Andy Beyer Retires From Writing

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

My apologies if I misunderstood your intention. It's just that you always seem to assume that those who use speed figures must be warned of their deficiencies as if anyone on this forum with half a brain just uses them blindly.
I have yet to hear you say anything about the problems one incurs by avoiding them entirely. Just as bad or worse of an error as accepting them blindly. Sorry if I'm straying of the immediate topic.

Classhandicapper is a friend of mine and I'm sure he'd be the first to admit he has basically made the same post on this board about 1000 times. He can't help himself!

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

IMO, "some" horses improve their figures dramatically when they shake loose comfortably.

Some improve mildly.

Some don't seem to benefit much at all.

Some seem to run better when challenged and asked for more (unless it gets very extreme).

I think it's a mistake to use some kind of formula that applies equally to all horses. The trick (which of course is no easy task) is to try to profile the horse so you have a better chance of figuring out which category he belongs in and then adjust your thinking accordingly.

Yes there are many apparent ways to see how a horse reacts to a loose lead. That's mainly due to pace factors. An even better trick is to simply see how a horse's performance is affected by what their early pace figure is, whether on a loose lead or not. It's surprising how this explains things most of the time unless you're dealing with a quirky horse.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

When a horse runs 90, 90, 90, while being challenged on the lead and then pops a 110 when loose on the lead I wouldn't be expecting another 110 next out.

Of course it's foolish to make hard and fast rules. There is no exact science which can place any race or any horse in a certain category. My research, however, has taught me to curb my enthusiasm for figs earned by lone F winners.

Agreed.

What about this?

A horses runs a 90, 90, 90. shakes loose and runs a 90.

Is he a 90 horse or is he a 90 horse that ran below par last time given that he only ran another 90 with a loose lead and many would have expected better?

I'm not saying I get the answer right all the time, but I see people downgrade that last race and then watch the horse run another 90 to beat them.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Agreed.

What about this?

A horses runs a 90, 90, 90. shakes loose and runs a 90.

Is he a 90 horse or is he a 90 horse that ran below par last time given that he only ran another 90 with a loose lead and many would have expected better?

I'm not saying I get the answer right all the time, but I see people downgrade that last race and then watch the horse run another 90 to beat them.

The art of handicapping is sometimes more important than the science of handicapping. My answer to your question is a very definitive: it depends.

[098poi]

Mr. Beyer good luck and good health to you. Enjoy your retirement. (semi)

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

Classhandicapper is a friend of mine and I'm sure he'd be the first to admit he has basically made the same post on this board about 1000 times. He can't help himself!

Class and I go back many years and he's an OK guy. Despite our differences I respect the fact that he knows how to disagree without being offensive or making nasty inappropriate political comments.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

"Looking at figures" is one thing...but INTERPRETING them is am entirely different matter. Everyone can tell which horse "was fastest" in the past...but determining which horse will run faster in the FUTURE is a much trickier endeavor.

Key point.
Just because the DRF puts the Beyers out there for everyone doesn't mean everyone lands on the same horse. If all you did was look for the last out best fig and bet it.

Would have made for a terrible book by Andy!
He could have just tweeted it.


Andy's books aren't a how to guide - they are a horseplayer talking to you about betting horses. A

[Tom]

Is he a 90 horse or is he a 90 horse that ran below par last time given that he only ran another 90 with a loose lead and many would have expected better?

Or the race was at Aqueduct and the jock grabbed him early.

[bobphilo]

One thing I admire about Beyer is that he was big enough to publicly admit he was wrong about the affect of pace. In his first book, Picking Winners, he denied it had any effect on the outcome of races. After experience taught him otherwise he reversed himself in his later books, giving excellent examples like 1981 Derby and even putting forth methods of pace analysis, which I myself use to this day.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The art of handicapping is sometimes more important than the science of handicapping. My answer to your question is a very definitive: it depends.

Why must the 2 be in conflict? The science gives you the essential data and the art comes in in interpreting it. That's like arguing which leg of a stool is more important. One is worthless without the other(s) and must be respected in all cases.

[classhandicapper]

Beyer's first book was great because it took speed figures out of the stone age without seeming like a dry textbook. It was wildly entertaining to horseplayers also. Each subsequent book was another step in his own development as a horseplayer. He took us along for the ride with the same level of entertainment value. Either of those contributions would have been enough. But to give us both multiple times is why he's, well, "Andy Beyer".

[Sinner369]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Why must the 2 be in conflict? The science gives you the essential data and the art comes in in interpreting it. That's like arguing which leg of a stool is more important. One is worthless without the other(s) and must be respected in all cases.

Science is defined as doing an experiment and the results are always the same.

Art is doing the exact experiment but reaching a different conclusion......that's why it is an art.

When people handicap a particular race..........they all don't come to the same conclusion as to which horse will win the race.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Why must the 2 be in conflict? The science gives you the essential data and the art comes in in interpreting it. That's like arguing which leg of a stool is more important. One is worthless without the other(s) and must be respected in all cases.

Who said the 2 are in conflict?

[classhandicapper]

I wonder if we should be thinking of handicapping as art. In real life, a lot of the time I have to try to interpret information in an artful way, but that's only because I don't have stats that describes this exact set of details so I know the most likely outcome. Ideally, I would have stats on everything. Unfortunately there are too many unique questions to have everything.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Why must the 2 be in conflict? The science gives you the essential data and the art comes in in interpreting it. That's like arguing which leg of a stool is more important. One is worthless without the other(s) and must be respected in all cases.

The art of handicapping is “subjective”; the science of handicapping is “objective” and that is the waging decision conundrum faced by many bettors.