Weekend Beyers: Blind Luck 104; Sidney's 100; AmLion 98

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Steve

This horse ALWAY runs the same type of race. She's just GOOD. And, the more of these SLOW poly horses that run higher figures on the dirt, the harder it will be to HIDE the inadequacy of Beyers on synthetics.

OK... Understand that point. The inadequacies argument is a different discussion. I can guarantee that Andy Beyer, Mark Hopkins and Randy Moss and everyone involved in Beyer Associates is evaluating and re-examining their formulations constantly to try and get the equation as accurate as possible for the non-organic surfaces. As Beyer himself said when he came on ATR to announce and explain the fig adjustment last January, there is nothing more important to him than providing the most valuable and accurate figures they can to us, the wagering public.

In this case with Blind Luck, you just really see the quantum difference in dirt racing and synthetic racing and how the synthetic oval mutes raw speed. Blind Luck has done fine out west because her style particularly suits the surface and how races on synthetic have come to be run.. Zenyatta is another that fits the surface/style scenario. That isn't to say that Blind Luck still couldn't be bested by dawdling pace as she was in the SA Oaks and almost was in the Las Virgenes.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Kasept

In this case with Blind Luck, you just really see the quantum difference in dirt racing and synthetic racing and how the synthetic oval mutes raw speed. Blind Luck has done fine out west because her style particularly suits the surface and how races on synthetic have come to be run.. Zenyatta is another that fits the surface/style scenario. That isn't to say that Blind Luck still couldn't be bested by dawdling pace as she was in the SA Oaks and almost was in the Las Virgenes.

She wins the Oaks if she's not blocked the length of the stretch -- which would've been a ridiculously huge accomplishment. Combined with the Las Virgenes, where Evening Jewel was 'supposed' to win, one gets a sense of how good this filly is. Then, she comes off the surface that supposedly 'favors' her running style and runs what appears to be an identical type of race (haven't done the charts for this yet.).

All I want is some consistency. I want the Beyers to be able to show that this is a good horse, whether on synthetics or dirt --- as she now has proven. Clearly, there are horses that are better on one surface over another but is this really the case here? Did this filly suddenly get good by running a respectable number or was she always good? (note: I don't know what she's run in the past and have made the assumption that her peak was around 90).

[10 pnt move up]

If the numbers are not comparable to each other, something I completely agree with, then why were they being throw around last year in Eclipse discussions? If they are that important then they should be on the same scale.

I highly doubt that Ventana, what looks like the west coasts best sprinter, is 15 points behind the best sprinters out east.

[blackthroatedwind]

Oh yeah, speed figures are often used in Eclipse decisions.

You used to be much smarter. Have you been eating peyote?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Oh yeah, speed figures are often used in Eclipse decisions.

You used to be much smarter. Have you been eating peyote?

Are you high, even Beyer used it as an argument last year if memory serves.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Are you high, even Beyer used it as an argument last year if memory serves.

Obviously Beyer looks at them....but what percentage of voters do...and even if they do how much would it possibly affect the outcomes?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Obviously Beyer looks at them....but what percentage of voters do...and even if they do how much would it possibly affect the outcomes?

I think Crist used them as well in his arguments...so yea some people do, and my point was if the best in the business do to influence the public with their reasoning than they should be at least somewhat accurate.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Oh yeah, speed figures are often used in Eclipse decisions.

You used to be much smarter. Have you been eating peyote?

....the better question is,where can one find peyote?

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

She wins the Oaks if she's not blocked the length of the stretch -- which would've been a ridiculously huge accomplishment. Combined with the Las Virgenes, where Evening Jewel was 'supposed' to win, one gets a sense of how good this filly is. Then, she comes off the surface that supposedly 'favors' her running style and runs what appears to be an identical type of race (haven't done the charts for this yet.).

All I want is some consistency. I want the Beyers to be able to show that this is a good horse, whether on synthetics or dirt --- as she now has proven. Clearly, there are horses that are better on one surface over another but is this really the case here? Did this filly suddenly get good by running a respectable number or was she always good? (note: I don't know what she's run in the past and have made the assumption that her peak was around 90).

16 Beyer points at 8.5F is 1.6 seconds, or about 9 lengths. If the trouble she had in the Oaks was worth 3-4 lengths, and moving to dirt was worth 5-6 lengths (certainly reasonable assumptions, no?) the number makes a lot of sense.

She is absolutely a good horse, and the one to beat on April 30th. Synthetics make her "not as good" a horse as she is on dirt like it does to a lot of horses. Others have about equal ability on both surfaces. A third group move way up on synthetics. The same phenomenon occurs on turf- plenty of turfers can't run a lick on dirt, and excellent dirt horses just look like they're running in place over turf. It's been proven time and again over the last 4 years that synthetics are NOT a replacement for dirt, but rather a 3rd surface, and must be treated as such in both handicapping through speed figures or visual/trip/charting assessments.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

She wins the Oaks if she's not blocked the length of the stretch -- which would've been a ridiculously huge accomplishment. Combined with the Las Virgenes, where Evening Jewel was 'supposed' to win, one gets a sense of how good this filly is. Then, she comes off the surface that supposedly 'favors' her running style and runs what appears to be an identical type of race (haven't done the charts for this yet.).

All I want is some consistency. I want the Beyers to be able to show that this is a good horse, whether on synthetics or dirt --- as she now has proven. Clearly, there are horses that are better on one surface over another but is this really the case here? Did this filly suddenly get good by running a respectable number or was she always good? (note: I don't know what she's run in the past and have made the assumption that her peak was around 90).

I really don't want to get too deep into this because it is a very old topic. Speed figures measure final time. However, on synthetics, final time is often irrelevant. The pace is so slow, especially in routes, that horses are never going to run figures like they do on dirt.

Now, if you want Beyer figures to measure something other than final time, maybe they could be made more accurate, but it is still very hard to do. In racing, the goal isn't to run as fast as possible, it is to win the race. On dirt, these often amount to the same thing. On turf and rubber, that simply is not the case.

So again, I'm not sure what you want Beyer to do. His figures have never purported to do anything but measure final time. On rubber, final time is a very small part of determining how good a horse happens to be.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I really don't want to get too deep into this because it is a very old topic. Speed figures measure final time. However, on synthetics, final time is often irrelevant. The pace is so slow, especially in routes, that horses are never going to run figures like they do on dirt.

Now, if you want Beyer figures to measure something other than final time, maybe they could be made more accurate, but it is still very hard to do. In racing, the goal isn't to run as fast as possible, it is to win the race. On dirt, these often amount to the same thing. On turf and rubber, that simply is not the case.

So again, I'm not sure what you want Beyer to do. His figures have never purported to do anything but measure final time. On rubber, final time is a very small part of determining how good a horse happens to be.

I think BEYERS do a disservice to those that don't have a firm grasp of the game. That's why we're constantly subjected to the same comments about horses 'improving'. I clearly realize that BEYERS don't account for pace, nor for the surface difference, and the nuances that come with it; yet, they continue to play such a huge role in the game. Comments like 'not fast enough', when the reference is to FINAL TIME, really have no part in the game of anyone who understands even the basics of racing. Beyer is stuck between a rock and a hard place. His figures are 'fine' for dirt, as pace doesn't play that much of a role (at least not the primary role it does on synthetics) but they fail woefully in cases where the 'type' of races determines how 'fast' a race is run. In other words, he CAN'T RECONCILE his DIRT with his SYNTHETIC figures. And, thus, he (and his supporters) really should not be commenting on the ability of horses that run on different surfaces. This would result in:

1) less confusing/comical situations for those who have a gauge as to the ability of a given horse

2) the Beyer camp relaxing their (equally comical) campaign against synthetic horses

This is not to say that there's a way to reconcile these numbers, however. It's just an intractable situation if only speed is involved.

[blackthroatedwind]

The agenda is yours Fat Man....not Beyer's.

It is every person's responsibility to learn and understand these things. I won't argue that " racing " hasn't done a good job over the years explaining these things to the masses, and too many people continue to lead others in the absolute wrong direction, but ultimately these concepts that CJ laid out aren't that complicated. There are two factors...one is a better job needs to be done to educate....but the bigger one is that people need to be willing to listen....really listen.

Simply falling on the misplaced Beyer hatred is specifically NOT listening.

[the_fat_man]

[quote=blackthroatedwind;632714]The agenda is yours Fat Man....not Beyer's.
Simply falling on the misplaced Beyer hatred is specifically NOT listening.[quote]

Exactly. It's all on me. I mean, I was bashing Beyer(s) way before Beyerites were bashing synthetics.

I have an agenda:

1) crush the BEYERITE paradigm

2) crush the Pick(3)4(6) paradigm

Come on, Bro. The game is beatable without having to steer all the neophytes in the wrong direction.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Beyer is stuck between a rock and a hard place. His figures are 'fine' for dirt, as pace doesn't play that much of a role (at least not the primary role it does on synthetics) but they fail woefully in cases where the 'type' of races determines how 'fast' a race is run. In other words, he CAN'T RECONCILE his DIRT with his SYNTHETIC figures. And, thus, he (and his supporters) really should not be commenting on the ability of horses that run on different surfaces.

Can you guess who wrote the following in 1993:

"Racing in England and France, in particular is utterly foreign to an American; horses gallop along in a tight pack in virtual slow motion during the early stages of a race and don't accelerate in earnest until they turn into the stretch. As a result, their final times are unimportant, and speed figures would be useless as a handicapping tool."

The answer is.....Andrew Beyer (Beyer on Speed, p 149).
You make it sound as if by making speed figures for horses that run on synthetic or turf Beyer and other figure makers are engaged in some kind of deceitful fraud. I don't think that's the case. As the quotation above illustrates, Beyer has always been very open about what figures are, and - just as importantly - what they are not. If other people use speed figures as some sort of gospel truth when it comes to synthetic and turf horses, then that is on them, not him. As CJ pointed out, since the figures merely involve the final time, it strikes me that it is up to the individual horseplayer to determine if the final time (and therefore a speed figure) is important or not in a given race.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Speed figures measure final time. However, on synthetics, final time is often irrelevant. The pace is so slow, especially in routes, that horses are never going to run figures like they do on dirt.

I posted this in another thread, but the figures for the 9F races at Aqueduct on Saturday seem too high, for the reason quoted above. Given the slow pace of each, the final time of both races seemed a little slow for how the track was overall playing Saturday.

Eskendereya was very impressive, especially in comparison to the slow come home time for the Excelsior, but both of these races were contested in the manner that we often see in turf/synthetic races and typically result in final figures slower than the actual performance may warrant.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I posted this in another thread, but the figures for the 9F races at Aqueduct on Saturday seem too high, for the reason quoted above. Given the slow pace of each, the final time of both races seemed a little slow for how the track was overall playing Saturday.

Eskendereya was very impressive, especially in comparison to the slow come home time for the Excelsior, but both of these races were contested in the manner that we often see in turf/synthetic races and typically result in final figures slower than the actual performance may warrant.

I would disagree because for the Excelsior, the pace was exactly what I would have predicted for the final time. I don't think it was slow at all for that track, just average.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I would disagree because for the Excelsior, the pace was exactly what I would have predicted for the final time. I don't think it was slow at all for that track, just average.

They were both paceless races on paper, and played that way out on the track. The Excelsior was particularly ugly through the stretch, as evidenced by what visually appeared to be Nite Light "coming again" when he was empty on the turn. To justify the Wood figure, it appears that projections were partly made off of what the Excelsior participants normally run - a tough to justify projection based on the way that race played out on the track.

There were two 7F races that were run in 1:21 and change, and NY-bred MSW horses cut a 44 and change half, so the track was not slow. The final time of the Wood was the third slowest in the past 14 years; that's largely a function of the early pace. Still, it gets a higher figure than either the Carter or Bay Shore, which were run in pretty representative time. Maybe, we'll have to agree to disagree but I don't think the figures for the two-turn races make sense.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

They were both paceless races on paper, and played that way out on the track. The Excelsior was particularly ugly through the stretch, as evidenced by what visually appeared to be Nite Light "coming again" when he was empty on the turn. To justify the Wood figure, it appears that projections were partly made off of what the Excelsior participants normally run - a tough to justify projection based on the way that race played out on the track.

There were two 7F races that were run in 1:21 and change, and NY-bred MSW horses cut a 44 and change half, so the track was not slow. The final time of the Wood was the third slowest in the past 14 years; that's largely a function of the early pace. Still, it gets a higher figure than either the Carter or Bay Shore, which were run in pretty representative time. Maybe, we'll have to agree to disagree but I don't think the figures for the two-turn races make sense.

Fair enough, but one thing I know is that both 9f routes, in relation to final time, were not paceless. The Wood was mildly slow on raw figures, and the older horses were exactly dead on.

On raw times, the Excelsior had a raw pace figure (Beyer Scale) of 92 and a raw speed figure of 92. The Wood had a raw pace figure of 95 and a speed figure of 105. I'm using the 6f time for the pace calls.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I would disagree because for the Excelsior, the pace was exactly what I would have predicted for the final time. I don't think it was slow at all for that track, just average.

The Excelsior was one FUNKY race. This was the, at least, 3rd time on Saturday that a horse made a late run on the inside to get 2nd, when it appeared hopelessly beaten earlier, and the outside horse appeared to be running on quick sand.