Saturday Beyers

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

I'm fine with them playing with the figures to a certain extent. It was obviously a tricky day with the track condition, DEL's a quirky track for making figures in general, and the paces of the two races for males were very different from Blind Luck's race.

None of the figures even seem off to me from what I would expect any of those horses to run.

However, last I checked, Beyers aren't supposed to incorporate pace like that. There's no way that you can give a horse who ran two seconds faster a lower fig without splitting the variant or something (which they didn't do). It's just too big of a gap to justify what they did.

I expected BL's fig to be a little higher, and the other two's to be a little lower. I don't even think much of BL talent-wise, although I respect the fact that they haven't kept her in the barn.

The spirit of Beyers--what set them apart from the more "sophisticated" figures--was their objectiveness and room for interpretation by handicappers. That has been completely lost. Maybe they can come with Joe Cardello's personal trip notes from now on.

So they can fudge them a little....but not a lot?

You do realize this is more inaccurate and/or more disingenuous?

Maybe you should discuss projection with Jerry Brown some time ( to take Beyer out of the equation ). Honestly, I think you would find it very enlightening.

[hockey2315]

If I see a time that seems "off", my first inclincation is not to go directly to the opposite end of the spectrum. Unless it points to a timing malfunction.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

If I see a time that seems "off", my first inclincation is not to go directly to the opposite end of the spectrum. Unless it points to a timing malfunction.

Enlighten us, give us your figures and most importantly, WHY.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

If I see a time that seems "off", my first inclincation is not to go directly to the opposite end of the spectrum. Unless it points to a timing malfunction.

Your first inclination? Do you actually make your own figures?

[parsixfarms]

If one was going to question a figure, wouldn't it be the figure given to Gio Ponti for the Man O' War? The final time was six seconds off the course record, but the sun-baked course could not be deemed "slow." I understand that the final running time was a function of the very slow pace and the figure may not be an accurate reflection of the quality of the performance, but isn't that the reason why interpreting the numbers often produced in slow-paced synthetic races has proven so vexing?

[10 pnt move up]

I am interested in what they give the Gold Cup yesterday as on raw times it was pretty bad.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I am interested in what they give the Gold Cup yesterday as on raw times it was pretty bad.

100.
Triple Bend a 108.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

100.
Triple Bend a 108.

I say that because the track seemed like it was on the average to quick time wise yet the gold cup was 203 and change.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Your first inclination? Do you actually make your own figures?

Nope. . . I've never bothered to make my own figures because I have always respected the philosophy behind Beyers and the application of that philosophy into their calculations. I think there are much better places to find value in handicapping than speed figs, but I rely on them to put those other variables into context. I've only been handicapping for five years, and would never claim to be an expert in any area of the game, but I think I'm plenty intelligent enough to see that something here just doesn't make sense. More and more, we've been expected to "believe" in figs that are constantly re-adjusted and seem incongruous with logic. I know it's not easy to explain abberant figures/results--and maybe I'd run into the same problems that Beyer + Associates do if I made my own calculations--but how can we possibly believe that two horses turned in basically the exact same performances with extremely different final times without any semblance of an explanation for the abberation? Did the length of a second change for a half hour in Delaware yesterday? Like Phil said, I'd rather be given the crazy looking figs--a 115 and a 75 or whatever--and allowed to decide for myself, than to be forced to swallow a forced reconciliation made to make everything look neat and clean.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Nope. . . I've never bothered to make my own figures because I have always respected the philosophy behind Beyers and the application of that philosophy into their calculations. I think there are much better places to find value in handicapping than speed figs, but I rely on them to put those other variables into context. I've only been handicapping for five years, and would never claim to be an expert in any area of the game, but I think I'm plenty intelligent enough to see that something here just doesn't make sense. More and more, we've been expected to "believe" in figs that are constantly re-adjusted and seem incongruous with logic. I know it's not easy to explain abberant figures/results--and maybe I'd run into the same problems that Beyer + Associates do if I made my own calculations--but how can we possibly believe that two horses turned in basically the exact same performances with extremely different final times without any semblance of an explanation for the abberation? Did the length of a second change for a half hour in Deleware yesterday? Like Phil said, I'd rather be given the crazy looking figs--a 115 and a 75 or whatever--and allowed to decide for myself, than to be forced to swallow a forced reconciliation made to make everything look neat and clean.

Most people would be shocked how often this is done. It only comes up in big races, but it happens a lot. The timers suck at most tracks. Run ups play a big part. The technology is there to fix these things, but the money is not.

I don't personally use Beyers, but I do make my own numbers and understand the complexities involved. I do agree about leaving obvious extreme pace scenario (fast or slow) figures alone, but Beyer doesn't so that is that. They are his figures to do what he pleases.

In this case, however, I don't think pace was even remotely an issue. It was either track maintenance or a bad clocking. It really doesn't matter which, or even if it was something else.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Most people would be shocked how often this is done. It only comes up in big races, but it happens a lot. The timers suck at most tracks. Run ups play a big part. The technology is there to fix these things, but the money is not.

I don't personally use Beyers, but I do make my own numbers and understand the complexities involved. I do agree about leaving obvious extreme pace scenario (fast or slow) figures alone, but Beyer doesn't so that is that. They are his figures to do what he pleases.

In this case, however, I don't think pace was even remotely an issue. It was either track maintenance or a bad clocking. It really doesn't matter which, or even if it was something else.

Ok, this is possibly a very dumb question, but I was at Delaware so know what the weather was like. It was raining pretty hard in the morning, stopped a race or two before Blind Luck's race, came pouring back down when they came to the paddock for the Oaks and the sun came out just after the Oaks and it got "steamy" for a lack of a better word...can that change a surface much?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Ok, this is possibly a very dumb question, but I was at Delaware so know what the weather was like. It was raining pretty hard in the morning, stopped a race or two before Blind Luck's race, came pouring back down when they came to the paddock for the Oaks and the sun came out just after the Oaks and it got "steamy" for a lack of a better word...can that change a surface much?

Definitely.....and it most likely did. Thanks. Good info.