Prepare to be sick. . .

SATURDAY

CD-Kentucky Derby (G1): Super Saver 104 (T. Pletcher/C. Borel)
CD-Woodford Reserve Turf Classic S (G1): General Quarters 100 (T. McCarthy/R. Bejarano)
CD-Humana Distaff S (G1): Mona de Momma 100 (J. Sadler/J. Rosario)
CD-Churchill Downs S (G2): Atta Boy Roy 102 (V. Lund/C. Borel)
CD-Churchill Distaff Turf Mile S (G2): Phola 99 (T. Pletcher/R. Dominguez)
CD-Eight Belles S (G3): Buckleupbuttercup 96 (E. Kenneally/J. Leparoux)

FRIDAY

CD-Kentucky Oaks(G1): Blind Luck 94 (J. Hollendorfer/R. Bejarano)
CD-La Troienne S (G2): Unrivaled Belle 103 (W. Mott/K. Desormeaux)
CD-American Turf S (G2): Doubles Partner 97 (T. Pletcher/G. Gomez)
CD-Alysheba S (G3): Arson Squad 101 (R. Dutrow/P. Lopez)
CD-Churchill Downs Turf Sprint S (G3): Silver Timber 99 (C. Brown/J. Leparoux)
CD-Kentucky Juvenile S (G3): Lou Brissie 74 (N. Howard/J. Velazquez)

What has he been right about? His whole thing is that figures are worthless, right? Which of these horses deserved a higher fig? They highlight a general mediocrity in the sport right now, not a problem with the figures themselves.

I'm pretty sure the Beyer guys would have NO problem giving the Derby winner a lower figure if that's what he actually deserved.

I wanna see what Drugs has to say.

I'm no speed figure expert, but that seems awwwwwwwwfully generous.

And I'd have used about 345 more "w"s, but didn't want to take up space to get my point across.

After looking into the card again it still seems high to me. Would like to hear some of the better opinions on figuremaking about it. Looks like they split it after the CD handicap which I think they had the track about 8 points fast for the Humana and CD sprint. Curious to hear some explination.

If this isn't too obvious, does that mean Rachel pulled in 103 as well? I assumed so. I have a certain level of knowledge about various speed figures calculations, and then I call it a day. Clearly the level is somewhere along the lines of 'Wow 103>102 huh? Dunno how they got that but I sure do know math.' If two horses come down the stretch differently, but hit the wire together, does that automatically give them the same number because it doesn't really indicate nuances of that final furlong. Or does that not matter with Beyers?

Gonna have to give in and apply myself to learning more about that stuff I guess. All I know right now is dosage is soooo 1995. I end up doing it the hard way and looking at the smaller parts these guys probably throw into their system to get the number in the first place.

Honestly... these figs are focking terrible. A JOKE. There is NO WAY the Derby was the fastest race on the card. The CDH was 16 points faster on raw time, how the F can they make it two points SLOWER?!? I was at CD and YOU CANNOT make the argument that there was enough rain to change the surface, it hardly rained between the 9th and 11th.

I saw the other thread about the final time (2:04.45). In that thread this fact gave rise to the expectation that the BSF should be "low" (sub-100). Apparently that idea has bled over here.

Leading up to today's race ESPN Classic was showing various "classic" Derbies. I happened to watch the episode about 1989 (which was only the second Derby I was able to bet). You remember 1989...Sunday Silence over Easy Goer? You know...two of the horses enshrined in that place across the street from Saratoga?

The final time was 2:05.

Now, I have no idea if this 104 figure from today is reasonable. So far most of what I have read here, however, is complete, useless jerking off. This is just one instance where Drugs is sorely missed, since I could at least count on a sane (yes, sane) analysis of such a thing from him. But in lieu of that, let me make a couple of epistemological points.

Speed figures are created by a mix of art and science--and that mixture varies by how many variables change during the course of the data to be analyzed (i.e. the final times from the race card being "figured"). When Beyer declared speed figures to be "the way, the truth and the light" many years ago (early 70s), he basically had in mind analyzing times from fast dirt surfaces. Data derived from such races have the largest "science" component--you generally don't have to do much tinkering to the analysis.

But, alas, people want figures for races not run under such ideal conditions. So you have to derive figures for race cards where the dirt track undergoes substantial changes during the course of the card, most frequently due to weather--like today. And people want figures for turf races, which (i) usually offer smaller data sets and (ii) tend to be run substantially differently than dirt races. And now we have syn races, which (to varying degrees, depending on the specific artificial surface) also are not run like typical dirt-fast races.

My point is this: when you get way from fast dirt races, you are adding more variables which require comparatively more interpretative "art" and thus less "science". It can't be helped--tweaked, maybe, but essentially there has to be a wider range of discretion employed. It is as simple as that.

If you want absolute (and false) certainty, go to church, not a race track. Read the Bible, not the DRF. But it is childish to assume that people are deliberately "cooking" the figs for some nefarious reason--why would Beyer do this? He's already advanced the arguments that this a mediocre group of horses, and (many, many times) that American breeders have outsmarted themselves over the past 40 years or so, creating a breed that lacks the requisite stamina to compete at "classic" distances. I think he'd like figures that confirm his hypothesis, not over-inflated ones. Moreover, figures are not astrophysics--relatively average folks can make there own and expose obviously artificially inflated figs, at least if it happens on a regular basis. In modern terminology, figs are the product of an "open source" process that anyone can duplicate. Given that, there is only so much BS you can pull off every so often and still get away with it.


So if somebody--taking into account the obviously variable conditions affecting CD today--makes a good empirical case for fig inflation, I'll be happy to consider it. But I haven't seen anything like that here.

Personally, I pretty much toss all figs from race cards like today's at CD--the data set is just subject to too many variables. But that is not the same as questioning the good faith of those who try to make such figs. People do the best they can, and you can use it or not. I am much more likely to give more weight to my own visual impressions (also highly imprecise) and put a big asterisk next to the whole frigging mess.

Next race.

PS:

There was 2 hours and 38 minutes from the time the previous "dirt" race (the 9th) went off to the the time the Derby went off. Forget the variation in weather, with the the rain, the sun coming out, etc. How much frigging track maintenance was there in 2 and a half hours?

Again, I have no idea--which is why I generally say "toss the data". But since you all want figs, somebody has to try to do it regardless. So, at least, try to save the floating of conspiracy theories to where an actual, realistic motive makes sense.

Mark, for a lawyer, you make pretty good sense.

However, the issue that sometimes makes me suspicious of figs is when they lower figs on races that don't seem to fit their mold.

Good read, tector. Thanks!

very nice tector.

LOVE it!! Thanks.

Let me be the first to make this observation, the Churchill Downs strip this weekend was dare I say it very Synth-like in nature and the numbers seem to reflect this.

In the end, I was looking at times last year. This year the Humana Distaff and Churchill Downs Stakes were run nearly a full second faster than last year, while the Kentucky Derby was run nearly fully 2 seconds slower this year. The two 7f races this year would seem to indicate a faster track than last year. Anyone know the Beyers for the Humana Distaff and Churchll Downs Stakes from last year??

I would have thought so too, but it is not to be. If this is really a "final time" only number, it is pretty bad.

Hard to believe that someone with your background actually buys into the figures thing, as presently constituted. Unless, of course, you're the Christopher Klavius of the present tbred handicapping paradigm. (Actually, Serling probably has a lock on that role.)

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory that Beyers are doctored for some unknown and sinister purpose. It's more likely ineptitude than anything else. I like Beyers and use Beyers because to be a contrarian I want to look at the same data as everyone else and see something different.

So where are your figures or numbers or whatever you use(Dartboard numbers)? Please tell us what your magical system is that makes you so successful to prove them wrong.

The Beyer speed figures are useless in my opinion. After all, time only matters when you are in jail. Andy Beyer has made a mint selling them i guess and good for him, this is America and we love to buy useless things we don't need lol. The only thing more useless i have seen is that Moss Pace Figure crap. I normally just pretend those are ink smudges on my paper.

So what do you use?

All the things in the form that Beyer used to handicap before he came up with that ridiculous number system. You know, back when he was still picking winners. Workouts, company lines, trainer stats, pedigree, the stuff that has been around forever. The idea that a bunch of infallible humans can rate every horse in every race run every day and come up with some phantom number that indicates a horse's ability to win his next race just misses the mark with me. If they meant anything, wouldn't they lead us all to the winner and every winner be 1/5??

what the figures SHOULD have been for Derby 136 Day:
1 84
2 80
3 79
4 86
5 93
6 91
8 100
9 103
11 92
12 92
13 75

I don't know which ludicrous argument to refute first, so I'll just say that using the hackneyed cliche "time only matters when you're in jail" about a sport called horse racing is akin to saying points don't matter in basketball and runs don't matter in baseball.

The other thing I love is the consistent insinuation by the flat earth figure hating crew that anyone who dares glance at any kind of speed number totally thinks every number is perfect and that figs are the only handicapping factor that needs to be considered. As if the rest of us who aren't deathly afraid of numbers don't also use workouts (really?), company lines, trainer stats, pedigrees, etc.

You left out '1st time gelding'. Now, THAT was a HUGE angle pre-numbers. :rolleyes:

Don't waste your time, Joey.

I don't think anyone is saying that.

Why is it that all you BEYER/DRF types seem to spin all the arguments your way. If you didn't go around FLEXING all the time, using your SLOW and FAST BS as if it were some kind of IRREFRAGABLE insight, then others wouldn't feel the need to throw the **** back at you. There's a reason, JOEY, why when they discuss the Tour de France, they never speak about how FAST a particular stage was (with the exception of the time trials). This is because they understand that there are many factors that go into WHY a particular stage was run in a particular time. And, that noting only the final time is to GROSSLY under model it.

It's already been conceded that BEYERS are USELESS on SYNTHETICS. Even CJ is on record. With all the synthetic horses crossing over and kicking the DIRT horses' asses, pretty soon the worth of Beyers on dirt will come into question.

I personally have no problem with using models in racing. I just have issues with poorly constructed ones. You know, the type you need to AD HOC tweak.:rolleyes: And, all the FLEXING by the adherents of this method.

I don't hate the figures i'm just telling you i don't put much stock in them, you feel free to glance at anything you want. I don't think they lead you to winners only to favorites and you don't need a number to tell you who the favorite ought to be, i'm sure you can look at a form for two minutes and know that or you would have stopped playing a long time ago.

Trainer stats have been around forever?

Define forever please.

1997 on

I guess that means this is the year 13ATS?

Another problem with final time numbers is they don't take into account any biases a horse may be running against. Atta Boy Roy was the only horse to wire a field all day on a visably tiring and closer's friendly track, he received a 101 for his effort but it may as well been higher than the number he received, which was still 3 lower than the pedrestrian derby.

Trainer stats were not in the form in 1980 when i started going to the races as a kid, i will give you that. But at least they are a definable, provable number that accurately reports what has gone on.

And how exactly did you accurately have these stats?

That isn't even remotely a " problem " with figures. Biases, should they actually exist ( ya know, unlike yesterday at Churchill ), aren't quantifiable.

Accurate final time speed figures do exactly what they purport to do. It is only misinformed people ( many of them, seemingly, internet posters ) that don't understand them and somehow blame them for things they simply are not.

There's a problem with the figures when they are made tragically poorly- like yesterday at Churchill. I don't know how anyone at DRF could defend making the Derby 3 points higher than the CDH when the raw figure was 12 points slower. It's a cop-out to defend a Derby which, on time, was flat out slow.

I'm wondering what that has to do with what I posted.

I don't know if I am one of those misinformed people but as I said in another post I don't use beyers exclusively so maybe I don't get them, for instance I do doubt their accuracy on synthetic tracks for the most when a final number is only used, when I do see a number that I deem as not being correct or distorted, as a bettor I will take it on as most handicappers do. If the derby beyer stands I will surely take on Super Saver if the chance presents itself in The Preakness, and perhaps Ice Box who's closing finish may be construed as actually closing.

I will never understand why people that claim to neither understand speed figures nor use them also feel a need to also criticize them.

I don't understand Latin....but I have no problem with it. I guess it's just me.