Beta Not

Why don't I don't find the statistical models currently in use to be relevant, let's start with Beta.
If you look at both the Capital Asset Pricing Model, and Jensen and Treynor ratios, you will see formulas for calculating them. I'm not going to write up any more formulas that necessary, so if you want to see them, go to Google or Investopedia.
In each of these models, there sits Beta.
You can find a thorough discussion of Beta on Wikipedia as well, along with a criticism that conforms to my gripe about this allegedly magical statistic. The only magic is that it is not the same today as it was yesterday, but then, neither are you.
Every day the market is open, the Beta changes for the market, and for individual securities in realtion to the market.
So, while Beta is supposed to measure how much stock A would go up or down relative to the market as a whole, it only does so in the context of the past. It tells you what the stock did versus the market, not what the stock is going to do versus the market. But Beta is almost never presented that way. Advisors always say stuff like, "If the Beta is 1.3, that means that if the market goes up 10%, we can expect the stock to go up 13%."
NO, you can't. If you bought the stock last week, or last year, and measured it's performance against the market for that same time period, then the stock performed (PAST TENSE) 1.3 times better or worse than the market. You calculate a new Beta next week or month or year and you will get a different number.
You cannot know the Beta unitl the race is over, not at the beginning, and you can't place your bets at the end of the race.
The problem is, the guts of the formula for Beta change with every move in the market, so it is variable. And using it to calculate Jensen Alphas, or Capital Asset Models or Treynor ratios only plugs in a moving target, but pretends it's a static fact.
Nothing tells you what a stock is going to do, or what the market is going to do.