Personal Observation

[rosenowsr]

I recently realized that when I watch a horse race, and it comes down to the final stretch, I am either rooting for the lead horse to hang on, or rooting for the horse or 2 behind him to pass him.

Which brings me to the conclusion that instead of looking for algorithms to predict the winner of the race, I should be looking instead for the 1 horse likely to lead the race or the one or two horses that are capable of passing him in the stretch.

Is it that simple or am I being naive?

Any thoughts are welcome.

[pondman]

I recently realized that when I watch a horse race, and it comes down to the final stretch, I am either rooting for the lead horse to hang on, or rooting for the horse or 2 behind him to pass him.

Which brings me to the conclusion that instead of looking for algorithms to predict the winner of the race, I should be looking instead for the 1 horse likely to lead the race or the one or two horses that are capable of passing him in the stretch.

Is it that simple or am I being naive?

Any thoughts are welcome.

Depends on the level of purse and the track. If you are that type of player, nothing wrong with looking for the leaders at the top of the stretch.

Not my style of play. Generally with class, if they are going to win on a drop, they're going to play with the field for awhile, maybe run last, and then hit them in the stretch. Can't pick them the way you do-- from performance.

[thaskalos]

I recently realized that when I watch a horse race, and it comes down to the final stretch, I am either rooting for the lead horse to hang on, or rooting for the horse or 2 behind him to pass him.

Which brings me to the conclusion that instead of looking for algorithms to predict the winner of the race, I should be looking instead for the 1 horse likely to lead the race or the one or two horses that are capable of passing him in the stretch.

Is it that simple or am I being naive?

Any thoughts are welcome.
My guess is that it would all depend on how proficient you are at determining when the front-runner will hold on...or which one or two horses will overtake him down the stretch.

I've been working on that aspect of the game for more than 30 years...

[VeryOldMan]

I recently realized that when I watch a horse race, and it comes down to the final stretch, I am either rooting for the lead horse to hang on, or rooting for the horse or 2 behind him to pass him.

Which brings me to the conclusion that instead of looking for algorithms to predict the winner of the race, I should be looking instead for the 1 horse likely to lead the race or the one or two horses that are capable of passing him in the stretch.

Is it that simple or am I being naive?

Any thoughts are welcome.

Man you would have hated my all-time favorite Forego . . . .

When you say you are rooting, does that already reflect $$ on the line or are you trying to back-fit your rooting style to a track and/or handicapping method that will have "your" horses giving you good $$ results?

[dlivery]

Man you would have hated my all-time favorite Forego . . . .

When you say you are rooting, does that already reflect $$ on the line or are you trying to back-fit your rooting style to a track and/or handicapping method that will have "your" horses giving you good $$ results?

The race starts when the Gate pop's

Some bumping and some still standing there wondering what's the bell ringing about.

[rubicon55]

I recently realized that when I watch a horse race, and it comes down to the final stretch, I am either rooting for the lead horse to hang on, or rooting for the horse or 2 behind him to pass him.

Which brings me to the conclusion that instead of looking for algorithms to predict the winner of the race, I should be looking instead for the 1 horse likely to lead the race or the one or two horses that are capable of passing him in the stretch.

Is it that simple or am I being naive?

Any thoughts are welcome.

IMHO your question depends on a lot of things to me. I feel horses that are quitters on PP's typically remain that way except for some possible extenuating circumstances such as the front runner running over a speed favoring track or possibly the horse is a lone speed horse or huge drop in class, etc. Still I think quitters are quitters and are money pits. These days I perfer to see my horse near the lead but not in front and not wide or boxed in - preferably running 2nd, 3rd or even 4th. I like to think the jockey has saved the horse at that point which hopefuly has more in the "tank" to take down the front runner in the stretch. As a result I really make a lot of decisions on who to bet depending where I think my horse will be at the mid point of the race.
P.S. I don't what others think but horses that have frequent trouble in the PP's seem to carry that trouble to race day more often than not, IMO.

[VeryOldMan]

The race starts when the Gate pop's

Some bumping and some still standing there wondering what's the bell ringing about.

And then there's the mighty Forego . . .

[jk3521]

I can't think of a more exciting horse to watch than Forego!

[Dave Schwartz]

Gee. Sounds a lot like NewPace: Early vs Late (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-itJ7ivOdCM)

[traynor]

I recently realized that when I watch a horse race, and it comes down to the final stretch, I am either rooting for the lead horse to hang on, or rooting for the horse or 2 behind him to pass him.

Which brings me to the conclusion that instead of looking for algorithms to predict the winner of the race, I should be looking instead for the 1 horse likely to lead the race or the one or two horses that are capable of passing him in the stretch.

Is it that simple or am I being naive?

Any thoughts are welcome.

One of the most profitable seasons I have ever enjoyed was in Maryland, during a period when I completely ignored past performances. The races at Laurel were televised every night on public tv. I watched the races. I watched the replays. I watched the races again on tv at night. I made notes about which horses seemed to do well in the stretch run. Especially horses that made up a lot of ground in the final 1/8, but finished third, fourth, or fifth. I read the comments of the racing columnist in the Baltimore Sun the next day. I bet the horses that had finished strongly when they ran again (with some caveats about class, distance, etc.).

That was the meet that convinced me there was more to thoroughbred horse racing than past performances and computers. To put it in context, I had been using Sartin's methods for a couple of years, as well as several other pace analysis apps--including my own. I unplugged the computer, ignored the DRF, spent all day at the track, watched replays in the Handicappers Room, then watched them again at night on public tv, taking notes of whatever I could see that was (to me) significant.

It was a very good year. If you have never done it, it may well be worth your while to consider.

So what happened? I had a notebook full of horses ready to win at Laurel. The meet shifted to Pimlico. Late speed at Pimlico was not much of an advantage, so the criteria that I had used to select potential winners at Laurel was just a distraction at Pimlico. What a great life! A new challenge every day!

[iceknight]

One of the most profitable seasons I have ever enjoyed was in Maryland, during a period when I completely ignored past performances. The races at Laurel were televised every night on public tv. I watched the races. I watched the replays. I watched the races again on tv at night. I made notes about which horses seemed to do well in the stretch run....


So what happened? I had a notebook full of horses ready to win at Laurel. No you did not. You just made up your own past performance charts. but I get the gist of what you are saying.. Don't rely on chart callers' short notes which do not capture several things accurately..

Also, it is a well known fact that horses themselves do not read the PPs or check the odds board before/while running :lol:

[Edward DeVere]

[QUOTE=traynor] watched replays in the Handicappers Room [QUOTE]

Damn - you're older than dirt!

[dnlgfnk]

I recently realized that when I watch a horse race, and it comes down to the final stretch, I am either rooting for the lead horse to hang on, or rooting for the horse or 2 behind him to pass him.

Which brings me to the conclusion that instead of looking for algorithms to predict the winner of the race, I should be looking instead for the 1 horse likely to lead the race or the one or two horses that are capable of passing him in the stretch.

Is it that simple or am I being naive?

Any thoughts are welcome.

It seems like a revelation now but race in, race out, that horse leading, or the one or two closing, will have been identified by the public at a greater rate than any individual can muster, like every other approach. As often as any other intelligent approach, it will not be either the horse you selected to lead in the stretch, or the one or two stalkers/closers you opted for who actually achieve that desired position in the stretch.

[traynor]

[QUOTE=traynor] watched replays in the Handicappers Room [QUOTE]

Damn - you're older than dirt!

Very, very close. The first handicapping software I used was on a 5.25 floppy for a Commodore 64. It was a LONG time ago.

[Zydeco]

One of the most profitable seasons I have ever enjoyed was in Maryland, during a period when I completely ignored past performances. The races at Laurel were televised every night on public tv. I watched the races. I watched the replays. I watched the races again on tv at night. I made notes about which horses seemed to do well in the stretch run. Especially horses that made up a lot of ground in the final 1/8, but finished third, fourth, or fifth. I read the comments of the racing columnist in the Baltimore Sun the next day. I bet the horses that had finished strongly when they ran again (with some caveats about class, distance, etc.).

That was the meet that convinced me there was more to thoroughbred horse racing than past performances and computers. To put it in context, I had been using Sartin's methods for a couple of years, as well as several other pace analysis apps--including my own. I unplugged the computer, ignored the DRF, spent all day at the track, watched replays in the Handicappers Room, then watched them again at night on public tv, taking notes of whatever I could see that was (to me) significant.

It was a very good year. If you have never done it, it may well be worth your while to consider.

So what happened? I had a notebook full of horses ready to win at Laurel. The meet shifted to Pimlico. Late speed at Pimlico was not much of an advantage, so the criteria that I had used to select potential winners at Laurel was just a distraction at Pimlico. What a great life! A new challenge every day!
We are going to Laurel Sept 20th...come and join us.

[traynor]

It seems like a revelation now but race in, race out, that horse leading, or the one or two closing, will have been identified by the public at a greater rate than any individual can muster, like every other approach. As often as any other intelligent approach, it will not be either the horse you selected to lead in the stretch, or the one or two stalkers/closers you opted for who actually achieve that desired position in the stretch.

I agree, with the exception being "the extra effort" that goes beyond the data used by the public to make their choices, or beyond the data that is available on downloads to run through a software application. That "extra effort" can involve a variety of tactics from watching races to inspection handicapping. Whatever extra information can be gained (that the public does not have spoon-fed to them every racing day) may be well worth the effort.

[thaskalos]

It seems like a revelation now but race in, race out, that horse leading, or the one or two closing, will have been identified by the public at a greater rate than any individual can muster, like every other approach. As often as any other intelligent approach, it will not be either the horse you selected to lead in the stretch, or the one or two stalkers/closers you opted for who actually achieve that desired position in the stretch.
Precisely!

I remember how excited handicappers got when William Quirin first reported that a great profit could be realized at the track by simply betting on the horse who had the lead at the first call of the race.

What the handicappers were slow to realize was that the front-runners who were responsible for this lucrative profit were not readily apparent before the race.

[dnlgfnk]

I agree, with the exception being "the extra effort" that goes beyond the data used by the public to make their choices, or beyond the data that is available on downloads to run through a software application. That "extra effort" can involve a variety of tactics from watching races to inspection handicapping. Whatever extra information can be gained (that the public does not have spoon-fed to them every racing day) may be well worth the effort.

Sure. That's why I always frame the comparisons in terms of playing every race against the public. Of course, we are all playing to take advantage of public error, which necessitates selectivity and private info, or at least a different interpretation of public data.

I lean towards the latter.

[dnlgfnk]

Precisely!

I remember how excited handicappers got when William Quirin first reported that a great profit could be realized at the track by simply betting on the horse who had the lead at the first call of the race.

What the handicappers were slow to realize was that the front-runners who were responsible for this lucrative profit were not readily apparent before the race.

Yes, Thask. The difficulty of predicting the leader, or the stalker(s) breathing down his neck in the stretch is a microcosm of the unavoidable difficulties when dealing with the race at every stage of it's running.

[raybo]

Gee. Sounds a lot like NewPace: Early vs Late (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-itJ7ivOdCM)

Yeah, or "80+% of all winners are in the top 4 at the stretch call" or " class means being able to set, or handle, the early pace and still finish strong".

It's still the same game that's it's always been, and yet 98+% still lose.