Yes, every one since, LOL.

Ok, that makes more sense then. Mixed up.

For some clarification on this, the 5F race figures are an enormous problem at Belmont, and it may be because of different runups or simply because they run so few that it is hard to have an accurate par time. Todd Pletcher actually brought this up to me at Belmont last fall, as there were a number of difficult numbers over the past two years, one being discussed here along with Air Lord and Sam I Am the previous summer. Because of this, the initial raw numbers are often used, and then subsequently checked as these first time starter filled fields run more races to offer a better feel for their respective abilities. When Beyer Associates changes these figures in the future it is because they are trying to make their numbers as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, it is near impossible to judge some of the races accurately when first run, but of course they do the best job they can to do this.

Frankly, any player making definitive judgements about horses based on just the speed figure for one race, especially early starting 2YOs, is treading into very dangerous waters. Just like Beyer Associates, who always have these early races under review, a player should seriously evaluate these races for themselves. One way to do this is to keep a close watch at any horse from such races who make subsequent starts. Formulator-4 makes this easy and can often uncover numbers that seem " inaccurate ". Furthermore, sometimes it is apparent that these numbers are questionable, as was the case with the Sam I Am race where two NY Breds hit the wire together and yet the number still came up stakes quality high. Any sane handicapper would look at that number questioningly, especially considering the 5F difficulties, as the likelyhood of even one NY Bred 2YO, much less two, running that " fast " so early in its career seemed infinitessimal.

So the 5 furlong races at Monmouth are better? Cotton Blossom being an example from last year...If the run-up is a problem, couldn't it be fixed? I mean the run-up doesn't change year to year.

The runups do change, all the time. The tracks don't care about guys making speed figures, though I think they should. It could only help handle.

BTWind, I'm interested in your take on the Summer Doldrums re-figuring. I like Beyer and I use his figs, but this one is still bugging me. Summer Doldrum's race before the Gotham (Whirlaway?) wasn't 1st time starters, so there was at least some kind of historic baseline to work from. It's been pointed out that there was evidence that the variant changed on that day. But aren't you at least a little concerned about Beyer using next-race performance as a way to (re-)measure previous performance?

What I'd like to hear is that Beyer had re-figured Summer Doldrum's fig BEFORE the Gotham, but somehow the news didn't get out in time! I simply don't like the idea of back-fitting the data.

Maybe Beyer should consider adding an asterisk to figs they know from the get-go are particularly difficult.

--Dunbar

I like that idea. Put up the number but if they really struggled with it at least the public would have that information and could take it into consideration.

This is an interesting idea and I will suggest it.

I could argue both sides on the Summer Doldrums change and really have zero interest in getting into it.

BTW, please take a look at the last race of sweet ferver and Any Limit. THEY RAN EQUAL TIMES! With very similar fractions and track variance. Sweet Ferver was given a 90 BSF and Any Limit was given a 105. How can this be explained? Sweet Ferver proved the beyers wrong yesterday IMO. Too bad I got wrapped up in Stormy Kiss. LOL. Thanks for your insight.

I don't know waht the BSF came back from yesterday, but they were 15 points apart after running the same 7f on the same track in the same time. SW was 8-1 and ANY Limit was 9-5. The public bets the figs.

I know that only a few people pay any attention to Mountaineer but it seems like the beyers there are always inflated. I have seen a lot of mediocre, mid 60 Beyer horses ship there and suddenly run 80's or 90's. When they ship out of there they usually go back to the 60's. I knoew that this is not scientific and I have not bothered to do any real research but I always cast a bit of doubt on the numbers from there.

DaHoss, You have to look @the pp's to really see what I am saying. I know I stated an opinion but I was really asking Andy for his.

I atrribute that to a probably loose medication policy at Mountaineer....but I agree with you that numbers there don't seem to be reproduced at other tracks. Delaware is the same thing.....as is Laurel when they ship to NY.

This predates the KY medication policy change. Back then you could do much more in KY than MNR but the same thing was happening. I thought that maybe since the pre-slot era level of competition was so low there that the baselines that they used were a little off now that semi-decent horses were running there.

Well, Sweet Fervor ran on January 28th and Any Limit ran on February 17th so I can't compare the actual final times at all. As far as what happened yesterday, I guess Sweet Fervor improved off her first race, and probably appreciated the extra half a furlong, and Any Limit probably regressed a tad and didn't appreciate the added ground.

Specifically on the Any Limit fig, it always seemed high to me, and specifically I had a problem with the third finisher running a career high especially with the reasonable amount of trouble she encountered on the turn. There are often problems with figs where the fields are significantly gapped out, as they were in the Hurricane Bertie, with the top two finishers finishing over eight lengths ahead of the third placed horse. I don't make figs, and don't believe it's too fair to criticize those that do, but I talked about this number with Beyer before the race, and also about the problems making numbers in fields that gap. It feels like intellectually the numbers in these races need to be compressed but the problem with that is it does not offer a true indication of every horse's final time. Thus, I don't have an answer.

To be honest, and I don't mean this to point a finger at you, but I think it is every horseplayer's responsibility to make their own determination about any number they use. If you use them blindly, without taking other factors into account, in my opinion you are asking for trouble. I use them as a very vague guide, and always look at outlying high or low figures carefully, like Any Limit's surprising 105, and attempt to make my own determination about whether or not they seem aberrational and why. Considering Any Limit dueled hard for the lead that day, and had never run that kind of number, I did not particularly believe in its predictive powers. I hardly think that was a surprising conclusion.

The bottom line? Do ALL the required work.

I suppose that's possible, and I will certainly try and get you an answer, but you know me, I always think it's medication related.

I'll check tomorrow.

Thanks for replying to my posts, I wanted others opinion. I just see red flags when the final times are the same and the BSF are 15 apart. I am not in any way critizing the guys who make the figs. they do a great job, 99%of the time. I will continue to value the beyers. As for Thorograph I am from the school of Serling on Ground loss and weight.