Saturday Beyers

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by philcski

Want to elaborate on why you think they are good numbers?

(If the answer is "every horse in the Oaks would end up with a new top", I think that's a cop-out on the part of the figuremaker.)

There is a difference between every horse (but one) getting a new top, and every horse (but one) getting new tops averaging 18 points, or about 11 lengths.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

There is a difference between every horse (but one) getting a new top, and every horse (but one) getting new tops averaging 18 points, or about 11 lengths.

I know. But it still creates the problem of did the surface change that much in 30 minutes (and 57 minutes from the previous race)? No (or at least, very unlikely). Was the clock wrong? Maybe. Is 94 the right adjusted number? I don't know.

But I'm not allowed to discuss Beyers anymore so I'll shut up now.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by philcski

I know. But it still creates the problem of did the surface change that much in 30 minutes (and 57 minutes from the previous race)? No (or at least, very unlikely). Was the clock wrong? Maybe. Is 94 the right adjusted number? I don't know.

But I'm not allowed to discuss Beyers anymore so I'll shut up now.

I think it is a great time to discuss Beyers. All the bashers hate when he breaks out races, but I'd love to hear the alternatives here from them. What would they do? There is always criticism, but never a better solution given.

The 94 is certainly debatable, but any time a race has to stand on its own that will happen. Does anyone really believe Gio Ponti ran a 100 yesterday? That one is probably off by a lot more than this one.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

But I'm not allowed to discuss Beyers anymore so I'll shut up now.

Oh you victim you.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

There was ZERO hostility there. It was a question where I pointed out to disagree with the figures you had to believe one of the two scenerios I laid out. You would have understood that if you would stop grinding that f'n axe.

Axe? With what? I have none. I just think, as Hockey laid out extremely eloquently in his post, the spirit and initial purpose of the Beyers has been lost when pace and/or trip gets incorporated into the figure.

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I think it is a great time to discuss Beyers. All the bashers hate when he breaks out races, but I'd love to hear the alternatives here from them. What would they do? There is always criticism, but never a better solution given.

The 94 is certainly debatable, but any time a race has to stand on its own that will happen. Does anyone really believe Gio Ponti ran a 100 yesterday? That one is probably off by a lot more than this one.

The better solution is to just leave it alone. If it came up a 115, and cannot be explained by mechanical failure of the timing device, let the bettors decide whether they are legitimate and/or repeatable. It is extremely hard to fathom that BL and HDG ran that much better than the other two races. But it is certainly possible- she is the best 3YO filly in the country and HDG has unlimited potential, and a 115 from a 3YO filly isn't unheard of. If the rest of the field got "towed along" by the top finishers and get figures that they probably didn't earn, that means one of three things: (1) the beaten lengths adjustments need to be examined (unlikely but possible), or (2) they all actually ran their career bests (even less likely) or (3) the handicappers will make the correct determination on their own.

It isn't just the importance to future races' betting determinations- which like them or not, the Beyers drive millions in handle, but in the breeding industry, and their historical ranks, horses are also referenced and promoted by their Beyer figure accomplishments. They are the industry standard- shouldn't they be the best?

No question the turf Beyers have even more "interpretation"... but also much less importance.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Oh you victim you.

Please. I got banned at PA for a similar argument. Not going to do the same here. For one, I have a LOT more respect for Steve as a person and a friend than the other guy, for two, I actually like the people here.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

Axe? With what? I have none. I just think, as Hockey laid out extremely eloquently in his post, the spirit and initial purpose of the Beyers has been lost when pace and/or trip gets incorporated into the figure.



The better solution is to just leave it alone. If it came up a 115, and cannot be explained by mechanical failure of the timing device, let the bettors decide whether they are legitimate and/or repeatable. It is extremely hard to fathom that BL and HDG ran that much better than the other two races. But it is certainly possible- she is the best 3YO filly in the country and HDG has unlimited potential, and a 115 from a 3YO filly isn't unheard of. If the rest of the field got "towed along" by the top finishers and get figures that they probably didn't earn, that means one of three things: (1) the beaten lengths adjustments need to be examined (unlikely but possible), or (2) they all actually ran their career bests (even less likely) or (3) the handicappers will make the correct determination on their own.

It isn't just the importance to future races' betting determinations- which like them or not, the Beyers drive millions in handle, but in the breeding industry, and their historical ranks, horses are also referenced and promoted by their Beyer figure accomplishments. They are the industry standard- shouldn't they be the best?

No question the turf Beyers have even more "interpretation"... but also much less importance.



Please. I got banned at PA for a similar argument. Not going to do the same here. For one, I have a LOT more respect for Steve as a person and a friend than the other guy, for two, I actually like the people here.

You went 0 for 3.....but you knew that.

[pba1817]

What adjustment would have been made if you replace the name "Blind Luck" with the name "Rachel Alexandra"?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by pba1817

What adjustment would have been made if you replace the name "Blind Luck" with the name "Rachel Alexandra"?

When is the last time you can say a figure by Rachel Alexandra was broken out from the others? I can't remember one, but maybe you didn't just make this up. Enlighten me.

[cmorioles]

There is no way they should put a 115 in the paper. If that is done, they look like fools in the future.

Blind Luck overcame a moderate pace to win from the back. There is simply no way she ran a 115 with the pace that way, or even close. I can buy a high 90s at best. I'm not saying the 94 is dead accurate, that is not possible. But I would say the chances the 94 are correct are much higher than a 115, because the chances a 115 are correct are none.

As for PA, you know why you were banned. It had ZERO to do with Beyer figures.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

There is no way they should put a 115 in the paper. If that is done, they look like fools in the future.

Blind Luck overcame a moderate pace to win from the back. There is simply no way she ran a 115 with the pace that way, or even close. I can buy a high 90s at best. I'm not saying the 94 is dead accurate, that is not possible. But I would say the chances the 94 are correct are much higher than a 115, because the chances a 115 are correct are none.

As for PA, you know why you were banned. It had ZERO to do with Beyer figures.

No, it had nothing to do with Beyers. It had everything to do with me expressing my opinion.

(And somebody's lackey misquoting me in the process.)

As for your point about them "looking like fools"... I think this is actually the problem. There is a concern they need to justify why or why not a horse repeats or doesn't repeat a performance- when they owe nothing.