http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-change-coming-turf-beyer-figures
That article was written in the most confusing way possible, content aside.
This doesn\'t smell too good, what exactly are they doing here? Are they essentially altering with the time per length-variabel so that they make one length about 0,02/0,03 seconds \"faster\" than before on the turf races, and they do so only on the turf races? As you say not the best explained article I\'ve ever read! I guess you could argue that because of the slow pace that often is in turf races horses will run faster in the end, but still this really do feel like a slippery slope. The slow pace races would also make the margins between the horses smaller, because you have less distance of \"honest\" racing to get those margins in the first place. Hard to accept that 10 lengths beaten on the turf routes would look 3 beyer points better than before. Again, not sure I have understood this correctly. It also seems like a lot of crazy assumptions. I guess one could take this as another testiment that projection method is the way to go, specially for turf races. And I also think that it\'s obvious that dirtracing makes for more extreme efforts, and that speed figures should reflect this (all though maybe not as extreme as i.e Stonetastic, but I guess that is another discussion..). And if you start altering like that, shouldn\'t one also alter with this for different classes and distances? Slippery slope this, if this is what they have done (and of course re-calculated the points per length value with this new time per length-value..).
What do you think of this news TGJB, are Beyer losing it? And is this what they have done?
EDIT: Btw, are Thoro-Graph using the same length/second value for both turf races and dirt races?
Yes on the last question, I\'ll keep my powder dry right now on the larger issue. They don\'t offer a clear explanation of either why they made the change or the exact nature of it. At least not to me.
Yeah -- confusing, but this part is clear -- \"With previously unavailable data now at our disposal, we have revised the formula to make adjustments that were demonstrably more accurate. A horse beaten by 10 lengths in a route race will earn a figure approximately three points higher than in the past. The new formula also will be applied to dirt races.\"
This could easily be solved with a final time for each horse taken and published, which should have been available decades ago.....
If my memory serves me right they have been doing the final times for standardbred horses for some time now.
After reading the article, I surmise that the \'new data\' would be Trakus charts with final times. Opinion not assertion.
In addition, I don\'t believe any fig maker is immune to questions about their turf numbers. TG had 3 or 4 US based horses in the BC Turf that \'appeared\' good enough to win the Arc. I assert that not one of them would have been less than 30-1 in the Arc, nor would any of them come close to hitting the board.
I don\'t use DRF, but I also wouldn\'t knock them for trying to improve their product instead of defending numbers that just don\'t pass off as logical.
Paolo Wrote
>
> In addition, I don\'t believe any fig maker is
> immune to questions about their turf numbers. TG
> had 3 or 4 US based horses in the BC Turf that
> \'appeared\' good enough to win the Arc. I assert
> that not one of them would have been less than
> 30-1 in the Arc, nor would any of them come close
> to hitting the board.
>
What are you basing that assertion on?
Assertion on their odds reasonable, where they would have placed in the Arc is rather subjective.
First of all, I can\'t believe that after the results (and seeing the figures) of the BC anyone is still questioning the Euro figures.
Re the Arc, any Americans going there a) would be spotting 3yos 8 pounds because of the different scale of weights, which is why 3yos have done so well in that race, and b) doing so without Lasix. The BC Turf winner was first time Lasix.
That part is clear, huh?
WHAT previously unavailable data, how was it used, and what did it show exactly. DEMONSTRABLY more accurate? How so? Revised it in what manner?
\"The new formula will also be applied to dirt races\" SAY WHAT??? I thought this was about grass.
Not to get too involved with this, but \"beaten lengths\" are actually time (recorded by the teletimer for each horse), translated into \"lengths\". We had a whole discussion about this subject here some years ago.
The odds are hardly debatable. Even with shipping, no benefit from Lasix, a tough campaign, and an unfavorable course, Golden Horn is odds-on in the US. If not for Chad\'s magic in the US, the 3 yo heavily-raced filly would have been the 2nd choice in the BC. Don\'t think you have to be a bookie to predict the odds of the \'faster\' US runners in the most prestigious turf race in the world.
Can I get a refund on the Beyer books now?
I\'m going to chime in my two cents here, although I probably shouldn\'t.
In general, I think the Beyer boys are barking up the wrong tree here. The article says they are making this adjustment to try supply figures for players so we have a better idea of what to expect from a turf runner trying dirt or a dirt runner trying turf. That seems completely misguided to me. They are two different surfaces, two different games. History has shown that many top notch dirt horses where no better than above average on grass, and certainly the opposite was also true.
To me, the premise here is flawed as there is no reason why the overall ability of a horse on the grass should correlate with their overall ability to run on dirt. Sure there may be some general cross overs as far as overall relative ability goes. I would probably take a recent G1 winner on the dirt to beat a group of $20,000 claimers on the grass. But I don\'t know that I would take a G1 winner on the dirt to beat a G1 field on the grass just because their dirt figures are higher. That seems silly. Two different surfaces, two different games. Just watch some tennis matches on clay vs grass.
We just went through all of this with synthetics as well. The figures didn\'t necessarily line up, nor should they have. So why would we want to adjust our scale to make it so? If you just looked at the numbers and didn\'t factor in the surface you were missing a big influence on the outcome of the race when say a top notch dirt runner shipped over from CD to race at Keeneland. You always had to ask, will this guy like synthetic more or less?
Look no further than Curlin. His 4 year old season he was maybe the best dirt horse racing on the Planet. But when they tried him on the grass he looked like he was maybe at best a G3 or G2 talent. Would he have beat $20k claimers on the grass. Probably. But should he be expected to run a 110 Beyer on the grass just like he did on dirt? I say no. Same on synthetic. When he raced on synthetic in the BC Classic he got beat pretty easily as a 4/5 favorite.
So as handicappers, if we don\'t think a horse\'s figures on dirt should line up with what they do on grass, why would the figure maker take steps to do so? And if we don\'t expect those numbers to line up, then why do we need to say that being beaten a half length at a mile on the grass is the same as being beaten 2 lengths at a mile on the dirt? Especially when the horse isn\'t probably going to be able to run the same on both surfaces.
No argument with your analysis. Beyer seems to have obsessed over CLASS matchups vs figs.
If I understand it , (after one quick read) he want\'s G1 turf to produce the same numbers as G1 dirt. Nw1, same, etc.
The question is , does this produce more accurate numbers or introduce distortions.
If you do understand it on a quick read, you\'re ahead of everyone in this office. We just spent a fair amount of time arguing about what he was saying, forget whether it\'s actually right.
If you want a good laugh, take a look at the comments following the article. The first one says they should have a rabbit in every race to ensure an honest pace, and it goes downhill from there.
\"Most classes of grass races now appear comparable in quality to their counterparts on dirt\"
.....not even close!
That\'s what I took from it too....they feel that the top g1 horses running on turf should have the same numbers as the top g1 on dirt and on down the \"class\" ladder.
Beyer: Rooted in logic and mathematics, the calculations behind the numbers have stood the test of time.
TG: I can\'t believe that after the results (and seeing the figures) of the BC anyone is still questioning the Euro figures.
Laughable indeed. Hard to tell who is who.
Paolo-- Buy a clue. We have done actual studies of those Euro figures, not just for this year\'s BC, but looking at ALL the ones that have come here to run. We did it twice, a couple of years apart, and it came out right both times. You think we picked the correlation out of the air?
Miff-- exactly right. I suspect that underlying what he\'s trying to say is the misuse of pars, based on a silly assumption-- that grass and dirt horses SHOULD be the same, which market forces alone make untrue in this country. But until they clarify what they did I can\'t be sure.
One part of it seems to be they changed their beaten length correction, for both dirt and turf. They were off a little before, so that part could be correct.
JB,
Difficult for me to understand how Beyer, Hopkins, Moss and Jerardi could have done this UNLESS it was so poorly articulated that I\'m misunderstanding what they are trying to say.
Yes, they appear to have devalued Beyer points re beaten lengths.Think they got too anal here.Pretty sure who inspired this.
Mike
I didn\'t take it to mean that they wanted to be able to make predictions about turf horses on dirt or vice-versa, just wanted to be better able to compare the quality of turf and dirt horses.
And isn\'t that the point of speed figures generally? To be able to compare the quality of a horse\'s performance with another\'s, possibly from different days/times/distances?
This being said, I\'m not saying he\'s done a good job.
Seems to me there are, at today\'s exchange rates, about $5.4mm reasons for the best turf horses in the United States to get over to France and prove you right, and none of them are trying. At the minimum, the 3yo\'s should be going right?
So why aren\'t they? Is the lasix that much of an issue?
I don\'t think you pulled them out of the \'air\', any more than I think the Beyer camp pulled their corrections out of their \'air\'.
Not sure why you care so much when a customer chooses to devalue certain numbers. Oh, and the Beyer smear job sounds more than a bit Trumpish.
I don\'t care what you think, I care what anyone says on my board. I get along with Andy just fine, and am friendly with both Jerardi and Randy, who make a lot of the figures. Re the Trump nonsense, I\'m not calling anyone names, other than maybe \"unclear writer\". IF they did what it looks like, it was based on a silly assumption, and if they clarify I\'ll discuss it further, though I\'m going to be away most of next week so it might have to wait.
You would have to ask trainers why they don\'t go to Europe. Ward has done so with some success. And by the way, I\'m not taking a position that American turf horses are better. I\'m taking a position that the figures are accurate.
Sure, and to be clear, I\'m not taking the position that you\'re wrong about that. I guess it\'s as likely as anything that the answer is inertia/conventional wisdom.
(If everyone thinks that US turf horses aren\'t as good, and because of that they never go over, it\'s probably hard as a trainer to be the only guy trying to convince your owners to spend the time/money to ship over.)
I also suspect that the way U.S. horses are trained (cooped up so much and trained just one way) may make them less adaptable to \"wrong way\" turns, hills, etc.