Quote:
|
Originally Posted by philcski
Probably because they're not visible enough to know what type of adjustments/assumptions were made. Most of the people using them aren't sick enough to follow some crappy NYB maidens in their successive starts to determine the validity of another race's figure, like we are.
You know what my biggest beef with them lately is CJ? Too much subjectivity. It's impossible to know the figuremaker's thought process, and it seems multiple splits of the variant on a single day to make them "fit" better is NOT within the principle in which they were initially designed by Beyer. Horses rarely run the same race twice in a row, I think we all know that by now. Why try to finagle the numbers to make it sound like they did? If a horse ran 5 lengths better and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, why not leave it as such, with a designation that it's a questionable result, and let the handicapper determine the usefulness of the performance and whether or not it's repeatable.
|
I agree, but I'm glad, because it isn't all that tough to capitalize on it. Sometimes I'm wrong and the Beyer guy is right, but the public is betting the Beyer, so when I'm right I see it on the tote.