the luxury of showing the pace figure alongside the overall number. Beyer doesn't have that.

[Tom]

Why doesn't Beyer supply the race's original speed figure, as WELL as the adjusted figure...so the customer can choose for HIMSELF if he wants to accept the adjusted figure, or not?

That's what the Winner's Books are for. You get every race at every track every day. Valuable set of data. I can tell when a race is broken out or a variant is split, or when CJ disagrees. Those are the races I want to know about and look closely at. I download the tracks I play every week and then I know if a major change has been made.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Why doesn't Beyer supply the race's original speed figure, as WELL as the adjusted figure...so the customer can choose for HIMSELF if he wants to accept the adjusted figure, or not?

I've been asking for that for decades (along with the track variant applied to each race so I can see which races were broken out and which days were split etc..). I've done those kinds of calculations manually on and off in NY and for big stakes days out of NY for long time. I've since stopped because I don't play many races in NY anymore and have better use for the time, but I agree with you.

There are a lot of reasons they may not want to give that information out and there are also "space" issues within the PPs, but for one segment of customers it's useful information.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

That's what the Winner's Books are for. You get every race at every track every day. Valuable set of data. I can tell when a race is broken out or a variant is split, or when CJ disagrees. Those are the races I want to know about and look closely at. I download the tracks I play every week and then I know if a major change has been made.

+1

[classhandicapper]

CJ,

You are way more sensitive to the pace issue than any of the other major figure makers. That makes me think you should should see things a lot more like me even if your own handicapping is more figure oriented.

This is the way I see it.

Everyone can see how an extremely fast pace can cause a race to totally collapse and an extremely slow one can prevent horses from running to their best figures.

The thing is, paces aren't just so extreme everyone notices. There's everything in between those extremes. Those are tougher to see and measure.

When you throw those smaller pace variations on top of the subjective trip/bias/race flow and accuracy issues, figures more or less have a range of accuracy - which is why the top figure makers disagree all the time yet all produce very good results.

To put in one way, a horse may get a figure of 100, but the reality of how fast he ran could be anywhere from 95 to 105 and the trip could be worth a lot more in either direction (with some days/races being tougher than others).

I could sit here all day and make the case for figures from a handicapping and gambling perspective. But I still find it annoying when some experts (not talking about here) base their views primarily on figures or "trip adjusted figures" from one source as if those numbers on the paper represents the definitive reality of how good that horse was/is even though the numbers were calculated decades apart. They are a small piece of evidence among many other pieces of information that at times may be more conclusive and accurate.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I've been asking for that for decades (along with the track variant applied to each race so I can see which races were broken out and which days were split etc..). I've done those kinds of calculations manually on and off in NY and for big stakes days out of NY for long time. I've since stopped because I don't play many races in NY anymore and have better use for the time, but I agree with you.

There are a lot of reasons they may not want to give that information out and there are also "space" issues within the PPs, but for one segment of customers it's useful information.

It definitely seems to me that if there is a way for a figure maker to provide raw numbers without adjustments, they should do so.

Maybe there isn't room in the DRF, but they could at least do a + or -. I.e., if a figure was adjusted downward, it should read 85-, and if it was adjusted upward, 92+.

And this isn't an indictment of figure makers as far as I am concerned. I made figures myself when I was younger. Some numbers make no sense at all. I remember a promising 2 year old at Del Mar when I was making figures, who ran an 81 breaking his maiden (excellent for a 2 year old), then won a stakes race in a 74. The second place horse also dropped down 7 points. And the third place horse dropped 6. It made no sense, especially since two year olds normally improve their numbers, especially promising stakes horses. Maybe the timer malfunctioned. (Of course these days, cj would know that. )

So I know why numbers get adjusted. But nonetheless, when they do, the danger is you are no longer getting the scientific measure of the speed of the race-- you are just getting the figure maker's own opinion of the horse's ability, which could be mistaken.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

So I know why numbers get adjusted. But nonetheless, when they do, the danger is you are no longer getting the scientific measure of the speed of the race-- you are just getting the figure maker's own opinion of the horse's ability, which could be mistaken.

The biggest danger is one I've been discussing with CJ for years, If a race comes up faster or slower than expected because of the pace or race development and the figure maker is not sensitive to those things or chooses to adjust it anyway, then someone that does not know he tweaked the figure might make a personal adjustment on top of that and double count it, which of course would be disastrous.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The biggest danger is one I've been discussing with CJ for years, If a race comes up faster or slower than expected because of the pace or race development and the figure maker is not sensitive to those things or chooses to adjust it anyway, then someone that does not know he tweaked the figure might make a personal adjustment on top of that and double count it, which of course would be disastrous.

...and when it comes to pace, if you adjust a race, you are treating all horses the same when most likely the pace was extreme and had vastly different effects on individual horses.