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


August 20, 2014, 07:22:00 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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Beyers for 2013 Turf Races Adjusted  (Read 500 times)
tapetea
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 373




Ignore
« on: September 13, 2013, 03:57:54 PM »

This story must not be on the internet or HV would have been all over it. It's on page 4 of the DRF. They increased all turf figures by one point.
Report to moderator   Logged
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4267




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2013, 08:41:04 AM »

This story must not be on the internet or HV would have been all over it. It's on page 4 of the DRF. They increased all turf figures by one point.

I saw it. I figured people can figure things out for themselves:

1. Adding one point to all turf figures means horses in the 100 BSF range were adjusted by 1%, and those in the 50 BSF range are now up 2%.

Trivial? Not in a game of inches and fifths of a second.

2. Beyer numbers will ALWAYS need adjustments because they still use the archaic method tying their numbers to pars...so when the pars change (and they always will), the basis for BSF calculations will change, and BSFs will change.

Hey, at least the BSF's are FREE!  head shake
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 11954

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2013, 02:07:54 PM »

I saw it. I figured people can figure things out for themselves:

1. Adding one point to all turf figures means horses in the 100 BSF range were adjusted by 1%, and those in the 50 BSF range are now up 2%.

Trivial? Not in a game of inches and fifths of a second.

It's trivial from the standpoint that past numbers only generally predict today's performance. Big difference, big importance. Little difference, little importance. When it comes to an issue of 1 point or 2, things like rider change, trip, medical issues resolved (or nagging) etc are much more important.

Quote
2. Beyer numbers will ALWAYS need adjustments because they still use the archaic method tying their numbers to pars

They project their numbers off the other horses the same as the other services do. But they do take into account the actual, tangible, and measurable quantity of time. So that, when they realize their numbers need adjusting, they do it, and good for them. Unlike, for instance, other services who, when faced with numbers that just keep getting faster and faster because in the past they introduced projection errors that just keeps feeding back on itself as they project more numbers, make up a hokey story that horses are just getting faster, by golly - my numbers prove it!

Quote
Hey, at least the BSF's are FREE!

They are no more free than the numbers you get when you buy the Thorograph product. You can't get either one without laying out money.

Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4267




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2013, 08:10:13 PM »

It's trivial from the standpoint that past numbers only generally predict today's performance. Big difference, big importance. Little difference, little importance. When it comes to an issue of 1 point or 2, things like rider change, trip, medical issues resolved (or nagging) etc are much more important.

1. If it's trivial, why change the numbers?

2. How am I to have faith in a scale that changes so frequently? Or...what ELSE is wrong with it that is not being disclosed?

They project their numbers off the other horses the same as the other services do. But they do take into account the actual, tangible, and measurable quantity of time. So that, when they realize their numbers need adjusting, they do it, and good for them.

Numbers that are adjusted as often as BSFs are difficult to trust, IMO. And if horseplayers have their own statistical DB or custom software developed that incorporates individual performances and BSFs, Beyer & Co. just said "Fvck You" to these guys, who now have ANOTHER ugly data cleanup issue to attend to.

Unlike, for instance, other services who, when faced with numbers that just keep getting faster and faster because in the past they introduced projection errors that just keeps feeding back on itself as they project more numbers, make up a hokey story that horses are just getting faster, by golly - my numbers prove it!

You are the one projecting the hokum on this topic. Racehorses ARE getting faster over time, as measured by Timeform, Thoro Graph, and other well-respected industry sources. You think you know more about this than the guys at Timeform?

Anyone with any knowledge of the U.S. breeding industry knows that we have been breeding primarily for speed over the last 40 years, and guess what? It happened! Why would we expect otherwise?

(What did Wise Dan run today? 131.75?? Over a REAL turf course, not that "sand and weeds" bullshit they have out in California.)

Besides, standardbreds are getting faster, humans are getting faster and bigger and stronger, so why wouldn't it make sense that t-breds are getting faster?

Maybe you are a Creationist, Terry, and don't believe in evolution of the species. (That would explain ALOT, actually.)

They are no more free than the numbers you get when you buy the Thorograph product. You can't get either one without laying out money.

BSFs are free in the de facto sense, in that they are around just about anywhere and everywhere you can gamble on t-breds: I can walk into any track or OTB without a nickel in my pocket, borrow a DRF from most anyone, and have all the BSFs I want, for free. Ask anyone with a DRF if you can take a peek, and most will just hand it over. It's nothing special. Hell, at Hawthorne, you can choose to take a DRF for FREE with your admission price.

Good luck getting the TG or Ragozin numbers like that. Hardly any tracks and OTBs sell them, and you wouldn't dare bug a guy for his Sheets unless he was a close friend...and most people wouldn't know what the hell to do with them, anyway, even if they could get them for free as easily as you can the BSFs.

And anyway, you are hung up on the money, the cost. I have always been trying to "peel the layers" a little and get to value here: if everybody has the same numbers (the BSFs), really, of what value are they, in a game where information is king?
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 11954

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2013, 10:29:50 PM »

1. If it's trivial, why change the numbers?

Because they needed correcting, for accuracy's sake.  

Quote
2. How am I to have faith in a scale that changes so frequently? Or...what ELSE is wrong with it that is not being disclosed?

Why do you care at all about numbers you claim you don't use because they're wildly inaccurate?

Quote
Numbers that are adjusted as often as BSFs are difficult to trust, IMO.

Numbers that get adjusted when their maker says, "These need adjusting" are far more trustworthy that numbers whose maker "smooths" his today's numbers so that they don't embarrass past numbers, in doing so perpetuates past errors, and is too pigheaded to ever go back and correct the errors because that might make him look human.

Quote
And if horseplayers have their own statistical DB or custom software developed that incorporates individual performances and BSFs, Beyer & Co. just said "Fvck You" to these guys, who now have ANOTHER ugly data cleanup issue to attend to.

If they're going to the trouble of keeping Beyer numbers in their database, would they rather have accurate numbers, or inaccurate ones because they're storing some numbers from an outfit that will never own up to mistakes?
 
Quote
You are the one projecting the hokum on this topic. Racehorses ARE getting faster over time, as measured by Timeform, Thoro Graph, and other well-respected industry sources. You think you know more about this than the guys at Timeform?

It's not hokum. Horses set new subjective figure marks ...  as claimed by proprietary fig makers. What they're not setting on nearly as regular a basis are actual, objective, measurable time marks.

The guys who say they're "getting faster" claim it's because tracks are getting slower. But then when some horse does blast out and set new time marks like at Gulfstream when they're track was new, a great hue and cry goes up that it's because this new track is fast.

I don't know about Timeform but there's a lot of suspicion about the claim from TG. Those self-perpetuating errors and the resulting creeping speed are one of the main sticking points of the "smoothing" wars with the Ragozin adherents. When you constantly make your numbers to flatter past ones, like Jerry does, it's perpetuating the past errors.

Quote
Anyone with any knowledge of the U.S. breeding industry knows that we have been breeding primarily for speed over the last 40 years, and guess what? It happened! Why would we expect otherwise?

"Speed" as in early speed. That's not the same as "speed" at the end of the race, or we would have a lot more new track and world records. But we don't.  

The ONLY place this phenomenon really shows up (in recent history) is in the secret numbers generated by one (or two?) figure makers. And those numbers are getting faster much more quickly than actual time-measured races? Hard to believe.

Quote
(What did Wise Dan run today? 131.75?? Over a REAL turf course, not that "sand and weeds" bullshit they have out in California.)

Thus coming not really close to the existing world record for a mile, which I believe was set on a REAL turf course in the East?

Quote
Besides, standardbreds are getting faster, humans are getting faster and bigger and stronger, so why wouldn't it make sense that t-breds are getting faster?

They do occasionally get somewhat faster, as measured by objective time. Standardbreds and humans also get faster as measured objectively, by times. The issue here is something subjective in tbred racing, proprietary "performance figures" that purport to be a measure of speed. Tbred time records do creep up from time to time, but we have not, for instance, seen the jaw-dropping standardbred-like decreases in actual, measurable race times among all competitors. Not nearly as fast as numbers from outfits like T-graph would indicate.

As a for instance, less than 20 years ago good numbers for a Derby winner were 4 and like that, and now all of a sudden they're -2 ... while Secretariat's record still stands, and the final time of the race is always still right around 2:00. So, in order for us to swallow the story that these new breed of horses really and truly is 7 #'s x 2 len/nbr@1-1/4 = 14 lengths better than their predecessors as measured by t-graph, we're also expected to swallow the story that in that exact same time frame Churchill (or whatever track) has also slowed down their track by exactly 14 lengths to keep the race time right around 2:00 ... sorry but I call bullshit on that story.

IMHO the true explanation is that T-graph numbers have to always stay consistent with their past [never ever wrong] selves, and if some number was too high before, the new number that gets based on it is also too high.

Quote
aybe you are a Creationist, Terry, and don't believe in evolution of the species. (That would explain ALOT, actually.)

And maybe you can't get through a discussion without taking some cheap personal dig, can you. Though you were doing so well there for a couple weeks.

Unlike standardbreds, thoroughbreds are athletes whose breeding has been tweaked for hundreds of years. Much of their "evolutionary" potential was already reached by the time modern sheets type figs were invented back in the 60's or 70's. Other figure makers who ground their figs more in reality, like actual time, do not show the huge increase in speed like T-graph. Ragozin does not show "number creep" like t-graph does.

Interesting study on that: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2655236/

Starting with:

"In 2006 Barbaro won the first race of the American Triple Crown, The Kentucky Derby, in 2.01.36 min. 110 years earlier the same race was won by Ben Brush in 2.07.00 min. The current record for The Kentucky Derby, still standing, was set by Secretariat in 1973 in a time of 1.59.00. Therefore the winning time for the Kentucky Derby has reduced by only 6-8 secs overall, representing a marginal improvement of 4% since the turn of the 20th Century. "

Now, "advances" in training methods can surely show up in final times, both for humans and horses. (And if you ask the harness guys on the other side, they will almost entirely credit "training methods" for the recent harness sub-1:50 numbers, and laugh loudly at your "evolution".) But again, other fig makers don't show the same phony "creep" as t-graph that then has to be explained away with yet another very suspect theory about the speed of race surfaces.

Quote
BSFs are free in the de facto sense, in that they are around just about anywhere and everywhere you can gamble on t-breds: I can walk into any track or OTB without a nickel in my pocket, borrow a DRF from most anyone, and have all the BSFs I want, for free. Ask anyone with a DRF if you can take a peek, and most will just hand it over. It's nothing special. Hell, at Hawthorne, you can choose to take a DRF for FREE with your admission price.

So, at Hawthorne you only have to pay $3.00 for your BSF's. Still not free.

And as for looking on at others', big deal, someone had to pay. They weren't free. And if I really truly care about T-graph numbers, I can always find someone whose sheets I can look at, too. For free.

Quote
Good luck getting the TG or Ragozin numbers like that. Hardly any tracks and OTBs sell them, and you wouldn't dare bug a guy for his Sheets unless he was a close friend

I know enough guys that use the things I can always find someone if I'm so inclined, which I'm usually not, because they really don't tell me anything I can't figure out from other sources (besides the infalted TG numbers, that is.) And I sure as hell don't care what they are for some track where TG doesn't have a real trackman meaning they'll have sheets for sale.

Quote
And anyway, you are hung up on the money, the cost.

Excuse me, but you're the one who just could not adding the snide little OT diversion comment about the BSF's being free to the end of a discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with cost the cost of the numbers. It is you who is hung up on cost, and who invariably brings that up.

Quote
I have always been trying to "peel the layers" a little and get to value here: if everybody has the same numbers (the BSFs), really, of what value are they, in a game where information is king?

A. Not "everyone" has the BSFs or the DRF would be doing far better than it is. Lots of guys use lots of different sources. BRIS, Equibase program, whatever. The number of actual DRFs one sees at any given track is usually pretty small compared to total patrons.
B. This is just another OT diversion anyhow, as the subject was originally the adjustment of the turf numbers by 1. Not "value".
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 11954

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2013, 11:39:38 PM »

Racehorses ARE getting faster over time, as measured by Timeform, Thoro Graph, and other well-respected industry sources. You think you know more about this than the guys at Timeform?

Could you provide some sort of supporting material for your claim that Timeform says horses are getting faster over time?

I can't find any such thing. What I do find are stories like "no horse had come close to the [handicap] 144's of some 1940's horses until Frankel ran his huge Queen Anne." So that's more in the line of "Frankel was a freak", not "our measurements say horses are just constantly getting faster and faster a la TG".

So you won't mind backing up your claim about Timeform, will you?
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4267




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2013, 08:59:55 AM »

Could you provide some sort of supporting material for your claim that Timeform says horses are getting faster over time?

I erred in making it sound like the Timeform folks themselves made that assessment; apologies...these things tend to condense in my memory over time.

It was an analysis of Timeform numbers reported in “The Genetics of Thoroughbred Horses”, an article by Patrick Cunningham that appeared in Scientific American, May 1991.

Cunningham was professor of animal genetics at Trinity College in Dublin, head of animal breeding and genetics and deputy director of the Irish National Agricultural Research Institute, and director of the Animal Protection and Health Division of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 11954

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2013, 09:16:23 AM »

I erred in making it sound like the Timeform folks themselves made that assessment; apologies...these things tend to condense in my memory over time.

It was an analysis of Timeform numbers reported in “The Genetics of Thoroughbred Horses”, an article by Patrick Cunningham that appeared in Scientific American, May 1991.

Cunningham was professor of animal genetics at Trinity College in Dublin, head of animal breeding and genetics and deputy director of the Irish National Agricultural Research Institute, and director of the Animal Protection and Health Division of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN.

Thanks I'll try to find that.

I know Jerry has something about Timeform in his treatise about horses getting faster, but it's just pretty much his word about a subset of numbers he cherry picked, and no real backup.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4267




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2013, 09:40:52 AM »

Because they needed correcting, for accuracy's sake.

Well, how did they get "wrong", then? Was there an error with the Atomic Clock? Or (hint) is it a methodology issue?  

Why do you care at all about numbers you claim you don't use because they're wildly inaccurate?

This whole incident only further reinforces WHY I don't use them. What, if TG came out and proclaimed that there previous numbers were in error, you would let it pass without comment? Nonsense.

Numbers that get adjusted when their maker says, "These need adjusting" are far more trustworthy that numbers whose maker "smooths" his today's numbers so that they don't embarrass past numbers, in doing so perpetuates past errors, and is too pigheaded to ever go back and correct the errors because that might make him look human.

Strawman argument.

We know Beyer has adjusted his scale several times in recent years (and it's starting to happen more often, it seems), while you have NEVER offered any shred of proof of TG "smoothing" any numbers, ever -- it's just something you have been saying for years, and it's never been challenged.

It's not hokum. Horses set new subjective figure marks ...  as claimed by proprietary fig makers. What they're not setting on nearly as regular a basis are actual, objective, measurable time marks.

This is YOU, making stuff up again to fit your argument. The fastest figure TG ever gave out was to Ghostzapper for his BC Classic win...in 2004. If what you say is true, TG would have had numerous horses record faster figs by now.

You simply don't know what you are talking about when it comes to TG and their figs, so maybe you should give it a rest.

[Re: Wise Dan:] Thus coming not really close to the existing world record for a mile, which I believe was set on a REAL turf course in the East?

Mandurah set the world record over a rock hard "durf" (really as much dirt as turf) course at Monmouth, about 1/2 second faster than Wise Dan's race yesterday. (Wise Dan broke the track record for a mile on turf, btw, so maybe horses are only faster in Canada.  Roll Eyes )

Anyone that knows what kind of weather Toronto has been through in the last 2 months will tell you that there is no parched earth around anywhere in the province of Ontario.

So, at Hawthorne you only have to pay $3.00 for your BSF's. Still not free.

Nope. You pay for ADMISSION. The DRF, or the simulcast program, or The Green Sheet, or NOTHING -- your choice -- is FREE.

If you choose the last option -- NOTHING -- you get no refund of any sort.

Anybody giving away Sheets or Rags for free with admission?

And as for looking on at others', big deal, someone had to pay. They weren't free. And if I really truly care about T-graph numbers, I can always find someone whose sheets I can look at, too. For free.

You are one of the exceptions, and you know it. Most horseplayers don't really know who is using what...but the DRF sticks out like a sore thumb, so finding one for a free peek is no big deal.

I know enough guys that use the things I can always find someone if I'm so inclined, which I'm usually not, because they really don't tell me anything

Well...that's been the REAL issue all along, right? Sounds to me like you could never make it up to the next level of handicapping -- you are so stuck on the clock, and nothing else matters as much -- so because YOU couldn't figure out TG or Ragozin, the products either must not be any good, or it's not worth the price.

And it doesn't really matter if that is true or not -- it's how your shots at TG and Ragozin read here in the Forum; it makes you look like you couldn't hack it and had to come up with something to cover for it. I can think of plenty of things in life that "aren't worth the money", but I don't rip on them all the time. I just don't purchase such things.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 11954

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2013, 10:25:28 AM »

Well, how did they get "wrong", then? Was there an error with the Atomic Clock? Or (hint) is it a methodology issue?  

Hint: I don't know, and neither do you, apparently.

The explanation was here: http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-speed-figures-2013-turf-races-adjusted-slightly

Quote
This whole incident only further reinforces WHY I don't use them. What, if TG came out and proclaimed that there previous numbers were in error, you would let it pass without comment? Nonsense.

I wouldn't really care.

And the thing of it is, past numbers truly do not matter, whether Beyer or TG or Ragozin, as long as the numbers are more or less consistent with themselves over the 3-4-5 year period of time when the current generation of horses in training will be racing against each other. I am never, ever, going to have to compare Wise Dan to Lure, for instance, to see which one might win today.
  
Quote
We know Beyer has adjusted his scale several times in recent years (and it's starting to happen more often, it seems), while you have NEVER offered any shred of proof of TG "smoothing" any numbers, ever -- it's just something you have been saying for years, and it's never been challenged.

It's not something I made up; it's a great long running debate between TG adherents and Ragozin adherents. The Ragozin people recognize it. Their forum has been full of it over the years. It's also something I've discussed with someone who knows the TG numbers inside and out, far more than you. Jerry doesn't want his past numbers to look bad. It's why he projects far more split variants than any other service, to make today's numbers agree more closely with past ones.

Quote
This is YOU, making stuff up again to fit your argument. The fastest figure TG ever gave out was to Ghostzapper for his BC Classic win...in 2004. If what you say is true, TG would have had numerous horses record faster figs by now.

So you're saying Jerry is wrong, and horses are NOT getting faster?

Nonsense, you know as well as I do that the issue is the overall creep of the numbers of many horses (such as the overall class of "Derby" horses), not the outstanding number of one freak run.

Quote
You simply don't know what you are talking about when it comes to TG and their figs, so maybe you should give it a rest.

You don't know what you're talking about with any speed numbers, as proved by your past failures on the issue of what constitutes "projection" and who uses it and when, but you just keep yammering away. Maybe YOU should just give it a rest, and posters like me and Pete wouldn't have to come on here and correct your misinformation.

Quote
Mandurah set the world record over a rock hard "durf" (really as much dirt as turf) course at Monmouth, about 1/2 second faster than Wise Dan's race yesterday. (Wise Dan broke the track record for a mile on turf, btw, so maybe horses are only faster in Canada.  Roll Eyes )

There's always some excuse why some other record doesn't really count, isn't there?

So here's an alternate phony excuse that's just as valid as the nonsense you come up with: Wise Dan's new track record wasn't really all that impressive because not that many good horses have run at Woodbine.

Quote
Nope. You pay for ADMISSION. The DRF, or the simulcast program, or The Green Sheet, or NOTHING -- your choice -- is FREE.

If you choose the last option -- NOTHING -- you get no refund of any sort.

Would you have that DRF if you paid $0? Do you get a DRF when you get in free on some pass? No, you do not. The DRF cost you something to get it.

Quote
Anybody giving away Sheets or Rags for free with admission?

Not that I know of, but here you are again making a big deal out of money, like it's just SO important that you justify (to yourself, I guess) that fat extra money you spend for a possibly marginally better number. All while you constantly find need to run down numbers you say you don't even use to make your buying decision seem justified to everyone else (and in the process, regaularly take a dig at all those lower lifeforms who do use the BSF's, because you're so much smarter than them). This price issue is YOUR problem, man ... no one else's. You are ALWAYS the one who brings it into any conversation  at all about speed numbers ... such as this one.

Quote
Well...that's been the REAL issue all along, right? Sounds to me like you could never make it up to the next level of handicapping -- you are so stuck on the clock, and nothing else matters as much -- so because YOU couldn't figure out TG or Ragozin, the products either must not be any good, or it's not worth the price.

No. they really do NOT tell me anything I can't get from elsewhere, except their particular speed number. And those numbers are only marginally more accurate than Beyer (or BRIS) numbers, sometimes. The alleged pattern reading is just chicken bone casting, as proved by the TG and Ragozin adherents (and gurus) themselves every time they speak up in public, wrong more often than they're right, and is nothing one could not do with any other set of numbers. They just are not worth the extra money. I will say they are somewhat easier to use, as the difference between a 1 and a 2 is simpler to comprehend than the difference between say, a 100 and a 105, and that's probably why it appeals to guys like you.

Quote
And it doesn't really matter if that is true or not -- it's how your shots at TG and Ragozin read here in the Forum; it makes you look like you couldn't hack it and had to come up with something to cover for it.

That's the story you consistently repeat, at any rate.

Quote
I can think of plenty of things in life that "aren't worth the money", but I don't rip on them all the time. I just don't purchase such things.

Yes, you do rip them all the time, just like you introduced the ripping into this thread, and others. It is constantly you who starts these discussions by ripping the BSF's, just like you did here.  Your constant repetition of the same things about the BSF's makes you look like you're someone who is very insecure about all that extra money he has to put out for a possibly marginally better number, and has to publicly bash the the less costly competition at every opportunity on a regular basis to justify it to himself and the world at large. Most other TG users I know don't do that. Lots of them even have a great deal of respect for the BSF's, though they think TG is better. It's only you, and a very small cadre of fellow travelers who constantly carry on in public like this, most of whom, like you, have some deeply flawed understanding of speed numbers.

Get over your insecurity, man. You don't have to justify your purchases to us every time someone mentions the name Beyer. No one really gives a flying fig what you buy or how much money you spend.  
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 10:27:47 AM by honest & balanced terry » Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
Trainer Rusty
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1134




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2013, 09:42:52 PM »

I can trust these figures as much as I can trust my girlfriend with a latin masseuse.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 11954

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2013, 10:47:05 PM »

I can trust these figures as much as I can trust my girlfriend with a latin masseuse.

Too much information about your relationship.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
HarnessFanDE
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3311




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2013, 06:49:59 AM »

I do use the Beyer numbers in a small way....Sometimes you can find a hidden gem deep in the PPs of a horse returning to the same class/same distance/same surface as today......One thing I have always noticed is the turf numbers seem abnormally high.....which is OK as long as they are relative to one another.....I have seen horses who finish way back 3 straight races on the dirt and get three 0's and then go to the turf and get beaten 15 and get a 37.....I never understood that.....Especially since getting beat 15 on the turf is equivalent to getting beat 40 on the dirt since turf races (for whatever reason) seem to have way more of a herd mentality than dirt races
Report to moderator   Logged

SHOWTIME!!!
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.117 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
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

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