BSF 'Doldrums': Figure Dives

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

I still can't believe Smarty Jones lost the Belmont. Thought he was the goods for sure of all the ones lately trying for the Triple.

I was never on the Smarty bandwagon, but after seeing him trembling with exhaustion after the Belmont, I knew he was the real deal. He was definitely a fighter.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I was never on the Smarty bandwagon, but after seeing him trembling with exhaustion after the Belmont, I knew he was the real deal. He was definitely a fighter.

I was convinced by the Derby actually. Thought he was a shoe in in the Preakness and then forget about the Belmont. I wonder if he was a 100% in that Bel race. I mean his injury training afterwards seemed to come ultra fast.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

I was convinced by the Derby actually. Thought he was a shoe in in the Preakness and then forget about the Belmont. I wonder if he was a 100% in that Bel race. I mean his injury training afterwards seemed to come ultra fast.

I was amazed that he stayed on as long as he did... he didn't have much of a chance. It was devastating to see him lose... it would have been nice to have another triple crown winner.

It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't 100% in the Belmont. He was a very crooked horse, but ran through his conformation defaults.

[ArlJim78]

First thought;

Originally Posted by King Glorious

A system should be able to be used by anyone if they know the system and they should all be able to come up with the same number. I mean, all of us, if we add 2+2, should come up with 4. Now that's a system. This other stuff is not a system. I don't know what it is.

Very next post;

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I think that overall, the system itself is a good one.

Just a suggestion, maybe you might want to be consistent in your own thoughts, and figure out what you're trying to say before posting.
Someone suggested trying to make your own figures. That would be a great idea because you would soon find out what the issues are that create these problems. Another suggestion I have is since you seem to like raw times so much, and since they are universally available, just use the raw times and let everyone else work with these quacky figure systems.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

First thought;


Very next post;


Just a suggestion, maybe you might want to be consistent in your own thoughts, and figure out what you're trying to say before posting.
Someone suggested trying to make your own figures. That would be a great idea because you would soon find out what the issues are that create these problems. Another suggestion I have is since you seem to like raw times so much, and since they are universally available, just use the raw times and let everyone else work with these quacky figure systems.

How about this sir. This Beyer stuff is not a system. The theory in general is a good one. Is that a little better? Also, I didn't say use raw times. I said the raw numbers that the Beyer's come up with. There is a difference. The formula that they use takes into account several factors, among them race results from that day, par times over a given period for classes and distances. I would like if they used the formula and come up with a raw number and leave it at that without adjusting based on previous performances and especially subsequent performances. I don't know how one can possibly use past and subsequent performances to judge 2yo's and 3yo's. They are changing so much from race to race. Most of them are not set to run at their peak but are building up to their peak with each race. Many of them are trying new distances and tracks for the first time. How in the world can anyone know how fast they are likely to run or what they should be running during this period? If u want to use past and subsequent performances on an established horse, say a Lava Man, that would at least make more sense. But not on developing horses.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

This whole revision based on next outs is extremely ridiculous. I've always been told that it's impossible to compare races from different days and run on different tracks and under different conditions and that's where speed figures come into play. But then when they look at a totally different race with tons of different variables involved to tell me how fast a PREVIOUS race was, that's too much for me.

I agree that revising based on next outs is ridiculous, but perhaps for a different reason than you. Beyer figs have always used past races to get some kind of baseline for the expected performance in the next race. That's okay, IMO, because it is not based on a single horse's performance, but rather every horse in the race. What I don't like about the Summer Doldrum's revision is (1) it appears to be primarily due to the poor showing by a single horse in its next out, and (2) it smacks of backfitting, which makes all the figs more suspect.

In essense, revising that figure from a month ago downward based on how the horse ran this weekend is admitting that Beyer had no clue what kind of figure the horse ran 3 weeks ago. It would be far better to just admit that, instead of assigning it a number based on how it ran 4 (?) weeks later.

--Dunbar

[cmorioles]

I can't help but bring this old thread back up. Now that Sports Town just romped, should the Whirlaway be re-reevaluated?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I can't help but bring this old thread back up. Now that Sports Town just romped, should the Whirlaway be re-reevaluated?

Why, Sports Town ran close to his best figure in the Whirlaway, while racing outside on a strong rail, and at a distance he probably wants no part of.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting they make it even lower.

[cmorioles]

I'm sure he ran much better than that yesterday, figure wise. Shouldn't that at least hint that maybe now, the Whirlaway is too low? I completely ignore the Kee polytrack races.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm sure he ran much better than that yesterday, figure wise. Shouldn't that at least hint that maybe now, the Whirlaway is too low?

Only if you also think every number he ran was too low.

Now go delete that original Formy file and get to work on the Preakness....ya dope.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Only if you also think every number he ran was too low.

Now go delete that original Formy file and get to work on the Preakness....ya dope.

I finally got it with your technical assistance.

I'm just saying that is the same logic that was used to downgrade the figure, how the horses ran later. He ran much faster yesterday. I think they were right to downgrade it, but went too far.

[Shifty Shiek]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

First of all, the Smarty Jones Preakness number was a 118. Even delusional Smarty Jones fans didn't think that was too low ( not that most of them can read ).

But, more importantly, MAKE YOUR OWN FIGURES. Until you do so, and get at least some real life perspective on the difficulties involved in that, your continued bashing of Beyer figures carries absolutely zero weight. You only do yourself a disservice by criticizing ANYTHING from such an enormous position of weakness.

Reminds me of the guy that was banned from here. Is it him?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I finally got it with your technical assistance.

I'm just saying that is the same logic that was used to downgrade the figure, how the horses ran later. He ran much faster yesterday. I think they were right to downgrade it, but went too far.

I don't care as much about the Whirlaway number as I do that Sports Town was 6:5 yesterday, despite looking somewhere around third or fourth best, and won like the second coming of Hindoo.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Shifty Shiek

Reminds me of the guy that was banned from here. Is it him?

interesting choice of first post...and the answer is no.

[Shifty Shiek]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

interesting choice of first post...and the answer is no.

Been reading these post a lot and not one to chime in. Just seemed to me he was.

Thanks for clarifying.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Shifty Shiek

Been reading these post a lot and not one to chime in. Just seemed to me he was.

Thanks for clarifying.

Ya know, Tony Clifton aka Java Gold, your act is so transparent and pathetic that it's a wonder even you aren't embarrassed by it. But, I guess at your level of ridiculousness embarrassment is impossible.

[cmorioles]

Now I am sorry I brought this back up. Where did that guy come from?

He's a funny little troll. How many handles does this guy use?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Now I am sorry I brought this back up. Where did that guy come from?

He came back from the dead.

[ArlJim78]

The thing is, he is not even a good troll, his technique is horrible.
He starts out by giving away his identity.
I think he flunked out of troll school.