Enough Nonsense

TGJB,

By the way, I am totally satisfied in the methodology and technique Beyer uses to cross check his figures when horses ship from track to track. I do not know why there are often disagreements between the two camps on out of town races and I don\'t always have the data needed to form an opinion.

I do not know if he makes projection figures for all the very small tracks, but the verification process is not an issue.



Post Edited (03-20-05 20:44)

[TGJB]

CH-- as I pointed out before, Beyer had real track to track problems through at least last year, although he may be making changes based on what I\'ve seen recently. Having said that, some problems were still evident in his figures for the Muniz at FG Saturday-- the California figures were again inflated relative to the locals.

But anyway, that\'s not what I asked you. You mentioned you were going to be able to find out whether he used pars at any point in the process, even as a check. Did you?

TGJB,

I think they are related questions/issues.

This is the way I see it.  

If he is using projection figures at all the major tracks (which he certainly is) then he would have no need to use PARs. I\'ve never seen him describe his process of making projection figures as being related to PARs.

If he is using PAR based figures at a handful of very minor tracks (don\'t know), he probably would develop \"sync\" and \"quality\" problems.

The \"sync\" problems would be corrected quickly via the shipper cross check process which would then update the PARs to reflect reality.

It\'s this sync issue that is most important to me.

However, PAR based figures would obviously be inferior to projections. I am less concerned about that because I don\'t play any of the really tiny tracks and there aren\'t any stakes shippers coming from them. If I played a very tiny track, I would be more skeptical of the figures until I checked out what he was doing.

I think only Andy and his crew know if they are using projection based figures for every track in the country or not.



Post Edited (03-21-05 10:21)

[TGJB]

CH-- the issues of whether Beyer is using pars at ANY point in the process and whether his figures will correlate track to track  are DEFINITELY related-- that\'s the context in which I brought up the question in the first place, and I thought you said our mutual friend would know the answer.

As I pointed out before-- I believe they do the individual days by \"projection\". But I suspect they use pars as a check not race to race, but over a period of time-- meaning, if they find they are running better or worse than pars for the classes they will make a global correction for the track, like \"add 3\". My reason for thinking this is not just seeing that they have had some circuits out of whack, but which ones-- they have had the ones with overinflated claiming levels (California being the most extreme) way too fast, and the deflated claiming tracks (Delaware, for example) way too slow. I\'m not shooting from the hip here-- I probably know more about this than anyone alive, having spent a lot of time not just thinking about how to avoid such problems, but fielding calls and posts over the years from those who think a circuit is overrated or underrated, and I\'ve looked at our stuff  (and to a lesser degree Andy\'s and Ragozin\'s) pretty close cicuit to circuit.

I will also say that I\'m not the only one who has figured it out. Don Brauer, the top bloodstock agent in the country, figured out without me a few years ago that he had to deduct several Beyer points from California and Canada, based upon the performance of those horses when they went elsewhere, and those of other horses (notably from Calder, his base), when they were purchased and went to California.

Again-- it now appears Andy may be on his way to solving the problem. But he may have two systems in conflict-- if you use pars AT ALL you will have a circuit to circuit problem.

TGJB,

OK, I understand what you are saying about spot checking figures against pars over time.

If they did that, the crossing checking process they use for horses moving from track to track would quickly notify them if there really was a problem.

If track \"X\" was coming up 3 points slower than PAR, it would foolish to change all those figures unless those horses were also coming up 3 points slow relative to other tracks.

If they were 3 points slower than other tracks and 3 points slower than PAR, they could adjust all the figures up by 3 points. End of problem.

If the cross check process said everything was OK, then at some point they might decide to change the PARs that are published for information purposes to reflect the changing stock.  

I am comfortable they have excellent controls in place, but that\'s about all I can say.

As to any controversial figures, my guess is that they mostly related to methodolgy and judgments about the speed of the track for an individual race or day.



Post Edited (03-21-05 15:26)