Beyer figs

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by cj

It doesn't really work like that at all, except in the case of the old DRF Speed Ratings and Track Variants.

What makes high variants is slow races from fast horses.

True, but, were the fast horses truly fast or did they have an off day? The smaller the field (sample size) the larger potential error.

Or you could be Andrew Beyer and give Bolt a five point lower figure in the FrontRunner than the Zenyatta in spite of running 0.8 seconds faster at the same distance- on the same track- on the same day with no change in weather solely because he couldn't believe the top four finishers could improve so much.

This, my friends, is why I still look at raw times. People like Beyer can bull shmitt any number they want.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

People like Beyer can bull shmitt any number they want.

You know CJ is the chief figure maker for Timeform US, right?

I have been pretty patient with your bullshit but now your insulting CJ and frankly the act is growing tiresome.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by cj

It doesn't really work like that at all, except in the case of the old DRF Speed Ratings and Track Variants.

What makes high variants is slow races from fast horses.

How do you know when --and if-- 'fast' horses run 'slow' races?? I am not out to seek your methods or secrets, I promise. I also know you speak from experience having done variants and speed figures for many, many years, earning a good reputation. And, of course, I honestly do not question your post at all.

But I do not understand how and why many people are saying Justify ran lights out in the Santa Anita Derby, was the best race of the major preps, etc., etc. The Kentucky Derby is a well-acknowledged wide open race with many talented horses, yes. But there seems one constant I keep hearing -- and that is Justify being the fastest of the bunch, and by many lengths!

I don't buy this at all.

Here are the 3 year best times and Track Records of the tracks where the major final preps were run, at 1 1-8 miles. I'll list the 3 year best first, then the track record and finally the difference between the two.

Aqueduct 148.1... 147.0... (6 ticks slower)

Keeneland 147.3... 147.3... (no difference)

Oaklawn 147.4... 146.3... (6 ticks slower)

Santa Anita 147.0... 145.4 (6 ticks slower)

Gulfstream 147.2... 146.4 (3 ticks slower)

Fair Grounds 148.4... 147.3 (6 ticks slower)

Churchill Downs 147.4... 147.1 (3 ticks slower)

As I regularly harp, it's slow horses that are making for 'fast' races -- when adjusted, imo.

Now, let's look at the final times of the major final preps:

Louisiana Derby, Noble Indy 111.2 150.1.

Florida Derby, Audible 111.3 149.1

Blue Grass, Good Magic 111.4 150.1

Santa Anita Derby, Justify 112.3 149.4

Wood Memorial, Vino Rosso 111.2 149.4

Arkansas Derby, Magnum Moon 113.2 149.4

So, in my simple way of thinking, all prep winners could be considered capable of winning the Kentucky Derby and many agree that it is very wide open.

BUT, I'm not betting all of the them because ... of the major prep winners only four contenders won with the 6 furlong pace call time under 112.0:

Noble Indy, Audible, Good Magic and Vino Rosso.

Noble Indy's race was 6 ticks slower than the 3 year best; Vino Rosso 8 ticks slower; Audible 9 ticks slower ... then we have Magnum Moon 10 ticks slower, Good Magic 13 ticks, and Justify, the probable favorite and big fig horse(?) of the race, 14 ticks slower, wow.

Pletcher taking 3 of the 4 superfecta slots will not surprise me.

If there is any adjustment to be made my way is to adjust the final times best of each track to Churchill Down's 1 1-8 mile best time. If correct, Justify comes out even worse than just using the raw times since Santa Anita is still the 'fastest' of tracks.

I sincerely cannot understand why Justify's slow time is so easily explained away as a 'slow' day, while not giving anything near similar consideration to the other contenders.

I know cj, that you and other figure makers use more sophisticated methods and all than I do, but I see a big opportunity by throwing out 3 of the horses that may get a big portion of the money -- out goes Justify, Bolt d'Oro and Magnum Moon.

This post became longer than I originally wanted, but horseracing does this to me. Sorry, but pithy I am not. Thanks.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

You know CJ is the chief figure maker for Timeform US, right?

I have been pretty patient with your bullshit but now your insulting CJ and frankly the act is growing tiresome.

Where in my post did I insult CJ? You're making crap up. Can a person not doubt the all mighty speed figures here? If they are the be all end all then the hell with handicapping. Smart players know true speed figures are only snapshots in time. I suggested Andrew Beyer pulls numbers out of his arse and he's effectively admitted such. I do not know the ins and outs of TimeForm and I therefore make no judgement on those figures as a whole. I do question the variant at Santa Anita and if I'm proved wrong then so be it.

[PowerUpPaynter]

Iv been on this board for a few years now. Why this year are we going to question all the figures? Does anyone really only handicap based on last out beyers? Its certainly a piece of the puzzle tho.

It seems like the Santa Anita surface and perceived slow track has spawned this conversation. If anyone has real data proving or disproving the 'slow' track lets look at it one way or the other.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by PowerUpPaynter

Iv been on this board for a few years now. Why this year are we going to question all the figures?

Figures are commonly questioned. It's nothing new this year.

[cj]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

True, but, were the fast horses truly fast or did they have an off day? The smaller the field (sample size) the larger potential error.

Or you could be Andrew Beyer and give Bolt a five point lower figure in the FrontRunner than the Zenyatta in spite of running 0.8 seconds faster at the same distance- on the same track- on the same day with no change in weather solely because he couldn't believe the top four finishers could improve so much.

This, my friends, is why I still look at raw times. People like Beyer can bull shmitt any number they want.

I can't and won't try to speak for Beyer. I disagreed with him on the FrontRunner figure and discussed it here. But that doesn't mean I'm right every time I disagree with him. In fact, I'm sure I'm not. Could any figure bullshit a number? I guess so, but to what purpose? We do the best we can with the data given and it often isn't very accurate.

People cite raw times like they are set in stone. Anyone that believes they are always accurate isn't paying attention. This is particularly true of Trakus where I find timing errors nearly every day. There is a person pressing a button when the gate opens to trigger the system on. How accurate do you think that is, especially considering this is an "extra duty" and not the person's main job?

There are times fat fingered by the person entering Equibase data at least a few times a week. Some are caught, some are not. There are clock malfunctions with the beam system. If they aren't egregious, most are not caught by the limited QC system in place.

You know who does catch these things, even if they don't know the exact reason? Figure makers catch them. If you want to talk about people bullshitting numbers, try those that come up with times when there is any kind of problem. Those are usually comical.

I will concede that the smaller the sample size, the easier it is to be fooled. I personally try to be cautious and take the safe road on those days. But the Santa Anita Derby card was not one of them. There were three route races that day and four other dirt races. I'll stick to the route races. I looked at the top eight finishers in each and looked at the last four races each horse had run (or less if they had not race four times). There were 88 potential data points. I also use our pre-race Race Ratings, sort of like a class rating, for three more and a total of 91.

I throw out races that don't meet minimum criteria looking at things like surface, distance, days away, and finishing position. The last one, to clarify, is simply things like not using a figure for a horse that ran 8th last out and won today, or vise versa. There were 46 left from which I created the track variant. That is no small sample size for making speed figures on a race card, and this was only three route races.

[cj]

Originally Posted by PowerUpPaynter

Iv been on this board for a few years now. Why this year are we going to question all the figures? Does anyone really only handicap based on last out beyers? Its certainly a piece of the puzzle tho.

It seems like the Santa Anita surface and perceived slow track has spawned this conversation. If anyone has real data proving or disproving the 'slow' track lets look at it one way or the other.

To anyone that makes figures it is painfully obvious. There are countless examples just this year of horses from California shipping out of town and running great despite seemingly slow looking (whatever that even means) final times.

[Gerard02]

Very interesting thread. Some passionate beliefs. I incorporate speed figures into my handicapping as well as other factors. Mr. Caris got me more focused on Internal Fractions. I have really liked breaking down individual races and seeing the race within the race. Combine that with watching the replay and you can put things together. The tracks all play different. I believe that the Kentucky Derby can develop into a wide open race. Food for thought. Going back, we have seen the majority of winners come out of the major prep races who have either won or placed. There are those exceptions, like Animal Kingdom, but that’s what makes it a challenge, no?

[cj]

Originally Posted by reckless

I sincerely cannot understand why Justify's slow time is so easily explained away as a 'slow' day, while not giving anything near similar consideration to the other contenders.

I know cj, that you and other figure makers use more sophisticated methods and all than I do, but I see a big opportunity by throwing out 3 of the horses that may get a big portion of the money -- out goes Justify, Bolt d'Oro and Magnum Moon.

I appreciate you taking the time but I bolded the part I found most important. This is exactly the issue with most of the questions. I really, truly, don't want to sound like a condescending ass. But in my case when people have questions I really try to answer the best I can. But many think they know more using methods that I know just don't hold up. And not only do they argue with me when I try to help, they try to tell me why I'm wrong. You learn a ton when you make figures for every track, every day. Any one that his tried this can confirm it. Hell, you learn a ton trying to do figures for one track for a few months.

What you will find is that things you think you know and are confident in when you make a number will make you look like a fool when the horses run back. Over time you figure out the races where this happens and why you made a mistake. You won't get them all right, that isn't possible. But you will do a lot better than using raw times. No speed figure maker wants to put numbers out that are crap and have customers use them to bet. You also won't have a job very long. Horseplayers aren't dumb and would figure out pretty fast if the numbers are crap.

As for throwing out the three horses you mention and seeing opportunity, great! There are plenty of reasons those three horses might not run well in the Derby. I particularly don't like Magnum Moon for a host of reasons. The best last race speed figure horses lose a lot more than they win every day at every track. But what they won't do is run poorly because there speed figures are wrong. They are one piece of the puzzle that too many people try to make out to be the only piece of the puzzle. The funny thing is as a speed figure guy most people assume I am betting top number horses all the time. Anyone that has listened to me on podcasts or on Out of the Gate or read some of the handicapping articles I've done would know this isn't true.

[jay68802]

one thing is for sure though, The Sheets, Bris, Beyer, and Timeform have all agreed that the track was slow that day. How slow was it, up to the handicapper to decide. I came to the conclusion that Justify's numbers might be 2-4 points high, but that is just my opinion. Still it puts him in the top three for the Derby.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by cj

I can't and won't try to speak for Beyer. I disagreed with him on the FrontRunner figure and discussed it here. But that doesn't mean I'm right every time I disagree with him. In fact, I'm sure I'm not. Could any figure bullshit a number? I guess so, but to what purpose? We do the best we can with the data given and it often isn't very accurate.

People cite raw times like they are set in stone. Anyone that believes they are always accurate isn't paying attention. This is particularly true of Trakus where I find timing errors nearly every day. There is a person pressing a button when the gate opens to trigger the system on. How accurate do you think that is, especially considering this is an "extra duty" and not the person's main job?

There are times fat fingered by the person entering Equibase data at least a few times a week. Some are caught, some are not. There are clock malfunctions with the beam system. If they aren't egregious, most are not caught by the limited QC system in place.

You know who does catch these things, even if they don't know the exact reason? Figure makers catch them. If you want to talk about people bullshitting numbers, try those that come up with times when there is any kind of problem. Those are usually comical.

I will concede that the smaller the sample size, the easier it is to be fooled. I personally try to be cautious and take the safe road on those days. But the Santa Anita Derby card was not one of them. There were three route races that day and four other dirt races. I'll stick to the route races. I looked at the top eight finishers in each and looked at the last four races each horse had run (or less if they had not race four times). There were 88 potential data points. I also use our pre-race Race Ratings, sort of like a class rating, for three more and a total of 91.

I throw out races that don't meet minimum criteria looking at things like surface, distance, days away, and finishing position. The last one, to clarify, is simply things like not using a figure for a horse that ran 8th last out and won today, or vise versa. There were 46 left from which I created the track variant. That is no small sample size for making speed figures on a race card, and this was only three route races.

This game never quits on you that is for sure, this post gave me a "DUH" moment. Thanks for the education.

[dilanesp]

If you had been making speed figures in 1979, you would have found that despite the fact he was running in the 1:49-1:50 range in his preps, Spectacular Bid was actually faster than Flying Paster, whose raw times were a second or two faster.

Santa Anita's surface is extremely slow this year. Justify's times are excellent in comparison to not only the other times on his raceday, but also to other times run throughout the meeting.

[SharpCat]

Originally Posted by PowerUpPaynter

It seems like the Santa Anita surface and perceived slow track has spawned this conversation. If anyone has real data proving or disproving the 'slow' track lets look at it one way or the other.

From page 3 of this thread.

I've said I think Santa Anita is playing much slower and I mean much slower than I can ever remember. I have played it long enough to know even the cheapest horses can put up quick sectionals. The past year has been pretty much no can do.

I did a little checking to see if my opinion would change. Let's just say I confirmed my own opinion. It was nothing fancy or scientific but it was more than enough for me. Since were talking Derby I checked the 6F call for every 2 turn race including todays races on a fast track this meet at Santa Anita. It is 88 races and here is the break down.

1:10-1:10.99 1 race and just barely Unique Bella 1:10.95
1:11-1:11.99 10 races
1:12-1:12.99 42 races
1:13-1:13.99 25 races
1:14-1:14.99 10 races

I looked at sprint races and it just made the case even stronger.

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by reckless

How do you know when --and if-- 'fast' horses run 'slow' races?? I am not out to seek your methods or secrets, I promise. I also know you speak from experience having done variants and speed figures for many, many years, earning a good reputation. And, of course, I honestly do not question your post at all.

But I do not understand how and why many people are saying Justify ran lights out in the Santa Anita Derby, was the best race of the major preps, etc., etc. The Kentucky Derby is a well-acknowledged wide open race with many talented horses, yes. But there seems one constant I keep hearing -- and that is Justify being the fastest of the bunch, and by many lengths!

I don't buy this at all.

Here are the 3 year best times and Track Records of the tracks where the major final preps were run, at 1 1-8 miles. I'll list the 3 year best first, then the track record and finally the difference between the two.

Aqueduct 148.1... 147.0... (6 ticks slower)

Keeneland 147.3... 147.3... (no difference)

Oaklawn 147.4... 146.3... (6 ticks slower)

Santa Anita 147.0... 145.4 (6 ticks slower)

Gulfstream 147.2... 146.4 (3 ticks slower)

Fair Grounds 148.4... 147.3 (6 ticks slower)

Churchill Downs 147.4... 147.1 (3 ticks slower)

As I regularly harp, it's slow horses that are making for 'fast' races -- when adjusted, imo.

Now, let's look at the final times of the major final preps:

Louisiana Derby, Noble Indy 111.2 150.1.

Florida Derby, Audible 111.3 149.1

Blue Grass, Good Magic 111.4 150.1

Santa Anita Derby, Justify 112.3 149.4

Wood Memorial, Vino Rosso 111.2 149.4

Arkansas Derby, Magnum Moon 113.2 149.4

So, in my simple way of thinking, all prep winners could be considered capable of winning the Kentucky Derby and many agree that it is very wide open.

BUT, I'm not betting all of the them because ... of the major prep winners only four contenders won with the 6 furlong pace call time under 112.0:

Noble Indy, Audible, Good Magic and Vino Rosso.

Noble Indy's race was 6 ticks slower than the 3 year best; Vino Rosso 8 ticks slower; Audible 9 ticks slower ... then we have Magnum Moon 10 ticks slower, Good Magic 13 ticks, and Justify, the probable favorite and big fig horse(?) of the race, 14 ticks slower, wow.

Pletcher taking 3 of the 4 superfecta slots will not surprise me.

If there is any adjustment to be made my way is to adjust the final times best of each track to Churchill Down's 1 1-8 mile best time. If correct, Justify comes out even worse than just using the raw times since Santa Anita is still the 'fastest' of tracks.

I sincerely cannot understand why Justify's slow time is so easily explained away as a 'slow' day, while not giving anything near similar consideration to the other contenders.

I know cj, that you and other figure makers use more sophisticated methods and all than I do, but I see a big opportunity by throwing out 3 of the horses that may get a big portion of the money -- out goes Justify, Bolt d'Oro and Magnum Moon.

This post became longer than I originally wanted, but horseracing does this to me. Sorry, but pithy I am not. Thanks.

that a good post