Beyer Figs Bogus?

[jocko699]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Well documented where? Denny's house?

What? Now that's funny They still have the grand slam breakfast?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Denny View Post
There are numerous examples of fudged figures by Beyer over the years.
This is well documented

Prove 1 case.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by jocko699

What? Now that's funny They still have the grand slam breakfast?

Nobody goes to Denny's, people end up at Denny's.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by Denny

As I mentioned in the first post, there seems to be an increasing gap between Beyer and TFUS.

The Preakness - 97 Beyer - 128 TF (cj is that right?) = 31 point diffence.
The differences seem to be growing in size.

Beyer's figs also made it look like Justify was going backwards.

SA Derby - 107
Ky Derby - 101 (from memory, need to verify)
Preakness _ 97

Made Justify appear vulnerable in the Belmont. He wasn't, was he?

Not the case at all with Tineform. CJ might verify if this is true. Believe Justify's numbers were increasing, or at least remained steady.

i don't have any idea about the horse in question, but there is absolutely nothing unsual about a horse winning going forwards, and dropping numbers at the same time



they only need to do what they need to do.

numbers are simply that.....numbers

[Denny]

Tom,

I already pointed one out - Outplay, winning Wood Memorial at Aqueduct.

There are many more times where the figures have been changed after the fact.

Do the research yourself. I'm not doing it for you.

Also, many of his figures are fudged because there isn't enough data to base the figure on. Only previous races the horses ran, which may also be inaccurate.

[Denny]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So why aren't all the Repole/Pletcher horses sporting 120s and higher all the way down their PPs?

Idiotic question PA.

It would be too obvious.

He doesn't just fudge for those people, They were just the ones in my example.

You're smarter than that and just being derogatory towards me because you don't like me.

That's rather obvious too.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Denny

Tom,

I already pointed one out - Outplay, winning Wood Memorial at Aqueduct.

There are many more times where the figures have been changed after the fact.

Do the research yourself. I'm not doing it for you.

Also, many of his figures are fudged because there isn't enough data to base the figure on. Only previous races the horses ran, which may also be inaccurate.

\

Numbers are FREQUENTLY changed after the face.
I have posted that several times.
It's called Quality Control.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it bogus or fudged.
You should stick to the DRF SR+TV. It is what you want. Your grasp of Beyers is rather low.

[Denny]

Tom,
You asked for an example and I gave one.

Outplay ran almost second slower than the Filly did winning her race.
Outplay recileived a Beyer considerably higher.
Same track, same distance, same track condition, races less than hour apart.

Beyer fudged the numbers.

I understand how they are computed. I read Beyers books, all of them.

You're ignoring stuff again that you don't agree with.

[lefty359]

There was a guy in the 90's that proved with statistical evidence that the much maligned DRF SR numbers were better than Beyers in pointing out winners, although neith ercould be counted on to produce profits. His name was Jim Bayles I think, and DR Sartin used DRF SR's in a lot of his programs and not Beyer numbers. One reason I'm thinking is that Beyers, since published in bold type in the DRF have lost a lot of their value.

[Denny]

Originally Posted by lefty359

There was a guy in the 90's that proved with statistical evidence that the much maligned DRF SR numbers were better than Beyers in pointing out winners, although neith ercould be counted on to produce profits. His name was Jim Bayles I think, and DR Sartin used DRF SR's in a lot of his programs and not Beyer numbers. One reason I'm thinking is that Beyers, since published in bold type in the DRF have lost a lot of their value.

That's because the DRF SR is an objective, factual number.

Beyer's have never been such.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by lefty359

There was a guy in the 90's that proved with statistical evidence that the much maligned DRF SR numbers were better than Beyers in pointing out winners, although neith ercould be counted on to produce profits. His name was Jim Bayles I think, and DR Sartin used DRF SR's in a lot of his programs and not Beyer numbers. One reason I'm thinking is that Beyers, since published in bold type in the DRF have lost a lot of their value.

Lefty, I must challenge this.

For several years we had both Beyer numbers and the DRF numbers in our Handicapper's Notebook software (DOS).

The DRF "3yr best" (which might have been based upon actual track records at the time you are speaking of) was just a horrible number. The last race hit rate for the top horse was something like 20.1% or thereabouts. By comparison, the Beyer number was 26%.

Bayles may have said that the Beyer numbers were worse bets, because the world hammered them back then. In fact, when the Beyer number went into the DRF it completely destroyed my profitability!

For 3.5 years I did not make a bet. Back then I was selecting pacelines, and my method of selection was very different. Where most people were picking 1 of the last 2 lines, I was picking (on average) the 5.5th paceline and getting killer prices.

When the Beyer number showed up those old pacelines that I was picking suddenly glowed in the dark.

Overnight I saw my mutuels drop from almost $11 to under $8.

[GMB@BP]

After doing a lot of data base work its very hard to make consistent profits when pace and speed figures is the key factor in making a selection. The public just ovrbets these horses, unfortunately they win a high %, makes it a tough go if you try to find value.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Denny

Best example I recall.

A few years ago in the Wood Memorial. He gave Outplay a far better number than the filly, have to look up her name, that won the 3yo filly stake a half hour earlier. The fiilly ran a FASTER time at the same distance on the same track.
It was a wet track and didn't get any better or worse.

Beyer fudged the fig for the Repole/Pletcher trained Outplay.

You could look it up.

His numbers are BOGUS.

1. Outplay never ran in the Wood. He ran in a MSW on Wood day. 4/8/17.
2. The track was fast.
3. The next race that day was a $40K claimer for males, not a FM Stake.
4. Outplay ran a 1:37.4 ( got a 95 )
5. The claimer went in 1:38.2 ( FYI, that is not faster!) (got an 85)
6. There were no other one mile races after those two that day.
7. Not o nitpick, but it was not a few years ago, it was last year.

So THAT was your best example?
You basically got everything wrong.....

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Tom

1. Outplay never ran in the Wood. He ran in a MSW on Wood day. 4/8/17.
2. The track was fast.
3. The next race that day was a $40K claimer for males, not a FM Stake.
4. Outplay ran a 1:37.4 ( got a 95 )
5. The claimer went in 1:38.2 ( FYI, that is not faster!) (got an 85)
6. There were no other one mile races after those two that day.
7. Not o nitpick, but it was not a few years ago, it was last year.

So THAT was your best example?
You basically got everything wrong.....

Does Pletcher even train the horse?

[Tom]

Ooops - he does train it - Denny got one right.
But then, a sopped clock is right TWICE a day!