Speed vs. Pace

[Matt Bryan]

So, I'm embarrassed to ask, but as a casual handicapper of the last 2 years, how would you explain the difference between speed and pace in layman's terms? For someone that is becoming more and more interested in the craft of handicapping (reading about it, etc.), and going to the track more and more, I still get confused between the two. Intuitively I think I know - but then, there's always something that throws me. I mean, equally intuitive, is that speed and pace often seem synonymous.
Also, I'm not sure I understand how speed figures relate to lengths...and/or par, etc. - and, similar with pace figures.

Thx.

[Overlay]

Didn't someone (like Ray Taulbot or his ghost writers, for example) once comment about speed being "how fast a horse runs", whereas pace was "how a horse runs fast"? I think I also recall him discussing how two horses that appeared closely matched on the basis of previous final time (with the emphasis on speed) could be differentiated by the fractions in which they ran that time (taking pace into consideration), where the truly superior horse would be the one that had recorded that final time after setting or overcoming a faster early pace that would cause the other horse to fade. (I'll gladly defer to others for more in-depth responses, especially about figuring class into the equation. :) )

[Poindexter]

I will give you a harness racing example just for sake of ease Harness races are typically 1 mile long and ideally a horse will run 4 equal quarters. So a horse that can go 1:56 wire to wire will ideally go four 1/4's of .29 seconds each. Obviously speed is that the horse can go a mile in 1:56. The pace is how he went 1:56. Now if this same horse is forced to duel the 1st quarter from the rail(will elimate ground loss for this dicussion) then he was used early. The fact he went 28 seconds instead of 29 seconds in my estimation means that he will likely not race in 1:56, but he will tire later even if he goes nice even quarters after that and will run in about 156.2 to 156.3. So his fractions might be 28 57.3 127 156.2. These are all fifths of a second I am using. So the general gist of pace is that by being used hard in a certain portion of the race the horses final time will be slower than if he was able to cruise around the track at an ideal pace. With Thoros it is the same ideal, except that on dirt races especially sprints horses go faster earlier and slower late. But the idea is the same. Two horses can race in 110:2 on the same day. One goes wire to wire 22 45 110.2 while another goes 21.3 44.2 110.2(once again fifths not tenths I am old school). The horse that raced faster early is generally the better horse. Lets assume they race against each other next time out. Now if they are both need the lead types the horse that went .45 to the half last time will be outgunned by the 44.2 horse and will have no chance. If the horse that went slower early can rate(press) than who else is in the race will determine the outcome. If the horse who went 44.2 early can now go 44.4 he likely will be able to go 110.1 or 110 because he has more energy since he has not been used as hard early. Now of course there are many other variables, such as pressure, running styles,variants......But this is the very basics of pace and how it affects final time. These days if you are using a publication that provides pace figures just remember the faster the horse went early, the more likely the horse will slow down and the more excuse he has for a poor final figure. If you want to really learn the subject, books by Quirin and Brohamer are a good place to start(check the appropriate form for ideas). I am sure the guys on this board can come up with a lot more. A final note, when you get into turf racing(routing), late pace becomes extremely important(because they go much slower early and they sprint home). So you have to not only take into account their figures but their late pace which is as important.

[TBD]

To me to put speed and pace figures in layman terms, speed figures are a calculation made at the end of a race. Pace figures are a calculation at different call points during the race. Probably one of the best examples would be to find a dead heat for first. Both horses would share the same completion time but not necessarily the same pace figures. It should reflect the different styles which horses use to accomplish the same distance.

[JimG]

So, I'm embarrassed to ask, but as a casual handicapper of the last 2 years, how would you explain the difference between speed and pace in layman's terms?

Thx.

2 books

Speed Beyer on Speed by Andy Beyer

Pace Modern Pace Handicapping by Tom Brohamer.

Both are required reading, imo, to novice handicappers looking to improve.

Jim

[SandyW]

Handicapping Magic By Michael Pizzolla is also an excellent book on Pace.

[Tom]

I'd add Extreme Pace Handicapping to that list.
Randy outlines an easy method that might get inexperienced players betting and cashing sooner.

Matt, never be embarrassed to ask questions.
Contrary to popular belief, none of us know it all.

[thaskalos]

Have you ever seen Olympic middle-distance runners consulting their wristwatches at certain points of the race that they run in? They are trying to assess the "pace" of the race...so they can make sure that their style of running does not conflict with the "dynamics" that the pace of the race is likely to create.

The front runners know that a faster than normal pace is likely to deplete their energy reserves, leaving them vulnerable during the crucial dash for the wire at the last stage of the race...while the runners at the back of the pack know that too SLOW a pace will mean that the front runners will have plenty in the tank for the stretch drive...leaving the trailing runners with too much to do and not enough time to do it in at the late stage of the race. So each group tries to assess these pace issues ahead of time...so they can position themselves accordingly during the running of the race.

Well...the same forces apply in horse racing...with the exception that the horses and the jockeys do not have wristwatches to consult during the race. The pace of the race often creates situations where either the front-runner or the closer has enjoyed a technical advantage during the running of the race...leaving the opposing group at a decided DISADVANTAGE. It then becomes the HANDICAPPER'S job to assess the effects of this pace...so he can better deal with these horses when they come back to run again.

The game is not as simple as the speed ratings make it seem. :)

[Dark Horse]

So, I'm embarrassed to ask, but as a casual handicapper of the last 2 years, how would you explain the difference between speed and pace in layman's terms? For someone that is becoming more and more interested in the craft of handicapping (reading about it, etc.), and going to the track more and more, I still get confused between the two. Intuitively I think I know - but then, there's always something that throws me. I mean, equally intuitive, is that speed and pace often seem synonymous.
Also, I'm not sure I understand how speed figures relate to lengths...and/or par, etc. - and, similar with pace figures.

Thx.


Compare the all-out sprint of a short quarterhorse race to a mile and a half race. A horse can't sprint that long, so now it has to pace itself, and will usually do so depending on its preferred running style. From the combined running styles for the field you can determine the race shape, and come up with an expectation of how it affects each horse.

In a nutshell:
- speed horses need comfort and a breather.
- stalkers need some pace to help weaken the speed, but not a ton of it.
- closers need pace to weaken speed and to a lesser degree stalkers.
- deep closers need plenty of pace.

You can learn quite a bit from the free library over at brisnet. Example: http://www.brisnet.com/library/software/allnews/favoriteArticles/Final%20Race%20Pace%20Shapes.pdf

[Capper Al]

I like speed for finding contenders. I like pace for separating contenders.

[Cratos]

So, I'm embarrassed to ask, but as a casual handicapper of the last 2 years, how would you explain the difference between speed and pace in layman's terms? For someone that is becoming more and more interested in the craft of handicapping (reading about it, etc.), and going to the track more and more, I still get confused between the two. Intuitively I think I know - but then, there's always something that throws me. I mean, equally intuitive, is that speed and pace often seem synonymous.
Also, I'm not sure I understand how speed figures relate to lengths...and/or par, etc. - and, similar with pace figures.

Thx.

Speed and pace are the same absolutely. What your question should be is: “What’s the difference between pace and final time?”

Speed can be defined several ways: (a) the movement from one point to another point with respect to time, (b) the ratio of distance to time, or (c) in the language of calculus, speed is the first derivative of distance with respect to time.

Pace is the speed required to achieve a final time and in horse racing pace is sometimes referred to as “internal fractions” or “sectional timing.”

Mathematically, final time is a function of pace.

Also in a horse race there are typically two types of speed because of the configuration of the racetrack: (1) Linear speed which occurs when the horse is running down the track’s straightaway and (2) Angular speed when the horse is running around the track’s turns.

There is another metric and it is velocity and the distinction between speed and velocity is speed tells you how fast; and velocity tells you how fast and in what direction.

Neither Equibase nor DRF gives speed in their data. They give time against a prescribed distance which can be converted into an estimated “speed” for the distance of the race or section of the race.

Trakus, the “new kid on the block” gives speed because it gives both distance and time in its data and whatever speed is it must involve both distance and time.

Furthermore Trakus measures instantaneous speed, that is, the speed determined over a very small interval of time.

But let’s sum up what is being stated in the context of horse racing.

Speed would be the magnitude of the horse’s movement while velocity would be the horse’s movement with magnitude and has direction. For example a horse breaks from the gate at Churchill Downs and run the first quarter (assuming 1320 feet for the quarter distance) in 22 seconds. It velocity would be 60 feet/second and its direction would be SW.

For that quarter of the race, the horse’s speed and velocity would be the same. However as the horse continues to the end of the race it velocity would change because it direction would be changing, the magnitude of those changes would be its speed.

And at the end of the race you would have the final time which would be determined by the pace of the race.

[Magister Ludi]

Pace handicappers believe that sectional times are more important than finishing times. My own opinion, distinctly in the minority, is that neither speed nor pace factors are needed in a profitable handicapping model. Both types of factors are already strongly reflected in public odds.

[classhandicapper]

Cratos,

I have a question for you, but you'll have to think in "Beyer terms" and your own terms to answer it for me.

Assume "Mr. Beyer" calculated that a specific track was producing final times that were 3 seconds faster/slower than average for 1 mile. That's pretty extreme. I'm using 1 mile in the example because it's a distance that's clearly too far for a horse to run as its maximum speed for the full distance.

Now let's assume there's another race on the card and it's only a 2 furlong race.

Is is possible that the horses would only be minimally impacted by that same track?

By "minimally" I mean way less than you would think if you were assuming proportionally.

[biggestal99]

Have you ever seen Olympic middle-distance runners consulting their wristwatches at certain points of the race that they run in? They are trying to assess the "pace" of the race...so they can make sure that their style of running does not conflict with the "dynamics" that the pace of the race is likely to create.

The front runners know that a faster than normal pace is likely to deplete their energy reserves, leaving them vulnerable during the crucial dash for the wire at the last stage of the race...while the runners at the back of the pack know that too SLOW a pace will mean that the front runners will have plenty in the tank for the stretch drive...leaving the trailing runners with too much to do and not enough time to do it in at the late stage of the race. So each group tries to assess these pace issues ahead of time...so they can position themselves accordingly during the running of the race.

Well...the same forces apply in horse racing...with the exception that the horses and the jockeys do not have wristwatches to consult during the race. The pace of the race often creates situations where either the front-runner or the closer has enjoyed a technical advantage during the running of the race...leaving the opposing group at a decided DISADVANTAGE. It then becomes the HANDICAPPER'S job to assess the effects of this pace...so he can better deal with these horses when they come back to run again.

The game is not as simple as the speed ratings make it seem. :)

Watches are not for Olympic or elite runner, I am a average runner and run with a watch, I know what I am capable of, so if I am running in 5k, I gauge my speed at the first mile, too slow I speed up, too fast I slow down, its knowing what you are capable of and adjusting your pace so that you run your best time. Of course horses don't have watch and are dependent on the jockey to be their watch.

Allan

[thaskalos]

Watches are not for Olympic or elite runner, I am a average runner and run with a watch, I know what I am capable of, so if I am running in 5k, I gauge my speed at the first mile, too slow I speed up, too fast I slow down, its knowing what you are capable of and adjusting your pace so that you run your best time. Of course horses don't have watch and are dependent on the jockey to be their watch.

Allan

Yeah...but the jockey is often a lousy timekeeper. :rolleyes:

[thaskalos]

Watches are not for Olympic or elite runner, I am a average runner and run with a watch, I know what I am capable of, so if I am running in 5k, I gauge my speed at the first mile, too slow I speed up, too fast I slow down, its knowing what you are capable of and adjusting your pace so that you run your best time. Of course horses don't have watch and are dependent on the jockey to be their watch.

Allan

Friend...I know that the watches are not only for the elite athletes. Anybody with a few bucks can buy one. I used the elite athletes as an example because THEY are the ones that we see on TV.

[Cratos]

Pace handicappers believe that sectional times are more important than finishing times. My own opinion, distinctly in the minority, is that neither speed nor pace factors are needed in a profitable handicapping model. Both types of factors are already strongly reflected in public odds.

Magister Ludi, I agree with you on virtually every post you present on this forum, but this one I will disagree in part.

Yes, the speed factor is reflected in the odds because it is very visible in the data and heavily promoted by the speed figure makers.

However pace handicapping is more difficult and is not as obvious to the average bettor; and therefore does not become reflected in the odds nearly as much as speed.

I realize that I posted that speed and pace are the same by definition, but the difference is recognition by the average bettor. It is very easy for many bettors to see the speed in the race. However the same bettors will not be able to apply that recognition to the horse(s) with the speed ability to negotiate the pace and this is where we disagree.

[Cratos]

Cratos,

I have a question for you, but you'll have to think in "Beyer terms" and your own terms to answer it for me.

Assume "Mr. Beyer" calculated that a specific track was producing final times that were 3 seconds faster/slower than average for 1 mile. That's pretty extreme. I'm using 1 mile in the example because it's a distance that's clearly too far for a horse to run as its maximum speed for the full distance.

Now let's assume there's another race on the card and it's only a 2 furlong race.

Is is possible that the horses would only be minimally impacted by that same track?

By "minimally" I mean way less than you would think if you were assuming proportionally.

Yes, it is not only possible, but that is the correct way to apply resistance or any force that either retards or enhances a horse’s movement.

I use an algorithm which has the following acronym: SAWRA. This is (S)urface, (A)ir, (W)ind, (R)esistance (A)djustment and the metric is applied on a per foot of race distance travelled basis (this is where Trakus becomes “king”).

Therefore the horse travelling 2 furlongs would get the same unit metric as the horse which travelled 1 mile, but at a different aggregation which would lead to a different impact in performance between the two horses because of energy expended due to work.

[classhandicapper]

Yes, it is not only possible, but that is the correct way to apply resistance or any force that either retards or enhances a horse’s movement.

I use an algorithm which has the following acronym: SAWRA. This is (S)urface, (A)ir, (W)ind, (R)esistance (A)djustment and the metric is applied on a per foot of race distance travelled basis (this is where Trakus becomes “king”).

Therefore the horse travelling 2 furlongs would get the same unit metric as the horse which travelled 1 mile, but at a different aggregation which would lead to a different impact in performance between the two horses because of energy expended due to work.

I understand what you are saying.

This is very rough example.

If the track was 4 seconds slow at a mile (8 furlongs), intuition would suggest it would be 1 second slow at 2 furlongs (25%). But might it only be 1/5 or 2/5ths slow?

I have been doing some research. I have accumulated some evidence to suggest that virtually everyone is making final time figures incorrectly. To some extent the process can self correct with certain methodologies, but it's wide open to mistakes. (Sorry for being vague)

[thaskalos]

I understand what you are saying.

This is very rough example.

If the track was 4 seconds slow at a mile (8 furlongs), intuition would suggest it would be 1 second slow at 2 furlongs (25%). But might it only be 1/5 or 2/5ths slow?

I have been doing some research. I have accumulated some evidence to suggest that virtually everyone is making final time figures incorrectly. To some extent the process can self correct with certain methodologies, but it's wide open to mistakes. (Sorry for being vague)

The pace research that I have conducted through the years has convinced me that a slow track has a more profound effect during the last part of the race than it has during the first part of the race. The last fraction is the fraction most affected by the "slowness" of the track...and the first fraction is the least.

[Cratos]

The pace research that I have conducted through the years has convinced me that a slow track has a more profound effect during the last part of the race than it has during the first part of the race. The last fraction is the fraction most affected by the "slowness" of the track...and the first fraction is the least.


Your research is profoundly correct for the reason of work and energy. At the beginning of the race the horse will have more energy to do work, but at the end of the race it will have less energy to do the same amount of work; in other words fatigue will become a major factor.

[LottaKash]

Matt Bryan, This may help in your search, trying to get a good handle on PACE...

Here is a link and some excerpts from it:...

http://www.paceappraiser.com/articles/article_03.php

"The definitions of pace shapes and race quality:"

AVERAGE-AVERAGE: Favors no particular running style

AVERAGE-FAST: Strong front running performance or anything close to the pace.

AVERAGE-SLOW: An average pace that fell apart. Nothing stands out.

FAST-FAST: The best pace shape. Any horse that finished close to the wire raced exceptionally well. (Ghostzapper's 123 Beyer was earned against a pace of the race FAST 5!)

FAST-AVERAGE: A very good performance by a early pace type. If won by P/C or C the winner was taking advantage of a fast pace.

FAST-SLOW: Late runner advantage

SLOW-FAST: Early pace advantage. Anything that closed and finished close raced well.

SLOW-AVERAGE: Good performance by early pace type. Very powerful if won by a stretch-runner.

SLOW-SLOW: You'll see this one a lot. Nothing can run early or late.....even a "fast middle" move doesn't save this one.

===================================
excerpt #2..
By the way, we should remember that if we're talking about pure pace of the race shapes then there are only three possible shapes:

AVERAGE-AVERAGE
FAST-SLOW
SLOW-FAST

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Speed to me relates more to the horse.

Pace to me relates more to the individual race.

Speed is a horse that will get out and get on the lead. Many times, speed horses need the lead in order to win.

Pace is a measure of the fractions of a race. The 2012 Kentucky Derby (and many others) is a perfect example. The Pace of that race was absurd and set up for horses that lacked front-running speed, but were able to wear down the front-running speed in a closing fashion.

Speed/stalkers typically win out in American races. However, when too much speed is in a particular race, pace can and will be the winning factor.

[Billnewman]

[QUOTE=Matt Bryan]So, I'm embarrassed to ask, but as a casual handicapper of the last 2 years, how would you explain the difference between speed and pace in layman's terms?


If your average speed for 100 yard dash is 11 seconds and I can run it in 9.5. But you can run a mile in seven minutes while I average say 7:40. If we race a mile and you let me run the first 5080 feet in 10 minutes I will most likely be able to out sprint you in the last 200 feet. Where as if you were to run the first 5080 feet in 6:50 you will be a furlong ahead of me at the finish line.

[DJofSD]

So, I'm embarrassed to ask, but as a casual handicapper of the last 2 years, how would you explain the difference between speed and pace in layman's terms? For someone that is becoming more and more interested in the craft of handicapping (reading about it, etc.), and going to the track more and more, I still get confused between the two. Intuitively I think I know - but then, there's always something that throws me. I mean, equally intuitive, is that speed and pace often seem synonymous.
Also, I'm not sure I understand how speed figures relate to lengths...and/or par, etc. - and, similar with pace figures.

Thx.
At the most fundamental level, speed is a measurement of the performance of a horse for the entire race whereas pace is a segmented measurement of a race.

Early use of pace had the race divided into two segments and each segment had its own figure or number. Later, 3 segments were used.

How those figures, whether for a speed rating, or, for a pace segment, are computed is the source of a lot of debate. You could call the process of measuring the particulars of the race the science of racing.

How you adjust the figures and in turn how you use those figures to evaluate a horses performance, and, how to predict the outcome of a race is the art of handicapping.

[classhandicapper]

The pace research that I have conducted through the years has convinced me that a slow track has a more profound effect during the last part of the race than it has during the first part of the race. The last fraction is the fraction most affected by the "slowness" of the track...and the first fraction is the least.

I have noticed examples where a track was very slow for the sprints, but the horses seemed to totally collapse going 1 1/4 miles. The tendency is to just split the track variant, which corrects the appraisal of the performance, but the explanation may not be a change in track speed.

[DJofSD]

The pace research that I have conducted through the years has convinced me that a slow track has a more profound effect during the last part of the race than it has during the first part of the race. The last fraction is the fraction most affected by the "slowness" of the track...and the first fraction is the least.
Yes. It can not be different than what you have discovered.

A slower surface, one that requires more effort, a greater exertion to cover the same distance, will result in the horse not traveling as fast as it would otherwise given all other factors are equal.

[Robert Goren]

Magister Ludi, I agree with you on virtually every post you present on this forum, but this one I will disagree in part.

Yes, the speed factor is reflected in the odds because it is very visible in the data and heavily promoted by the speed figure makers.

However pace handicapping is more difficult and is not as obvious to the average bettor; and therefore does not become reflected in the odds nearly as much as speed.

I realize that I posted that speed and pace are the same by definition, but the difference is recognition by the average bettor. It is very easy for many bettors to see the speed in the race. However the same bettors will not be able to apply that recognition to the horse(s) with the speed ability to negotiate the pace and this is where we disagree.It appears to me that the bettors who bet enough money to influence the odds have very good recognition of pace factors. If you want to pick winners, pace and speed is a good place to start. I agree with Ludi, if you want to make money, you have to look else where. With the advent of the PC, things have changed. If it is mentioned in a handicapping book, the profit has been squeezed out it. Unless you have some fresh ideas on pace handicapping, you are too late to the dance.

[Cratos]

It appears to me that the bettors who bet enough money to influence the odds have very good recognition of pace factors. If you want to pick winners, pace and speed is a good place to start. I agree with Ludi, if you want to make money, you have to look else where. With the advent of the PC, things have changed. If it is mentioned in a handicapping book, the profit has been squeezed out it. Unless you have some fresh ideas on pace handicapping, you are too late to the dance.
I appreciate your explanation, bot you are talking about a small segment of bettors like myself who '* target" wagers at discreet times.

My response was to the general population of bettors and I still stick by my assertion.

[Tom]

It appears to me that the bettors who bet enough money to influence the odds have very good recognition of pace factors. If you want to pick winners, pace and speed is a good place to start. I agree with Ludi, if you want to make money, you have to look else where. With the advent of the PC, things have changed. If it is mentioned in a handicapping book, the profit has been squeezed out it. Unless you have some fresh ideas on pace handicapping, you are too late to the dance.

Over the years, the prices paid by horses pointed out by CJ figures would say otherwise.

[Overlay]

If it is mentioned in a handicapping book, the profit has been squeezed out it. Unless you have some fresh ideas on pace handicapping, you are too late to the dance.
Despite the increasing reflection of pace and speed analysis (or of any other individual handicapping factor, for that matter) in the public odds, I don't think that we have yet reached (or will ever reach) a point where value can't be regularly found and profitably exploited somewhere in the wagering spectrum, as long as the player is willing to look at full race fields and the complete range of possible wagers, rather than seeking only to isolate and bet the one horse or combination that's most likely to come in (by whatever means it may be selected).

[thaskalos]

Despite the increasing reflection of pace and speed analysis (or of any other individual handicapping factor, for that matter) in the public odds, I don't think that we have yet reached (or will ever reach) a point where value can't be regularly found somewhere in the full wagering spectrum and profitably exploited, as long as the player is willing to look at full race fields and the full range of possible wagers, rather than seeking only to isolate and bet the one horse or combination that's most likely to come in (by whatever means it may be selected).

Maybe so...but the overall profitability of the winning player will decline noticeably if the odds get more "tighter", as a result of bettors using the same basic skills to create their "value odds lines". That's why it makes little sense to sell a profitable odds line-generating system/method...IMO. As more people use this method...the overlays will be reduced in number...and the profits will be diminished.

[Overlay]

Maybe so...but the overall profitability of the winning player will decline noticeably if the odds get more "tighter", as a result of bettors using the same basic skills to create their "value odds lines". That's why it makes little sense to sell a profitable odds line-generating system/method...IMO. As more people use this method...the overlays will be reduced in number...and the profits will be diminished.
I would personally doubt whether any multi-factor, value-based method that covered all horses and all wager varieties (no matter how accurate it might be) could ever achieve sufficient dissemination, allegiance, or uniform application among a sufficiently large portion of the betting public to render it obsolete or unprofitable in the same manner as single-factor or single-selection approaches -- not to mention the effect of those who will never be able to comprehend why they should even consider betting on a horse or combination other than the one that they think is most likely to come in, regardless of its odds; or who (for whatever reason) will continue to wager based on criteria that are unrelated to actual handicapping. And, aside from that, what better selection and wagering alternative is there? If we ever reach a point where wagering value can no longer be found on any individual horse, combination of horses, or wager type in any race, it will be time (for me, at least) to give up the game.

[Capper Al]

It's still the same old song: Form, Class, Speed, Pace, and trainer intent. In that order.

[Overlay]

It's still the same old song: Form, Class, Speed, Pace, and trainer intent. In that order.
Odds should also be factored into that list in some fashion, or else mutuels on horses that qualify on all points (even if an above-average percentage of them win) may be too low to produce an overall profit.

[HUSKER55]

It's still the same old song: Form, Class, Speed, Pace, and trainer intent. In that order.


Amen to that!

[Matt Bryan]

Thanks all, for the good info. I'll definitely look into the recommendations, etc. Sometimes when sifting through PP's and multiple races, after a certain period of time my brain rolls back like shark eyes, to some primal place. Accumulated knowledge tends to fade, in the face of so many numbers, figures, and the multitude of other variables, leaving me numb and dumb.

I do agree with others that it's essentially the "same old song", and imagine that handicappers understanding the basics will always have room to exploit the races. Currently, I sit here drinking, watching the news, aware that information is being fed to the masses from only a handful of sources - quite similar to racing. Reminds me of the market crash a few years ago - ironically, with unprecedented access to "information", nobody saw it coming except for those that understood the game. I know that's comparing apples to oranges to some degree, but as it applies to standard investments (e.g. IRA's, mutual funds, etc.), investors as well as advisors look for a "figure", or "gold rating", or ROI, etc. - because they're too occupied or lazy to care about the guts of it. They often accept totally biased information - information generated elsewhere for whatever reasons, good intentions or not.

Anyhoo.....clearly I've been drinking, but I think things will come full circle in horse racing - the lost edges I hear about will be back.

[raybo]

Thanks all, for the good info. I'll definitely look into the recommendations, etc. Sometimes when sifting through PP's and multiple races, after a certain period of time my brain rolls back like shark eyes, to some primal place. Accumulated knowledge tends to fade, in the face of so many numbers, figures, and the multitude of other variables, leaving me numb and dumb.

I do agree with others that it's essentially the "same old song", and imagine that handicappers understanding the basics will always have room to exploit the races. Currently, I sit here drinking, watching the news, aware that information is being fed to the masses from only a handful of sources - quite similar to racing. Reminds me of the market crash a few years ago - ironically, with unprecedented access to "information", nobody saw it coming except for those that understood the game. I know that's comparing apples to oranges to some degree, but as it applies to standard investments (e.g. IRA's, mutual funds, etc.), investors as well as advisors look for a "figure", or "gold rating", or ROI, etc. - because they're too occupied or lazy to care about the guts of it. They often accept totally biased information - information generated elsewhere for whatever reasons, good intentions or not.

Anyhoo.....clearly I've been drinking, but I think things will come full circle in horse racing - the lost edges I hear about will be back.

Regarding the first portion of the quoted post, having a method that automates the analysis of the "numbers" will help, leaving your brain fresher to analyze the "non-numbers" factors.

As Al said, it's not just about pace and speed, there are other things that determine winners, current form, and current ability against the dynamics of the field, surface, distance, etc., often determine the winner, and often at very good prices, leaving the pace and speed players "out in the cold".

[Tom]

How do automate an analysis?
I think you will left out in the cold if you don't look at the figures and analyze them. I don't know anyone who just bets a pace or speed figure. The value in them comes when you analyze them and listen to what they are telling you.

[Capper Al]

How do automate an analysis?
I think you will left out in the cold if you don't look at the figures and analyze them. I don't know anyone who just bets a pace or speed figure. The value in them comes when you analyze them and listen to what they are telling you.

Agree. And a capper needs to know their numbers. There are times one can just look at the numbers and know there is something wrong with the numbers. One needs this level of understanding.

[DJofSD]

Yep, just like porn -- I know it when I see it. ;)

[Tom]

Yep, just like porn -- I know it when I see it. ;)

And you study it....over and over until you get it down. :cool:

[DJofSD]

Or go blind.

[traynor]

How do automate an analysis?
I think you will left out in the cold if you don't look at the figures and analyze them. I don't know anyone who just bets a pace or speed figure. The value in them comes when you analyze them and listen to what they are telling you.

ANY repetitive process (and horse race handicapping is boringly repetitive) of decision making can be modeled, chunked into components, quantified, and "automated." I will bypass the long, boring explanation that no one will read anyway (especially if it conflicts with his or her preconceptions) and refer you to the Jedi Project, Grinder and Bandler's Structure of Magic, and the Complete Works of Milton Erickson.

Decision making is a very seriously studied and researched topic--especially by multinationals putting billions into the results of those decisions.

[EMD4ME]

Agree. And a capper needs to know their numbers. There are times one can just look at the numbers and know there is something wrong with the numbers. One needs this level of understanding.


Yup. Like the Beyer numbers assigned to the 2 turf sprints run wed at Belmont. They are both way off. I die for mistakes like this. Can't wait for them to run back.

[raybo]

ANY repetitive process (and horse race handicapping is boringly repetitive) of decision making can be modeled, chunked into components, quantified, and "automated." I will bypass the long, boring explanation that no one will read anyway (especially if it conflicts with his or her preconceptions) and refer you to the Jedi Project, Grinder and Bandler's Structure of Magic, and the Complete Works of Milton Erickson.

Decision making is a very seriously studied and researched topic--especially by multinationals putting billions into the results of those decisions.

I didn't respond to Tom's post because I didn't think it deserved one. But, basically, I agree, almost anything racing related can be automated, to allow more time for those things which can't, or don't lend themselves easily to being automated. Anytime we can lighten our load, makes us able to progress faster, and to higher levels. He totally missed the point of my post, and I'm not going to explain it any further, it's pretty much self-explanatory as it is.

[Matt Bryan]

I do encounter people that bet solely on figures, which I guess is a good thing for other bettors. Hell, I've met an old guy that bets the same post position every race, every weekend - so, there are all sorts of people with money in the pools. But yeah, I don't know how certain figures are derived, so it's hard for me to accept them on their own. For example, this is the first year I got hip to dosage (thank$ to PA) around Derby time. I understand it now, but 'dosage index' is absolutely worthless (IMO), as well as the CD for handicapping purposes. From limited experience, one has to actually look at the dosage profile to extract any meaning out of the highly distributed index figures - figures that people do bet on. Sometimes I wonder, given similar track conditions, final times, etc., why a horse has a 105 SR vs. a similar horse with a 97 SR. Often, certain figures vary slightly between sources, leaving one slightly suspect, or slightly confused. In the end, figures do influence how one wagers or "views" information, similar to how odds influence our "view". And, similar to the above example, I'd rather calculate or look at a horses actual fractions (etc.), than accept a published speed or pace figure. But, all of that takes time, time that many can't or won't be bothered with - or, don't have time to be bothered with - particularly if they purchase a racing form upon arrival at whatever facility - you know, bettors with 25 minutes (or whatever) to make a decision.

[Tom]

He totally missed the point of my post, and I'm not going to explain it any further, it's pretty much self-explanatory as it is.
Excuse me for not being as smart as you are.
If your post was self-explanatory, I would not have asked.
I will just accept that it was as stupid as it sounded and move on.

[raybo]

Excuse me for not being as smart as you are.
If your post was self-explanatory, I would not have asked.
I will just accept that it was as stupid as it sounded and move on.

I expected such a response from you. So be it. Hope it makes you feel big and bad.