Received the DVDs as a Christmas present.
A few thoughts on the speed figure session:
If I had to judge the panelists, I\'d give Jerry a slight edge over Andy, with Len a WELL beaten 3rd. He was made to sound absolutely foolish when talking about the 4.5f races at Kee.
Its interesting to hear Andy say all the work they did to normalize his figures across tracks i.e. a 90 at Kamloops is the same as a 90 at Belmont. I think they do a decent job, but there are still a few tracks I know are off, and profit from this regularly.
Andy scored a few points with his usual argument about the horse on the rail in the 3 horse duel in :44 being better than the one swooping around them all 4 wide and winning. The only counter was that you would take the 3 wide horse over the rail horse. Well, sure, no kidding, but that wasn\'t the point. If asked who ran better, A or B, you can\'t choose C. That said, Andy\'s numbers don\'t incorporate pace either, so I\'m not sure why he uses that as an argument against ground loss calculations.
Just a few thoughts, I\'m sure I\'ll have more when I watch it again.
It sounds great.
I think the problem Beyer has with incorporating ground loss into the figures is more of a general problem than specific to ground loss.
Even competent experienced handicappers disagree on issus of pace, bias, position, ground loss, competitiveness of the race, quality of race etc...
If you incorporate any of these into the figure, you are essentially accepting the views of that figure maker about its impact.
If you just present the pure figure you allow the handicapper to then decide for himself what impact ground loss, pace, bias etc... had on the result and/or figure.
I\'d be willing to bet anything that Beyer considers ground loss when evaluating horses\' performances. It\'s just one part of a seperate series of trip notes used to evaluate the performance over and above the raw speed figure.
Which tracks do you suspect that Beyer is screwing up?
Beyerguy and CH-- A couple of things. To be fair about it, Len got the worst of the editing. But yeah, it was clear he had no clue about the Kee baby races, and it would have been clear they had problems with a lot more than that if they had stuck to the debate format they had told me was coming, and that I prepared for-- the Kee question was the only one that came from me, not Wolff, and I had to be pretty agressive to get it in. Virtually all the other questions concerned differences between sheets theory and Beyer figs, not TG vs. Ragozin. I wrote a much longer description of that weekend-- you can find it by hitting search, and \"Fear and Disorientation in Las Vegas\".
I totally agree with CH about figuring biases into your figures, and adjusting within a race for pace. Ground loss is another matter, and Andy made it clear he does not adjust for it. One point I made at the Expo was this-- Andy and others will tell you that one part of the track is better sometimes than another (quite possible, see the \"Changing Track Speed\" presentation in the archives), and so therefore there is no point in using ground loss. But look-- let\'s say one horse beat another, and the loser raced on the worse part of the track. Does that mean we don\'t want to know how far the loser got beat? Does that mean that Andy adjusts his figures for the loser? It might not be perfect-- but you are better off knowing how far each horse traveled, just as you are better off knowing how far they got beat.
That\'s one thing Ragozin and I agree about. Except, of course, when it comes to this year\'s Derby figures.
JB,
Beyer clearly doesn\'t adjust for ground loss in his figures, but that is different from saying he doesn\'t use it in his handicapping. He just keeps seperate trip notes.
Horse A: 101 R 1T, R 2T, H
Horse B: 99 3w 1T, 4w 2T BR+
Horse C: 97 3w 1Ts, 5w 2T, GR+ dueled
fast pace
Given these 3 horses, Beyer would probably love the C by a huge amount. Even though he earned the weakest Beyer figure, he dueled wide on both turns in a fast pace on a day when the rail was golden.
Even though Horse B earned a lower Beyer than A, he would then have to weigh the fact that B lost a lot of ground vs. the fact that that he was the best part of the track. He wouldn\'t want to give credit for ground loss without considering the bias.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), this kind of analysis is highly subjective because 2 players might not agree on the biases, the paces, the ground lost, or their relative impact.
I think the key point is that if you are looking at Beyers and believe in things like pace, bias and ground loss etc..., it is assumed that if you are serious you have seperate ground loss and pace trip notes like those provided by Logic Dictates. If not you are probably screwed.
TG puts the ground loss in there for you.
Post Edited (01-03-05 15:28)
Theres not much that is objective in a race, but what is objective should be incorporated into the number. I tend to think distance and weight are part of the objective formula. If it were a math equation involving energy expenditure who thinks distance and mass would be part of the formula?
Beyers numbers are useful, but he does take some very odd positions. You start with the premise the track is fair. A path bias is not objective. You note the path bias and let the handicapper determine what weight to assign to it.
CtC
CTC,
I agree with you. It is objective, but IMO sometimes it\'s an error to include it.
If the figure already contains ground loss and you believe there was a bias you have to back it out (or do something) in order to adjust.
You can either add it in if it\'s not included and you think it should be (when using Beyer figures) or subtract it out when it is included and you believe it shouldn\'t be included (TG).
6 to one. 1/2 dozen to another.
We aren\'t given the ground loss adjustments by anyone. You have to make your own trip notes, buy trip notes from Logic Dictates, or read through the race lines in TG and try to do a conversion.
That\'s why I would prefer to have a figure and a ground loss adjustment as seperate notations.
I could look at my notes and if I know a horse raced 3 wide on an honest racetrack I could just incorporate that into my thinking about his performance.
If I don\'t think being wide was a disadvantage I could exclude it.
If he\'s always wide and I expect hin to be again, I could exclude it.
If he was wide in a fast pace I know that he was at a much bigger disadvantage than just ground loss etc....
The ground loss itself is objective, but not what to do with it. As long as 2 people might disagree with what to do with it, you need it as a seperate number in order to adjust anyone\'s figures properly.
We DO show the ground loss on the sheet (upper left, next to the mini-p.p. line). It is rounded off, and represents an average of the turn (3-4-5 is 4, for example). It\'s turns only, no straightaways.
JB,
A trainer I know questioned me about my TG sheets.His contention was that horses running from the outside post in one turn races (say post 10 at 6f) are gradually angling over to the rail BEFORE the turn and is therefore covering more ground than a horse in post one who stays down inside for example.
Since TG only uses ground loss on turns, how do you factor the longer distance traveled by the horse in post 10 who is angling over to the rail. Parallel lines are only equal if the horse in the 10 path STAYS there until the turn (which they don\'t)
Whats your take on this?
The answer is yes, they cover more ground, but the difference is very small unless they cut over pretty sharply. This is the high school trig stuff with the hypotenuse compared to the other leg of the triangle, and if you look down at the track and see how long the legs of the triangle are, even when they come from the outside posts, you\'ll see the difference is very slight.
But yes, it\'s something that is not in anyone\'s figures-- right now. There are test programs in the works to measure distance run during the race electronically, both here and in England.
JB,
Thanks, would you think that the slight banking of the track(even on the straight away)neutralizes the outside posts\' slight ground loss by sort of running \"down hill\" off the banking?
Can\'t say I\'ve thought about it, could be. Different tracks are banked differently (and different amounts), just another reason why there is a limit to how accurate we can make the figures.
JB Wrote,
\"I totally agree with CH about figuring biases into your figures, and adjusting within a race for pace
JB,
You do not, however,make any adjustment to a figure based on the the pace of a race as far as I have been advised by your office forever, correct?
I only see your \"pace\" notation next to the fig, on occasion.
ok class, i think i understand your position, which must be Beyers position.
I\'ve always believed that the Figure doesn\'t indicate anything other than the horse\'s \"Potential\" for the coming race. It just seems to me a wide 1 losing to a ground saving 2 has potential for a two length win on equal paths. I want to know how fast the horse ran. I don\'t think Beyer tells you that. I understand his style may generally take a horse wide. But the coming race may be at Belmont and he may be breaking from the rail. I can see that at a glance. If hes consistently getting beat by slower horses you can see that at a glance also, without modifying. If you say the clunk up horse ran a 3 on a wide path its just not a fair reflection of what his potential is.
Bias is an overrated issue anyway and you can\'t quantify it. Any bias you ascertain is inherently subjective. I learned that the hard way, thinking I saw something I did not really see. You can\'t quantify bias and a speed figure maker shouldn\'t say \"I dont factor path because a wide bias can be good\" or \"I don\'t factor path because I let you do it. It saves me \"live\" ground fees\". Theres a reason TGraph\'s product is a premium product. These determinations are part of it.
By the way i\'m gonna experiment with TFigs on select stakes this coming spring as an experiment. Those the Tfolks don\'t give us....lol
CtC
Post Edited (01-03-05 18:59)
Miff-- What I was specifically referring to was the idea of adjusting figures within a race, giving some horses credit relative to others because they fought out a hot pace. That we don\'t do. The \"S. Pace\" designation means the pace was so slow as to clearly have affected the final time, and I cut the race loose (did it without paying attention to the times of other races). This almost always happens on grass, where the track speed is usually faster, and the pace is sometimes a lot slower-- you don\'t get a lot of dirt races where the first half mile goes slower than the second half.
When you cut a race loose you only get to use the horses in that race to make your variant, so it\'s a good thing grass horses are as solid and predictable as they are-- they run in much tighter ranges than dirt horses.
Thanks JB,
I think you have confirmed what I have always believed was your methodology regarding pace as it refers to most dirt races which have not been cut loose.
Thanks. I didn\'t even realize that. I\'m the moron on this one. That figure is on your point scale, correct? I always looked at the 2w, 3w, 5w etc... comments on the same line. I can\'t believe I\'ve been looking at these sheets for so long and was using them so inefficiently for something I consider so important. Again, I\'m the idiot.
Whoa, slow down, you\'re clearly not an idiot. I am talking about the \"2w\" etc.-- it means two wide, and refers to paths, not points.
Going home now, further discussion tomorrow.
CTC,
>I don\'t think Beyer tells you that<
He doesn\'t tell you a lot of things. :-)
I started out as a Beyer guy. So I\'ve read all his books and articles (in the Washington Post) for many years. I think I have a feel for his style and how he uses his figures. My own style is similar. I\'m just more \"quality of field\" oriented because I think no figures are perfect and think figures earned against tougher competition are better than those earned against weak comp. I also believe that numeric pace figures can help clarify visual uncertainties.
OK. Then I\'m not an idiot. I feel better. We can talk tomorrow. :-)
classhandicapper wrote:
> because I think no figures are perfect and think figures earned
> against tougher competition are better than those earned
> against weak comp.
I do too, odds excepted. Who is gonna argue with a claiming 2 vs a stakes 2 when teh claiming 2 is 12-1.
CH
For what its worth, the way I use TG in regards to ground lost, is I sometimes times cut a race loose. For instance, if TG has a horse running 11, 10.5, 12, 6, 11, 10 and I see besides the 6 a notation of 3W5W, I\'m inclined to not give the 6 as much credit. Otherwise I trust the figure without question.
ronwar,
That\'s very interesting because I do similar things on occasion (sometimes with pace figures too) but I never feel comfortable about it. It just seems to work. Thanks.
ronwar wrote:
> CH
>
> For what its worth, the way I use TG in regards to ground lost,
> is I sometimes times cut a race loose. For instance, if TG has
> a horse running 11, 10.5, 12, 6, 11, 10 and I see besides the 6
> a notation of 3W5W, I\'m inclined to not give the 6 as much
> credit. Otherwise I trust the figure without question.
Thats very interesting Ronwar. I don\'t think I\'ve attempted to discern a path track bias with figures before, but in the illustration you gave, you certainly could interpret the wide 6 as perhaps bias aided. Perhaps even corroborrate it if TGraph makes a notation of suspected wide help.
I guess i\'ve discounted rail rides where i knew the rail was golden. Thats the same thing in a way. And I\'ve discounted poor efforts on bad rails too. Bird\'s Turfway race was one like that in my opinion. But you\'re talking initial bias determination.
Post Edited (01-04-05 10:20)
\"Which tracks do you suspect that Beyer is screwing up?\"
I\'ll name a couple:
Too fast: Delaware, Mountaineer, Aqueduct Inner
Too slow: Meadowlands
Thanks. I know he makes subjective errors from time to time when a figure is a little suspect one way or the other and he doesn\'t know whether to break it out or not. However, I thought his computerized system for checking the figures of shippers would keep the major tracks in sync. From what I understand from friends at the DRForm, he\'s got a very good process.
Some of it probably involves the levels of legal medication allowed. I\'m pretty sure Mountaineer is very liberal, and their shippers do well at similar tracks, and horribly, for example, in New York.
I probably shouldn\'t have made a blanket \"too high, too low\" statement, as it also depends on where the horses ship. I\'m not sure how to go about measuring this either.
Post Edited (01-05-05 12:37)
beyerguy,
>it also depends on where the horses ship.<
I see your point. I never really gave that much thought, but it\'s probably worth it.
I\'ve looked at so many sets of figures at times I am so used to discrepancies (even when adjusted for methodology) that I don\'t take the small differences in figures too seriously.
I look at the figures and sort of say, \"he\'s been running somewhere between and \"x\" and \"y\" - which is usually a length or two one way or the other.
The occasional big differences are what really perks me up - like Smarty Jones\'s pre Derby figures that Beyer got wrong. (which he sort of admitted to in an online chat at the DRF) I think he called one of the figures \"conservative\" after Samrty won the Derby and Preakness. :-)