There is one potential problem with your interpretation.

It is subjective. ROTFL

You THINK you are right. ROTFL

You are using your figures as the inputs to your analysis of the result of the PA Derby.

Beyer used his figures as the the input to his analysis of the result of the PA Derby.

Beyer's figures going in suggested that Grand Hombre was not nearly as fast as your figures indicated (105). His figures also indicated that Dynever was a lot faster than your figures indicated (114). The rest of the differences were more minor.

So you interpreted the result as Grand Hombre was simply better and the result was totally logical. I understand your view 100%.

Beyer interpreted the result as Grand Hombre won because Dynever did not like the mud. He gave Grand Hombre a slightly better figure in the PA Derby than he had earned prior (108 vs 105) and Dynever a very poor one (88 vs 114)with everyone else falling into line accordingly.

Paths and weight do not account for these extreme differences.

That is the dilemna that handicappers that aren't amazingly arrogant face on occasion.

Sometimes different competent figure men have different inputs and/or interpret results differently because of methodology.

For example:

You don't look at pace and bias much when making figures because they are subjective. (understandable)

Beyer does to some extent. (understandable)

You include paths, but Beyer does not because of the bias issue. (understandable)

You are JUST AS SUBJECTIVE as anyone by exluding some things and including others.

That is why in the end, a handicapper must look for evidence everywhere - including in the results of these controversial races to answer these questions.

It is a MAJOR ERROR to assume you are a GOD-like creature of the figure world that is always right, never makes a mistake, and has a perfect all inclusive methodology for making figures and interpreting results.

This is why I PROPERLY often use the word "THINK". I am not so arrogant as to think I am always right about horses either going into a race or coming out of it no matter what the result. I am also not so thickheaded as to not examine the results for evidence that I might have been mistaken in the past.

In my case, I have 3 sets of figures and other information that sometimes helps shed light on a controversial race. Unfortunately, sometimes it makes evaluating the race more even more difficult because I see 3 totally different opinions.

I was not 100% sure who (you or Beyer) was right about the PA Derby figures going into the Indiana Derby. I simply raised the question and issue because there was an obvious HUGE figure discrepancy . I "THOUGHT" (did not claim with certainty) that there was more evidence that you were overrating the PA Derby and Grand Hombre than the other way around.

That's why if I did bet, I would have been trying to beat all those PA Derby horses and said so before the race. Even though I was not arrogant enough to be 100% sure I was right, I am arrogant enough to take a stand at the windows if the price is right because I am right often enough in these controversial races when you guys and/or other figure men disagree and create value n the board.

Given the performance of Great Hombre and much more importantly the performances of Christines Outlaw and Ashmore in the Indiana Derby, and to a much lesser degree perhaps Toccet out in CA, the evidence is fairly strong that the PA Derby was not as fast as your figures indicated.

I haven't seen anyone's speed figures for the Meadowlands Cup yet, but so far it looks like the evidence indicates that Dynever is better than you have been giving him credit for also and he simply didn't like the mud in the PA Derby.

You like to criticize me when I use the word "think", but the reality is that YOU THINK and are NOT PERFECT either. I just acknowledge it and am willing to admit when the evidence suggests I was wrong or could be wrong.