Beyer ART or SCIENCE

[karlskorner]

Quoted from Equidaily.com

Beyer Speed figures:Art of Science ? Interesting quote from the guru himself. Any Beyer on how much human imput goes into the Beyer Speed Figures and how two figure-nakers could in fact come up with different numbers. Appearing on the panal during DRF's daily Saratoga on 8/28/05, Beyer ws handicapping that afternoon's 7th race which fetured Ice Wynnd Fire. That one was exiting on Aug 6 race which he won and was assigned a Beyer number of 102,
"Since our speed figures started appearing in the Form a decade ago and people have gotten used to them, some people treat them as gospel - I mean there are a lot of horseplayers that have the sense that these are carved in stone and handed down by god. In fact, they're all made by human beings and sometimes we're confused about what the number should be.
My partner Mark Hopkins does the New York figures and we had a huge disagreement about Aug 6, which was the day of the WhitneyStakes when he gave XCommentator a figure of 123 and gave Ice Wynnd Fire a 102 in the other mile and eight race that day.
"If I have been dong the figures I would have said that there was no way those two horses in the Whitney could have run that high, That the mile and an eights races came up too fast. And if they were my numbers it would have been 114 for Commentator and 93 for Ice Wynnd Fire. Today we're going to find out.
"Mark is usually right in these disputes I should hasten to point out, but Icy Wynnd Fire might not be as good as that 102 suggests"
As an addendum: Beyer went on to say Icy Wynnd Fire was a legit contender in that Aug 28 race and he suggested an exacta box with Win Wuith Beck, Ice Wynnd Fire won the race by a length and a half in a wire-to-wire fashon earning a BSF of 101. Commentator's next start after that 123 Whitney was the Gi Woodward where he ran third and received an 82 BSF "

[kenwoodallpromos]

Does that mean those 2 horses should repeat close to their last Beyer number to legitimize their last one? Isn't Beyer's variants the adjustment that legitimizes it?
With such a wide difference among their own people, that in itself answers the question of whether it is science or art- it is art in the final figure.
I have never heard of "hard" science being at odds so often unless there is a lot of art thrown in, like the evolution vs. creation debate on both sides.
As I stated prior, I think overall it is the best of the figures available for what it measures (CJ's goes well beyond that), but none are science enough for me or Beyer to rely on exclusively.

[ceejay]

Art or Science isn't the question. Science uses interpretation of data. I'm a scientist, and I interpret data, every day. The discussion between Beyer & Hopkins is simply two different interpretations of the same data.

[nobeyerspls]

Is all science objective and all art subjective? If you and I follow the rules with our paint-by-numbers landscape, they might look the same but are they art? I suppose it's nice to know that the guy who they're named after holds them to be accurate plus or minus 10%.

[Tom]

CJ's work would appear to verify that 10% error range.

[mainardi]

Doesn't it make anybody even the slightest bit nervous that Beyer Figures can be adjusted at the discretion of the people who set the figures?

I remember reading in one of Andy's MANY books that the numbers are based in mathematics (hello, science), but they also take other factors into consideration (the art of the deal). He even gave an example that went something like "after seeing many of the the horses perform poorly in their next race, we went back and lowered the figures for the entire field (in the previously run race)".

So, this means that a horse could get a 100 in a race, and if the guys who set the numbers felt they overrated that race (based on an "artsy" decision, I would assume), then they would lower the 100 to 95 (as an example). Yikes!

It's for that reason that I stopped using the Beyer Figures when I used to handicap out of the DRF. Then they stopped offering them in the data files that I use in my software -- and none of my customers have asked for them in the last 15 years -- so it hasn't been that much of an issue for me.

If you swear by them (rather than swear AT them), could you please post your reasons, as I'm sure that it would be interesting reading...

I almost forgot... if it were possible for the DRF Speed Rating & Track Variant combo to be off by 10% -- not as likely, as it's based in mathematics -- that could mean an inaccuracy of up to 10 lengths! Is that the implication with Beyer's as well? If so, it's another reason to consider devaluing their importance.

The phrase "jump the shark" comes to mind...

[sparkywowo]

To say the numbers are off by 10 percent is inaccurate because the Figure is not proportional to the final time. If the figure is off by 10 pts, that is typically 5 lengths. That is significant since the Figures are usually accurate to +/- 2 pts, and a 5-Sigma deviation indicates something other than a random fluctuation influenced the result.

The problem has to do with the beaten lengths adjustment. In "Beyer On Speed", Andrew Beyer writes the following which I paraphrase here: We stopped using the standard beaten lengths adjustment in turf routes and started using the 6 1/2 furlong adjustment because horses that were beaten many lengths were getting figures that were too high. Basically a turf route is off to a modest start with the real running coming at the end. Anyone can stay in contention for the first quarter or half mile, and horses that drop out were getting too much credit.

So, for example, if a race has a slow pace, the losers may be uncommonly close to the winners, because the winners don't bother putting the others away early, they do it late and win by a couple rather than a few. Since there is no fudging of the beaten lengths adjustment, the losers will get figures that are too high and do not reflect the fact that when the real running started they had nothing. The final figure that ends up in the DRF should make sense for both the winner and the losers, and in the case that it doesn't you have to know how to interpret it. And, since most people won't know how to interpet it, and remembering that a particular figure can't be taken at face value is problematic, the compromise is to try to use hindsight based on a subsequent race to assign a meaningful number.

Obviously, if you make your own figures you can decide whether or not to use the standard beaten lengths adjustment or tweak it to get numbers which are more accurate.

[dav4463]

The Beyer numbers are a major part of the puzzle for me. I use them over Bris numbers because I am so used to them. Point is: I think any speed figure number is close enough to be used if it approximates how well the horse ran on a given day. They don't have to be perfect to be usable.

[karlskorner]

Looking at the free simulcast progam CRC gave away today, there are 20 or more tracks running with approximately 2000 horses, which means to me that Beyer, Hopkins and their 3 associates are "looking at" and rating 400 (more or less ) entrants each, when the charts are published. There has got to be some serious errors in there somewhere

[the little guy]

I will tell you what Beyer told me recently in response to peoples' gripes about them changing figures....

" We never change them to make them LESS accurate. "

[DJofSD]

mathematics (hello, science)

Mathematics is not science. They are different.

Science is a more restrictive process than mathematics. An example I've used before is this: mathematically, there is no limit to how fast I can travel. Science by way of Einstein's theories states there is a limit -- the speed of light (and, by the way it would take all of the energy in the universe to be able to accelerate an object to that speed).

So, as far as I'm concerned, the Beyer figure makers can do all the "math" they want but until their numbers are strictly based upon some rigorous math based process that has some science to it (let's just say predictive and repeatable), it's an art. But art is great -- what your doctor practices is considered an art.

DJofSD

[KingChas]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I will tell you what Beyer told me recently in response to peoples' gripes about them changing figures....

" We never change them to make them LESS accurate. "

That comment sounds like Professional Redboarding!

[KingChas]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

mathematics (hello, science)

Mathematics is not science. They are different.

. But art is great -- what your doctor practices is considered an art.DJofSD

Not to get off thread DJ but thats called "con-artistry".

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sounds like they have good intentions! Did Andy ever tell you what % of the time he personally thinks his figures are MORE accurate or he agrees with them after his people change them? Is it 100% or almost?

[DrugSalvastore]

There are just some days when you can't make a real accurate figure, and you just have to stab at one.....

I'll use the San Felipe Stakes as an example.

The D. Wayne Lukas trained Consolidator wins the prestigious San Felipe Stakes by open lengths. His final time for the race was an otherworldly 1:40 flat. He breaks the stakes record by OVER one full second--narrowly gets the track record--and runs the fastest final time for 8.5 furlongs at Santa Anita in the past several years.

A good collection of horses are left in his wake. 2nd place finisher Giacomo ends up winning the Ky Derby. Don't Get Mad eventually wins the Derby Trial and Northern Dancer. Wilko was a Breeders Cup Juvenile champ. Roman Ruler was a top horse at age two, and subsequently won the Dwyer and Haskell. So it's not like Consolidator drowned a field of bums that day.

The reason why it's so tough to give a figure that day--is because the San Felipe was the only race run around two turns. You are pretty much left to stab and project.

The Beyer figure for Consolidator came back a 105. So basically, he ran a new top, and everyone else either paired or went backwards. The 2nd place finisher Giacomo, ran a 98 in his previous start, the Sham Stakes, despite recieving one of the most god awful bad trips of the meet. He had no excuse from a trip standpoint in the San Felipe...he just got burned by the winner, and beat all the rest.

No one can fault the beyer folks for giving Consolidator a 105..., but if anyone really thinks that the 105 he got was cut and dry--they are kidding themselves. A lot of different factors made that a horrible race to do a figure for.

Consolidator only made one more start in his career--he was practically eased and retired. He was a $1.25 million dollar yearling buy, and would have hardly been the first D. Wayne Lukas trained horse to run a giant race and go unsound---if in fact he even did run a giant race that day.