To JB - Number Stephen Foster

[milfordflash]

Respecting your proprietary data, wondering about the winning number for the Foster.  Bought the race from you, and if I calculate correctly using ground loss, and using the winning Beyer number posted of 105, I come up with something like a negative 5 for Flashy.  Considering how he looked to be out of gas at the end, and it would be a top new top for Magna, is this possible?  Am I taking too much ground loss into account (3w3w), or is Beyers number off?  Neg 5 is lofty company, and I surely cant put Flashy into Invasor territory.  If you choose to post the winning number, thank you, if not, I understand your reluctance.  Thank you.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Negative 5? Do you really think so?

Flashy Bull has been a consistent horse and had set a level of performance. Do you really believe he smashed through that performance threshold to run one of the fastest races ever in 1.48.63? with Magna Graduate at this throatlatch?

If you do, you better factor Simon Pure and Chelokee too.

milfordflash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Respecting your proprietary data, wondering about
> the winning number for the Foster.  Bought the
> race from you, and if I calculate correctly using
> ground loss, and using the winning Beyer number
> posted of 105, I come up with something like a
> negative 5 for Flashy.  Considering how he looked
> to be out of gas at the end, and it would be a top
> new top for Magna, is this possible?  Am I taking
> too much ground loss into account (3w3w), or is
> Beyers number off?  Neg 5 is lofty company, and I
> surely cant put Flashy into Invasor territory.  If
> you choose to post the winning number, thank you,
> if not, I understand your reluctance.  Thank you.

[TGJB]

We gave Flashy Bull a slight new top, and even if you adjusted the Beyer for ground, it wouldn\'t come out to a neg 5. Also, fkach can explain how adjusting for ground and weight with some Beyers would be double counting. Because while they don\'t use those variables, in effect they do in some cases, unintentionally. Like, if you took the Beyer for RTR\'s Belmont and adjusted it, it would come out way too big.

CTC-- as bad an idea as it is for professional figure makers to combine one and two turn races (and I only know one who does), it\'s even worse if you don\'t have wind info. And worse yet at a track like CD with a one turn mile chute. Having said that, on the day in question the wind was negligible.

If you haven\'t already, check out \"Changing Track Speeds\" on this site.

[fkach]

>Also, fkach can explain how adjusting for ground and weight with some Beyers would be double counting. Because while they don\'t use those variables, in effect they do in some cases, unintentionally.<

I didn\'t know you knew that I understood that. ;-)

It\'s an issue with Beyers and most other figures besides TG that I\'ve never heard anyone address besides you (just now). I only realized it in the last couple of years after some confusion. I\'ve had a few off line chats about it, but that\'s about it.

He sometimes builds in ground loss via the track variant on days when a lot of the winners and other close finishers just happened to have raced wide. It especially happens on bad rail days when almost all the winners etc... raced wide.

To simplify a little for non-figure makers:

Assume we have a horse that consistently runs a 100 Beyer with a ground saving trip.

Assume on a given day, lots of winning horses and other close finishers raced wide (including our 100 Beyer horse).

Instead of giving the horse a Beyer figure in the 90s because of the ground loss, he often gives it a 100 (because that\'s what it usually runs) effectively building the ground loss into the figure. Then when/if you add in the ground loss on top of that yourself you give it a FALSE new top.  

This can cause problems for handicappers that add in ground loss by themselves. It can even cause problems for me because I can\'t measure what he did on any given day with any precision. It varies from day to day and track to track depending on the trips of the winners and other major horses on which he based his track variant.

I hope my explanation is clear. This isn\'t an easy problem to explain.

If you are using TG, you don\'t have to worry about it though because it\'s done correctly.

[TGJB]

This issue also arises with weight, and without going into detail can affect the figures of other horses in the race. But the effects are not large, and I want to point out that the way Beyer does it overall, a) despite occasionally making some significant errors (like in the Oaks and Black Eyed Susan), and b) depite the relatively small issues described here, is pragmatic, and almost never makes MAJOR errors. The guys a mile north of here, who are completely dogmatic and process oriented, make them all the time.

On a related point-- I had a discussion with some people here once about whether Beyer uses pars (which he said at the Expo, sitting right next to me, that he did not). From the opening paragraph of the cover story of Thursday\'s DRF, by Dave Litfin:  \"The Beyer Speed Figure pars for second-level allowance races and $50,000 claimers are virtually identical...\"

[fkach]

I know for certain that PARs for many classes are still calculated. They are available for most classes at most tracks in one of the DRF publications (Simulcast Daily). I do not know for certain if they used in the figure making process in some way, but he makes projection variants (not PAR based) for all the major circuits for sure.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 
> On a related point-- I had a discussion with some
> people here once about whether Beyer uses pars
> (which he said at the Expo, sitting right next to
> me, that he did not). From the opening paragraph
> of the cover story of Thursday\'s DRF, by Dave
> Litfin:  \"The Beyer Speed Figure pars for
> second-level allowance races and $50,000 claimers
> are virtually identical...\"

On this note, there\'s no reason to believe that Dave Litfin acquired sudden Alzheimer\'s. He was privy to Beyer Pars or he wouldn\'t have mentioned them. He is a very methodical guy. (Perhaps overly so) Which raises the next implication and that is \"Why did Beyer fudge on his use of Pars?\" It may be he didn\'t understand the question. It may be he does use them and didn\'t want the public to know. It\'s a speed simple game. You try to isolate a buried race that is much faster than it looks or you position yourself against a very fast looking race because you consider it slower than it appears/has been scored. If Beyer admitted his numbers are based upon Pars why would anyone need Beyer? Pars are easy to produce for one specific track or a specific circuit. They are time consuming but educational and to a certain extent fun. They are certainly revealing. So maybe Beyer uses them and lied. The other possibility is that he utilizes pars as a reference point when applying deduction off the horses. In other words he uses them as an additional weapon in his figure arsenal and doesn\'t consider that his final figure is based solely upon the deviation difference from Par.

If Beyer uses pars as in the last example above. Its certainly the conservative thing to do and keeps his revolver chamber loaded. A man doesn\'t want to get killed for lack of shooting back.

I\'ve never understood dispensing with par. If you follow the races long enough, you can keep a \"rolling par\' in your mind\'s eye. But dispensing with it entirely has been troubling to me since I realized Par was considered a Dodo bird in some circles.

[robert fischer]

I think Litfin is using the term \"par\" to mean average in this case.
Separate from any methodology used to create a figure.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

robert fischer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Litfin is using the term \"par\" to mean
> average in this case.
> Separate from any methodology used to create a
> figure.

Thats exactly what par is, the \"average\" for a specific class at a specific distance. The more specific you make the class the more accurate the average.

Par is step one.

Step two is determining race by race deviations from Par for a Day\'s Card and calculating a variant or \"daily average off par\"

Step three is determining how individual races fall in regard to that daily average.

Step Four is considering all the things that Tgraph considers and

Step Five is assigning a figure.

The surprise is....

No one does all five steps. Well, almost no one.

CtC

[streetbull]

Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
>
> Thats exactly what par is, the \"average\" for a
> specific class at a specific distance. The more
> specific you make the class the more accurate the
> average.
>
> Par is step one.
>
> Step two is determining race by race deviations
> from Par for a Day\'s Card and calculating a
> variant or \"daily average off par\"
>
> Step three is determining how individual races
> fall in regard to that daily average.
>
> Step Four is considering all the things that
> Tgraph considers and
>
> Step Five is assigning a figure.
>
> The surprise is....
>
> No one does all five steps. Well, almost no one.
>
> CtC


Any accurate number formula would have to had integrated a significant theory from Huey Mahl\'s book, \"The Race is Pace\".....

In his small book, he hints at a very important theory and clue for an accurate energy formula which I think best evaluates form cycle better than any formula out in print.....The clue?


\"The early pace creates a telescopic effect on the overall race...\"

The words \"telescopic effect\" signifies a huge breakthrough if one can understand its implications.........

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Par and Pace aren\'t held in the highest regard here, but I tend to support the notion that the fractional times can have a bearing upon the final time and the  final figure. (See the Belmont Stakes.)

streetbull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> --
> >
> > Thats exactly what par is, the \"average\" for a
> > specific class at a specific distance. The more
> > specific you make the class the more accurate
> the
> > average.
> >
> > Par is step one.
> >
> > Step two is determining race by race deviations
> > from Par for a Day\'s Card and calculating a
> > variant or \"daily average off par\"
> >
> > Step three is determining how individual races
> > fall in regard to that daily average.
> >
> > Step Four is considering all the things that
> > Tgraph considers and
> >
> > Step Five is assigning a figure.
> >
> > The surprise is....
> >
> > No one does all five steps. Well, almost no
> one.
> >
> > CtC
>
>
> Any accurate number formula would have to had
> integrated a significant theory from Huey Mahl\'s
> book, \"The Race is Pace\".....
>
> In his small book, he hints at a very important
> theory and clue for an accurate energy formula
> which I think best evaluates form cycle better
> than any formula out in print.....The clue?
>
>
> \"The early pace creates a telescopic effect on the
> overall race...\"
>
> The words \"telescopic effect\" signifies a huge
> breakthrough if one can understand its
> implications.........

[milfordflash]

Thank you for the response to my origianl question.  I think my mistakes were in the correlation of Beyer points to TG points at the distance, and secondly the ground loss issue.  I assumed ( a very dangerous word) that the Beyer number did not take ground loss into account.  I beleive I read where Beyer himself said that his numbers were raw times only.  Now, if the ground loss is being built into the varient, then we have a whole new issue...and that isn\'t even accounting for weight differences.

[miff]

\"I think Litfin is using the term \"par\" to mean average in this case.
Separate from any methodology used to create a figure\"


...that is correct, it was more a historical reference, just like when they say it usually takes a certain Beyer fig to win a derby.


Mike

[TGJB]

Just to be clear about this-- I am NOT saying that Beyer INTENTIONALLY builds ground loss into his figures. Fkach gave an example of what I was talking about on this string.

[beyerguy]

As for the pars, knowing what the par is for a certain class of horse, and using them to calculate the figures, are two different things.  Litfin was referring to the calculated par that is done from figures.

I know that pars are not used to make figures at the medium and large sized tracks.  As for the small ones, I\'m not so sure.