CH-- the issues of whether Beyer is using pars at ANY point in the process and whether his figures will correlate track to track are DEFINITELY related-- that\'s the context in which I brought up the question in the first place, and I thought you said our mutual friend would know the answer.
As I pointed out before-- I believe they do the individual days by \"projection\". But I suspect they use pars as a check not race to race, but over a period of time-- meaning, if they find they are running better or worse than pars for the classes they will make a global correction for the track, like \"add 3\". My reason for thinking this is not just seeing that they have had some circuits out of whack, but which ones-- they have had the ones with overinflated claiming levels (California being the most extreme) way too fast, and the deflated claiming tracks (Delaware, for example) way too slow. I\'m not shooting from the hip here-- I probably know more about this than anyone alive, having spent a lot of time not just thinking about how to avoid such problems, but fielding calls and posts over the years from those who think a circuit is overrated or underrated, and I\'ve looked at our stuff (and to a lesser degree Andy\'s and Ragozin\'s) pretty close cicuit to circuit.
I will also say that I\'m not the only one who has figured it out. Don Brauer, the top bloodstock agent in the country, figured out without me a few years ago that he had to deduct several Beyer points from California and Canada, based upon the performance of those horses when they went elsewhere, and those of other horses (notably from Calder, his base), when they were purchased and went to California.
Again-- it now appears Andy may be on his way to solving the problem. But he may have two systems in conflict-- if you use pars AT ALL you will have a circuit to circuit problem.
