Doesn't add up with a Randy Moss interview from a couple weeks ago with Steve Byk. He basicly said they now start with the horses previous #'s. very similar to TGraph, without adjusting for weight or ground loss.
What do you make of the evidence that the official time of the Preakness appears to be faster than the real time.
Does it/will it effect Beyers going forward?
I'm not a Beyer guy,can we get an edge in the Belmont?
If they do the the way Moss says the time possibly being off has little effect. The other way would and the would have the number a little high. To me the Belmont is more about the distance and small differences in speed figs don't mean much, as none we earned under very similar conditions.
Embedded in Jerardi's story is a link to Beyer's explanation for changing the Derby Trial figure. If you read both, you'll see a pretty big disconnect. Jerardi maintains that the process is mostly objective (Science). Beyer makes clear that there can sometimes be a big dose of the subjective (Art). It's both, of course, and I'm surprised that Jerardi said otherwise.
It needs to be both. It's impossible to boil horse races down to a computer formula. Too many variables -- not the least of which is the weather. Like on Derby Trial day, with a violent hailstorm smack in the middle of the card.
There are three things that you don't want to see being made -- sausage, laws and speed figures. The process is messy. But the results, in Beyer's case, are pretty good. We might disagree with the figs for a certain race or a certain day, and who knows? We might be right on occasion. But over time, Beyer Speed Figures provide a reliable picture of the sport. Over time, the better horses accrue the faster figs -- at all levels. So the figs have achieved their main goal -- to provide a reliable measure of a horse's ability. And that they do.
Don't think so? Check the latest best Beyers chart and tell me you don't see all or most of the division leaders on the list.
I agree with everything Vagrant just posted. I'll add this. I have noticed entire meets where Beyers seem consistently off. Gulfstream used to be like this, although the team seems to have done better this year. Also, shippers from Hoosier to Churchill consistently seem to have overrated BSFs. I have noticed this in several other spots and feel that has paid off for me.
Elk- I absolutely agree that finding spots where the number seems off is the way to go because in general there is an overdependance on Beyers. Horses with big BSFs are overbet.
This is the reason that I use ALLWAYS software because there is a built-in comparative analysis using BRIS and HALL numbers along with crunching of internal fractions.
Absolutely, elk. But I think the effect of Beyers on betting might be overstated these days. Serious players don't rely on Beyers. Even semi-serious players, like most folks here, use other figures.
Casual players, like the ones who swell the crowds at Oaks and Derby, don't even buy a Form. They use the program. So I don't believe many bettors rely heavily on Beyers. We talk Beyers here because they are the one speed fig that everyone has access to. But I doubt many of us use them as a major handicapping tool.
People get their panties in a knot over Beyers, but to me, they are like the AP poll in college basketball. A pecking order that lends context to a sprawling sport, but ultimately irrelevant. Winners and losers are sorted out in actual combat.
Most folks know that Kentucky was No. 1 in the final poll this year, but does anyone know where UConn was ranked last year? Does anyone care? Similarly, does anyone know or care what Drosselmeyer's best Beyer was before the Classic? Of Animal Kingdom's before the Derby?
This message has been edited by vagrant2 on May 23, 2012 11:26 PM
Current Topic - Dick Jerardi's explanation of Derby Beyers