Chicago Barn to Wire
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


November 28, 2014, 09:44:02 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Beyer figs methodology change for synthetics  (Read 3599 times)
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2009, 04:24:33 PM »

The only thing that makes one better than another as it stands now is the belief or prejudice of the user.

In my case, the belief that TG's data is superior to Beyer's is based on the vastly improved ROI I achieve with TG. The cost of TG is trivial compared to the upside.

Now, if I were betting deuces and fives, would TG be worth it? Hard to justify the cost, for sure.
Report to moderator   Logged
bjchapin1
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 555




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2009, 07:17:54 PM »

Interesting.

Getting back to one of my original points, Beyer generalizes that on AW "typically, the early pace is slower". I haven't done enough research on times to see if this is true, but visually, AP seems to have plenty of speed horses to try to rocket to the front on the rail. (especially if it has been raining recently). I agree with Terry that CA tracks seem to still have speedballs on the front end and if they are the best they will win. It just seems like a broad generalization to make of all synthetic tracks. And secondly, is there really a big enough statistical sample of synthetics yet?
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2009, 08:15:05 PM »

It just seems like a broad generalization to make of all synthetic tracks. And secondly, is there really a big enough statistical sample of synthetics yet?

I think Terry's all-purpose answer for any questions about the Beyers -- "Let the handicapper decide for himself" -- applies here.

Is "slow early pace" too broad of a generalization for Beyer to make for all synthetic tracks? Let the handicapper decide for himself.

Is there really a big enough statistical sample of synthetic races for Beyer to be farting around with his scales and methodologies (again)?

Let the handicapper decide for himself.

It's a genius-level answer: it quiets the question without offending the questioner. And it's a subtle way of refuting any and all criticism one might have of the Beyer's, almost an implication that other handicappers are dealing with any possible shortcomings the Beyer methodology might have quite nicely, thank you, why can't you sir, please move along, nothing to see here.

Clever. Beyer should just refer all of his critics to Terry, and pay him by the pound.
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2009, 08:59:34 PM »

Listen, I wrote an overlong POS here that I'd just sooner delete. It's gone.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 09:39:08 PM by Edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2009, 09:38:38 PM »

I think Terry's all-purpose answer for any questions about the Beyers -- "Let the handicapper decide for himself" -- applies here.

Is "slow early pace" too broad of a generalization for Beyer to make for all synthetic tracks? Let the handicapper decide for himself.

Is there really a big enough statistical sample of synthetic races for Beyer to be farting around with his scales and methodologies (again)?

Let the handicapper decide for himself.

It's a genius-level answer: it quiets the question without offending the questioner. And it's a subtle way of refuting any and all criticism one might have of the Beyer's, almost an implication that other handicappers are dealing with any possible shortcomings the Beyer methodology might have quite nicely, thank you, why can't you sir, please move along, nothing to see here.

Clever. Beyer should just refer all of his critics to Terry, and pay him by the pound.

Once again, to clarify, that stance was adopted in response to your claim that the sheets did not, and did not need to, make any cross-surface adjustments because it was up to the handicapper to know those things and decide for himself. Yes, you are right, it's a genius-level answer for quieting the question, in this case why the sheets guys are not, a) admitting the problem, and b) doing anything about it. Just say everyone knows it, it's not a problem, but rather something the handicapper needs to deal with himself, and go merrily on your way. (And of course, we know sheets guys can do it, because they're a superior breed - after all, they use sheets, do they not?)

And really, what's the objection to Beyer "farting around" with his numbers from people who turn up their nose at them? Move along, nothing to see here.

Now, in an attempt to try and address bjchapin's actual question, I put a very similar question to another forum this afternoon, and the gentleman who responded (a sheets expert) said his data showed a substantial decrease in early pace - route distances.

"Let's do Hollywood Cushion because I have the numbers in front of me.
 I'd say that very few of the sprints are run at what I'd call a
 fraudulent pace. But routes are a different story. I'd say that maybe 25%
 of the routes are run at an abnormally slow pace, and that this is
 considerably higher than the old Hol dirt track. And in sprints, too, if
 you calculate the energy distribution of the winners, you'll see that
 there's been a shift toward winners going slower early and faster late.
 All in all, the surface has become more like turf, but what keeps the
 Cushion sprints from filling up with fraudulent paces is that turf
 sprints are themselves very much like sprints on real dirt. And let me
 add that Hol Cushion is the most dirt-like of the CA synthetics."

Not entirely clear, but you get the picture. Some routes are abnormally slow paced, and energy distributions different in sprints ,and that's just Hollywood. (To be clear, this same gentleman didn't entirely agree with Andy's approach, and felt there should be individual race adjustments for pace and energy distribution - as of course, there probably should have been in dirt numbers all these years.)

Now, as to whether or not it should be applied to all synthetic tracks ... well, hard to say. All dirt tracks do not play the same, and turf tracks vary wildly, but for years players have been operating on blind faith that nationally made numbers (of all stripe) will translate from one track to the next. If there's a single approach for dirt and a single approach for turf, I guess we can accept a single approach for poly. In this particular case, if you use Beyer's numbers and intend to keep using them, you pretty much have to accept that his organization has done enough research with a large enough statistical sample to justify him taking the approach he is taking. If you don't use Beyer numbers, it's a splendid opportunity to dump on him - again.
Report to moderator   Logged
glahn
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2523




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: June 06, 2009, 06:22:01 AM »

I'm sure we can count on his changes and revisions to be as accurate as his original numbers  Grin

Hahaha!

Did you listen to him on Steve Byk's radio show? Man, sometimes I just can't believe this guy.
Report to moderator   Logged
glahn
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2523




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: June 06, 2009, 06:24:27 AM »

If you're looking for keen and instructional insight, why not just pick up one of Beyer's books  Grin

Because you won't find anything keen in there! Wink

If only Beyer would admit the very subjective nature of his methodology, and the fact that "class" IS part of his figure-making.
Report to moderator   Logged
glahn
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2523




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2009, 06:29:04 AM »

In one of Andy's earliest books, he intones that one must examine the context in which a Beyer number is earned: a horse that earns a big fig from a loose-on-the-lead effort will be unlikely to duplicate that number next out if he gets pace pressure.
 
Andy must have forgotten that piece of advice, because what he is doing now is attempting to resolve pace aberrations (typically, the slow early pace found in many phony surface races) by "normalizing" the final number. Seems to me even ol' Andy has lost faith in his own figure-making methodology -- his earlier advice to consider the context in which the numbers are earned should have sufficed here, with no tweaking of the final product.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! The problem is, Andy doesn't admit that anything he does is "wrong," lacks "objectivity," or is perhaps inconsistent. Because his numbers are The Way.

Quote
In an abstract sense, Beyer thinks he can "solve" the same sort of puzzle he faces with his poly figures by making arbitrary tweaks to final times that have no real mathematical basis. Applying Beyer's new methodology to the above acceleration puzzle, you just ignore the fact that 1st half of the test went so slow that it consumed all of the alloted time, and adjust the final time so that you can back into a plausible 2nd half number.

Excellent analysis.

Quote
I mean, that's what you are doing with any sort of projection method -- where you say that the winner "should" have run at least a 92, or "would have" run a 92, if the doggone early pace wasn't so slow, even though he really only ran an 86. So you give him a 92 -- never mind if it jibes with the actual final time or adequately reflects the race shape -- then you back into the rest of the numbers for the horses that finished behind the winner.

Sure. And you think I'm being snobby when I say "free" is the right price for Beyer numbers. Jesus.

But his "projection" is totally "objective." Laugh.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2009, 11:19:51 AM »

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! The problem is, Andy doesn't admit that anything he does is "wrong," lacks "objectivity," or is perhaps inconsistent. Because his numbers are The Way.

Actually, Andy did account for the possibility of slower paces in the article: "While there were reasons to explain the lower figures in stakes races across the country (inferior horses, slow early pace, etc.), there was no good reason why maidens should improve their figures."

Quote
But his "projection" is totally "objective." Laugh.

About as objective as the projection of all the speed fig makers, I would guess. Unless of course they're automated numbers, then it really is objective.

The proof will be in the pudding for these new numbers. If people are able to compare Beyer dirt numbers with poly numbers on a consistent basis and come up with the right decision (without having to do as the sheets guys do and make their own guesses and corrections for surfaces), then it was the correct approach, and all the derision in the world is nothing but hot air. If some great problem is uncovered, the approach will be a laughingstock.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.059 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Breeders' Cup
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Breeders' Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy