Beyer Figs Bogus?

[letswastemoney]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Every serious handicapper should probably spend at least a couple of years trying to make their own figures (even for a single circuit) and then comparing them to other sources. Going through that process and discussing the issues with other figure makers would help. It would move people away from making definitive statements about the merits of certain horses based heavily on figures alone and pretty much eliminate all the criticisms of the figure makers. IMO, both would be a positive development.

All the big name figure makers are VERY smart people working their butts off, but it's the nature of figure making that a lot of subjective opinions creep into the figures on top of all the complexities of wind, run up, track maintenance, pace, weather, figure drift, rails, etc.. That means there will be mistakes.

If you keep your expectations reasonable, you'll have less to complain about.

What is the book I need to buy to learn how to do this?

[cj]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

What is the book I need to buy to learn how to do this?

I'd recommend Picking Winners (Beyer) and Figure Handicapping (Quinn) and Thoroughbred Handicapping: State of the Art (Quirin).

Nick Mordin of the UK has written some good books on the subject as well, think Mordin On Time is the best one for speed figures.

[GMB@BP]

Thanks for info CJ, that makes sense because on Raw times I thought the numbers were going to be higher than they ended up being.

A race to watch down the road I suppose.

[cj]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Thanks for info CJ, that makes sense because on Raw times I thought the numbers were going to be higher than they ended up being.

A race to watch down the road I suppose.

I've learned you have to be careful with races like that. Would have given even horses that were well beaten their best figures in a while, if not lifetime bests. And these were older horses where that is most unlikely. Given all the other info, and turf races on both sides, I couldn't give this race what would be an above par G1 number. I did give it the 'b' designation (breakout) in our PPs. Thinking maybe I need to start doing 'B' for could have been higher and 'b' for could have been lower.

I'm always happy to discuss any number I make, for the record.

[The Hawk]

Denny is trying to make the following point (albeit poorly, in my opinion):

ALL speed figures that are not automated can be viewed as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words: Beyer largely bases figures on past figures, and that sometimes means that in order to make the figures fit it is deemed that the surface changed from one race to the next. That certainly happens, but Denny would contend that it doesn't happen as often as the figure makers portend, that the figures are simply based on past figures and then twisted to fit. Then, when a figure turns out to clearly be wrong, the speed figure defenders will point to any number of reasons why you can't take the figure at face value, and you're an idiot if you do. You can't have it both ways -- you can't say "you can't play profitably without them" and then say "we know there are huge flaws." Denny is simply saying there are more flaws than others would suggest, or think. He also correctly points out the lack of pace influence makes figures suspect in some cases.

In the end, he has a right to say what he's saying without being flogged, in my opinion. And what he's saying has a hint of validity. Speed figures aren't "bogus" by and large, but there is reason to view them -- all of them, not just Beyers -- with skepticism.

[cj]

Originally Posted by The Hawk

ALL speed figures that are not automated can be viewed as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't find that to be true personally. The clock is still the overriding factor.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by The Hawk

Denny is trying to make the following point (albeit poorly, in my opinion):

ALL speed figures that are not automated can be viewed as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words: Beyer largely bases figures on past figures, and that sometimes means that in order to make the figures fit it is deemed that the surface changed from one race to the next. That certainly happens, but Denny would contend that it doesn't happen as often as the figure makers portend, that the figures are simply based on past figures and then twisted to fit. Then, when a figure turns out to clearly be wrong, the speed figure defenders will point to any number of reasons why you can't take the figure at face value, and you're an idiot if you do. You can't have it both ways -- you can't say "you can't play profitably without them" and then say "we know there are huge flaws." Denny is simply saying there are more flaws than others would suggest, or think. He also correctly points out the lack of pace influence makes figures suspect in some cases.

In the end, he has a right to say what he's saying without being flogged, in my opinion. And what he's saying has a hint of validity. Speed figures aren't "bogus" by and large, but there is reason to view them -- all of them, not just Beyers -- with skepticism.

If one operated with simply "par times", in my experience the daily fluctuations would still exist. The danger to basing "figures on past figures", as Beyer noted in an early book ("My $50k Year?"), and the reason I abandoned the "projection method", is the tendency to underestimate the winning figure. My figures from month to month would be unrecognizable. Almost any horse coming back from a few months layoff would show superior figs before I reworked months of charts with pars.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

If one operated with simply "par times", in my experience the daily fluctuations would still exist. The danger to basing "figures on past figures", as Beyer noted in an early book ("My $50k Year?"), and the reason I abandoned the "projection method", is the tendency to underestimate the winning figure. My figures from month to month would be unrecognizable. Almost any horse coming back from a few months layoff would show superior figs before I reworked months of charts with pars.

I mentioned Nick Mordin's work earlier. He deals with this topic extensively and has some really good insights.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by cj

I mentioned Nick Mordin's work earlier. He deals with this topic extensively and has some really good insights.

Thanks, cj.

I took a long, appreciative look at Mordin on Time, though I detest the bounce theory, (the only chapter not available in the preview- maybe Mordin dismisses it also, though I doubt it). Before public odds were the most predictive factor for me within a comprehensive approach, I would specialize in an objective, higher fig/easier trip...lower fig/ more difficult trip theory when comparing horses, even if comparing an 89 horse to an 88. The latter had a more difficult trip and deserved upgrading, if I could locate any dynamic within the running of the race at all. I "saw" (constructing visual charts--something like Steve Chaplin) too many legitimate, subtle reasons based upon position on straights and turns, inferred pace based on finishing positions, and other factors
even within a quarter mile, to resort to "bounce".

[cj]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Thanks, cj.

I took a long, appreciative look at Nordin on Time, though I detest the bounce theory, (the only chapter not available in the preview- maybe Mordin dismisses it also, though I doubt it). Before public odds were the most predictive factor for me within a comprehensive approach, I would specialize in an objective, higher fig/easier trip...lower fig/ more difficult trip theory when comparing horses, even if comparing an 89 horse to an 88. The latter had a more difficult trip and deserved upgrading, if I could locate any dynamic within the running of the race at all. I "saw" (constructing visual charts--something like Steve Chaplin) too many legitimate, subtle reasons based upon position on straights and turns, inferred pace based on finishing positions, and other factors
even within a quarter mile, to resort to "bounce".

Mordin is not a fan of the bounce theory for the most part.

[P Matties Jr]

Originally Posted by cj

Beyer gets a lot of flack when he breaks a race out. In this case, I'm guessing he did not. I actually did for a few reasons (last dirt race with turf races on both sides, top two would have been 130+, fast pace, etc), but it wasn't an easy decision.

Thought about this race for a week.... I decided to take the two 7f races out for the day and use a separate variant for them. I made that decision because the whole weekend was relatively easy to do with all three days basically having the same variant, with the exception of the American Anthem race coming up so fast. Also the pace figures didn't make much sense in both of those 7f races, either. I wish I could come up with an explanation, though, because I don't like arbitrarily taking races out, like Beyer does routinely. I think that philosophy gets you in more trouble than it helps you.....I'm sure Craig will agree with me here but if you want your figures to be real tight, you have to project, but when you do, you face tough situations like this one, all the time.

[Tom]

I believe there is a "bounce," but not nearly as often as some would think, and not nearly as severe as some would think. I am very strict when I think a horse if going to regress (better word) and also, frequently, very wrong!

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by P Matties Jr

Thought about this race for a week.... I decided to take the two 7f races out for the day and use a separate variant for them. I made that decision because the whole weekend was relatively easy to do with all three days basically having the same variant, with the exception of the American Anthem race coming up so fast. Also the pace figures didn't make much sense in both of those 7f races, either. I wish I could come up with an explanation, though, because I don't like arbitrarily taking races out, like Beyer does routinely. I think that philosophy gets you in more trouble than it helps you.....I'm sure Craig will agree with me here but if you want your figures to be real tight, you have to project, but when you do, you face tough situations like this one, all the time.

Its not impossible though in this case that the race did come up really strong. I tend to agree with this projection figures in this case since I have never been too much a fan of the winner, he is ok in terms of G1/G2 stake quality.

That being said it was Baffert second off a layoff and the horse had been working very well, so a move up figure wise as a 4 year old colt who ran his A race is plausible. I have seen the trainer/owner of the runner up claim horses for that outfit, or buy privately, and they run off the charts well. This was a former Graded stake winning sprinter in socal.

The third horse is the one that looks funny but again claim by Sadler/Hronis, lightly raced and in top form, not impossible the horse may be able to run.

This is why I said it will be interesting to follow. Wont shock me at all to see any of these three win the Forego, the Crosby, or the Obrian.

[The Hawk]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't find that to be true personally. The clock is still the overriding factor.

If a horse ran winning figures of 82, 83, 81 and 59, you wouldn't readjust that 59 based on his figures, and basically ignore the clock, if it also didn't make sense per the also-rans? I know that's simplistic but you understand what I'm saying. That race would have to be broken out and projected, regardless of the time, no? (And it should be, I might add).

[P Matties Jr]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Its not impossible though in this case that the race did come up really strong. I tend to agree with this projection figures in this case since I have never been too much a fan of the winner, he is ok in terms of G1/G2 stake quality.

That being said it was Baffert second off a layoff and the horse had been working very well, so a move up figure wise as a 4 year old colt who ran his A race is plausible. I have seen the trainer/owner of the runner up claim horses for that outfit, or buy privately, and they run off the charts well. This was a former Graded stake winning sprinter in socal.

The third horse is the one that looks funny but again claim by Sadler/Hronis, lightly raced and in top form, not impossible the horse may be able to run.

This is why I said it will be interesting to follow. Wont shock me at all to see any of these three win the Forego, the Crosby, or the Obrian.

You may be right. I always want to bet horses out of fast races, not slow ones. For the record, I didn't go real slow with it, but like Craig said, I didn't want to go with a bunch of new tops. I gave St Joe Bay same as what he ran back when he won Palos Verdes (Feb2017), which is in line with the tops of the first bunch, but it doesn't give all of them new ones.