Advanced Pace Handicapping

[pandy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
Those are the exact numbers I am using to base my opinion. It's striking how deficient AP is on the closing number, yet how dominant he is on the early number.

Like I said, this will be one interesting race to watch in my opinion.


I brought back this quote from last week. Pace and I were chatting about how on Timeform's early/late ratings, which show a horses early speed and late speed, American Pharoah had a vastly superior early rating in the Belmont, but a closing number that was very low for a route race, especially at that distance.

I've been analyzing these ratings for several months, not only these two Timeform ratings, but similar ratings that I have in my own software, Diamond System, and other ratings I've seen. And by the way, these are my favorite Timeform ratings.

I've often said that one of the best ways to identify class is to compare how a horse finishes against the pace of the race. These numbers do a great job of showing precisely that.

The best combination of the two numbers for a route is a horse that has good, but not the best early speed numbers, and good, but not the best late speed numbers. Why? Because that is the type of horse that will sit just behind the speed, move to the lead in the stretch and hold off the deep closers. This is the most common profile for horses that win route races.

However, I have noticed that this formula can be overcome if a horse has either a big early speed advantage, or a big late speed advantage. In the Belmont, Amer. Pharoah's early speed advantage was profound. In situations like this, not only does the horse have the ability to get the lead, but it is likely to control the pace.

It also works with late speed because if one horse has an overwhelming late speed advantage, the other horses won't be able to match it's late burst, which is what happened in almost all of Zenyatta's race. However, the advantage has to be even more profound with late speed, since most races are won by horses that are close to the pace.

You can't use regular pace figures for this to work. Pace figures only show a horse's speed to the pace call. The early speed number has to be a combination of first two call speed, and you can even incorporate some sort of speed point rating into the number. I've been working on a simple paper and pen formula that handicappers can use.

This is a powerful handicapping angle. Like any numbers, you have to learn how to interpret these ratings, but they are good.


Here is an example. The number on the left is early speed, the number on the right is late speed. Here is an 8 horse field.

Let's say that this is a one mile race, around one or two turns, I don't think it matters. The top horse is post 1, and so on.

100/20
98/11
75/75
33/81
33/82
50/69
102/15
29/88


Who has the best chance of winning this race? The three horse, without a doubt. Notice that there are three high early speed horses, the 1, 2, and 7. They all have poor finishing times, which is common with high early speed horses. At a mile, they will most likely tire each other out. The 8 horse is the strongest closer but notice that the 4, 5, and 8 horses all finish well but they are far back.

The three and five horses will be in good spots sitting behind the early pace. But the five horse doesn't have a strong kick (69). The five will make a run but it probably won't be strong enough. The three horse has the best late speed kick of any of the horses that can actually be forwardly placed. The three horse will sit behind the speed, take the lead and then it will be a matter of whether or not it can hold off the late charge of the 8. Most of the time it will because these deep closers usually finish underneath.

Hopefully I can put this all together in a clear and understandable way and it will be the subject of my next book.

Now in situations where there is one dominant early speed horse, the horse has a good chance to win regardless of the distance. Whether or not you should bet it depends on the odds, as it does in all cases.

[DeltaLover]

I like the topic of this thread.. I also think that instead of a fictions race than the one you are using in your example, it is going to be better if we select a real race and base are conversations on it..

[pandy]

Yes. I didn't want to post the actual Timeform early/late numbers for a race here because I don't know if that's a copy right infringement.

[DJofSD]

Numbers don't always tell the entire story. IOW, sometimes it is the heart or the courage of a horse that determines who wins. In some instances I would call that class.

[pandy]

Yes there are other things to consider, including speed figures, or whatever else you use. But pace handicapping is a very useful tool, and this is another way to use it rather than just looking at the pace figures for the second call, as most do.

[Magister Ludi]

The average MJ energy expenditure which minimizes time for a thoroughbred racehorse is about 52% in the first half of a race and 48% in the second half.

[Tom]

These numbers and the running styles have been a big part of my analysis since the old PaceFigure days. Using the two in combination, along with the PF numbers, the Manhatten on Belmont Day was a key play for me, and a winner at 14-1. Basically the winner was competitive in PF numbers and looked to be favored by the race shape - not a lot of early pace and if you threw out the "plodders" his late numbers ranked him third best, with what looked to first run in the stretch.

[pandy]

These numbers and the running styles have been a big part of my analysis since the old PaceFigure days. Using the two in combination, along with the PF numbers, the Manhatten on Belmont Day was a key play for me, and a winner at 14-1. Basically the winner was competitive in PF numbers and looked to be favored by the race shape - not a lot of early pace and if you threw out the "plodders" his late numbers ranked him third best, with what looked to first run in the stretch.

That's it! Another way to use it, when there's a lot of pace. In the Met Mile there were four horses with huge early speed numbers, Private Zone, Bay Of Plenty, Bayern and Pants On Fire. The two best late speeds were Tonalist and Honor Code. I picked them in that order and played the exacta, which came out with the better value on top, Honor Code over Tonalist. Overall the card was brutally tough, and my picks stunk but you have to pick your spots.

[cj]

Belmont:

[pondman]

As someone who spends a great deal of time telling players to back away from the numbers, I would have to agree that playing a combination of early pace and speed in a small number of spots is profitable. But usually the race plays out differently than expect. You think the riders is going to take it on the lead. And half way though the race you are in 5th. And then you see it rolling late. The danger of the theory is blanketing every track with a method, and trying to kill the world. There are a number of tracks that when the bell ring the riders are going to hit it. And at other track the riders are all looking around to see who is going to make the moves 1st. And if you haven't done enough background on the track and riding styles, none of it will make any sense.

[pandy]

Belmont:


This is an enormous early speed edge, to say the least. Of the horses that could stay close, Frosted comes home the best so not a big surprise that he ran second. If American Pharoah's early number had been more typical, like a 101, Frosted would have won because Materality's pace pressure would have neutralized Pharoah's but when the advantage is so dominant it's tough to soften that speed up.

[cj]

I would add that sometimes you have to watch the races as well. I think it is very clear American Pharoah would have had a much better late rating if asked at all in the Preakness and the two Arkansas races.

[pandy]

As someone who spends a great deal of time telling players to back away from the numbers, I would have to agree that playing a combination of early pace and speed in a small number of spots is profitable. But usually the race plays out differently than expect. You think the riders is going to take it on the lead. And half way though the race you are in 5th. And then you see it rolling late. The danger of the theory is blanketing every track with a method, and trying to kill the world. There are a number of tracks that when the bell ring the riders are going to hit it. And at other track the riders are all looking around to see who is going to make the moves 1st. And if you haven't done enough background on the track and riding styles, none of it will make any sense.


True, the race doesn't always go as it looks it will. There have been a few times when I spotted horse that was a standout in a route on the same type of situation that I used in my example, at the smaller, cheaper tracks, and I've found that these were very solid plays, and I got some prices. I bet a few without looking at the pps at all and they won.

[cj]

This is an enormous early speed edge, to say the least. Of the horses that could stay close, Frosted comes home the best so not a big surprise that he ran second. If American Pharoah's early number had been more typical, like a 101, Frosted would have won because Materality's pace pressure would have neutralized Pharoah's but when the advantage is so dominant it's tough to soften that speed up.

I agree, part of why I said in another thread that a rabbit wouldn't have mattered. He isn't a headstrong speed horse, he can rate. He has a high cruising speed that few others can match without killing themselves in the process.

[AndyC]

The average MJ energy expenditure which minimizes time for a thoroughbred racehorse is about 52% in the first half of a race and 48% in the second half.

Are those percentages for dirt racing only? I would have to believe that turf racing would be reversed.

[classhandicapper]

One of the issues I have with combining early and late numbers is that to some extent you are recreating a slightly altered final time figure. I'm way more comfortable with looking for extremes in either early or late speed and then assuming that the horse is probably capable of better if he distributes his energy more in line with the profile for that track and surface on that day or gets a good setup.

Also, figures get impacted by how the riders adjust to the surface.

I've seen days where if you just looked at the charts, you would think the track was honest. But if you watched all the races and knew that the track had been favoring speed in recent days, you would know how aggressive the riders were being in an effort to take advantage of the track, which in turn made the races play honest and inflated the typical pace numbers these horses would have run.

That kind of stuff in either direction complicates the analysis.

I think it helps sometimes to just watch races and see the race flow relative to expectations without looking at the pace. That sometimes gives you a better feel for how the pace/track combination was actually impacting the races instead how the pace theoretically should have impacted the races.

[Cratos]

That's it! Another way to use it, when there's a lot of pace. In the Met Mile there were four horses with huge early speed numbers, Private Zone, Bay Of Plenty, Bayern and Pants On Fire. The two best late speeds were Tonalist and Honor Code. I picked them in that order and played the exacta, which came out with the better value on top, Honor Code over Tonalist. Overall the card was brutally tough, and my picks stunk but you have to pick your spots.
I respect your point of view about "pace", but Magistri Ludi has made the most salient point thius far in this thread and that is energy expenditure is the key consideration.

Furthermore, it would be helpful if "pace" as you understand it to be, was defined by you. I personally define pace not by speed/velocity because those are just resultants of the kinetic force applied by the horse to overcome the resistance of the environmental force which retards the horse's motion.

Yes, that is a more complex understanding, but that is what should be understood in the conversation about " pace."

In the Met Mile which I spoke about on this Forum before the race and was doubtful about betting the race because I felt it was a two horse race ( Honor Code. and Tonalist) between the inherent class of those horses.

However when the toteboard flashed with Honor Code. at 7-1 and Tonalist at 9-5 I was compel to gamble and I did by placing a " bucket of wooden nickels" on Honor Code and the rest is history.

[DeltaLover]

I respect your point of view about "pace", but Magistri Ludi has made the most salient point thius far in this thread and that is energy expenditure is the key consideration.

Furthermore, it would be helpful if "pace" as you understand it to be, was defined by you. I personally define pace not by speed/velocity because those are just resultants of the kinetic force applied by the horse to overcome the resistance of the environmental force which retards the horse's motion.

Yes, that is a more complex understanding, but that is what should be understood in the conversation about " pace."

In the Met Mile which I spoke about on this Forum before the race and was doubtful about betting the race because I felt it was a two horse race ( Honor Code. and Tonalist) between the inherent class of those horses.

However when the toteboard flashed with Honor Code. at 7-1 and Tonalist at 9-5 I was compel to gamble and I did by placing a " bucket of wooden nickels" on Honor Code and the rest is history.


My suggestion for this thread, is to eliminate references to theories and be more pragmatic, referring to concrete and real data, as opposing to generalizations and academical arguments...

[traynor]

Hopefully I can put this all together in a clear and understandable way and it will be the subject of my next book.


I coded in your pace preference idea (at what point in the race the winner takes the lead) that you posted here awhile back. It generates a letter--"E" for early, etc. Only consideration is to look at each winning race, and assign an indicator of the position at which that winner took (and maintained) the lead. I hooked it to the horses name, so any time the PPs of that entry are accessed, a label indicates that horse's "pace preference."

I am not a beginner at pace handicapping. Combining the designations you provided with related segment pace figures opens a whole new world of understanding of how pace preferences interact in the overall race.

[Cratos]

My suggestion for this thread, is to eliminate references to theories and be more pragmatic, referring to concrete and real data, as opposing to generalizations and academical arguments...
I did not post something that is just theoretically possible, but something that actually happens each time a horse runs.

Everything I posted is concrete and real as you attempted to take what was posted in a different direction.

I will not derail this thread by using the math and science to prove the factuality of my assertion because it is not necessary.

If you don't understand, I can't help you. I truly believe that there are some very bright posters and viewers who have a clear and comprehensive understanding. of what was written.

[pandy]

Thanks Traynor.

[DeltaLover]

.

I will not derail this thread by using the math and science to prove the factuality of my assertion because it is not necessary.

If you don't understand, I can't help you. I truly believe that there are some very bright posters and viewers who have a clear and comprehensive understanding. of what was written.

Try to keep it pragmatic

Its OK if you apply math, as long as you back your statements with concrete data..

[traynor]

Thanks Traynor.

This may not be identical to your designations, but close enough for the kind of work we do around here.

If dbl1CPace <= 1.0 Then
strPreferredPaceStyle = "E"
End If

If dbl1CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dbl2CPace <= 1.0 Then
strPreferredPaceStyle = "P"
End If

If dbl1CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dbl2CPace > 1.0 _
AndAlso dbl3CPace <= 1.0 Then
strPreferredPaceStyle = "M"
End If

If dbl1CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dbl2CPace > 1.0 _
AndAlso dbl3CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dblStrCPace <= 1.0 Then
strPreferredPaceStyle = "L"
End If

If dbl1CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dbl2CPace > 1.0 _
AndAlso dbl3CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dblStrCPace > 1.0 Then
strPreferredPaceStyle = "F"
End If

The dbl-whatever-pace is equivalent to a doublo value representing beaten lengths at each position. The <= 1.0 would be not just the point at which the horse took the lead, but the point at which it began seriously contesting for the lead.

[Cratos]

Try to keep it pragmatic

Its OK if you apply math, as long as you back your statements with concrete data..
If you meant by pragmatism that the post content should be sensibly and realistically; I couldn't have stated my prior post better.

No, I will not go into math and scIence; and I think you know also that the math and science is complex and would add very little insight and is not necessary.

Move on, we are diverting away from the thread's topic.

[DeltaLover]

If you meant by pragmatism that the post content should be sensibly and realistically; I couldn't have stated my prior post better.

No, I will not go into math and scIence; and I think you know also that the math and science is complex and would add very little insight and is not necessary.

Move on, we are diverting away from the thread's topic.

What I mean, is to try to keep our discussion and conclusions within tangible data that we easily reproduce and verify applying a typical historical results database. Keeping the discussion within abstract layers without stepping in to specific examples, is not the best way to express an handicapping approach and idea.

[Tom]

Traynor,
Any idea when Pandy posted that stuff you mentioned?
I was looking for it but couldn't find it.

Thanks

[thaskalos]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
Those are the exact numbers I am using to base my opinion. It's striking how deficient AP is on the closing number, yet how dominant he is on the early number.

Like I said, this will be one interesting race to watch in my opinion.


I brought back this quote from last week. Pace and I were chatting about how on Timeform's early/late ratings, which show a horses early speed and late speed, American Pharoah had a vastly superior early rating in the Belmont, but a closing number that was very low for a route race, especially at that distance.

I've been analyzing these ratings for several months, not only these two Timeform ratings, but similar ratings that I have in my own software, Diamond System, and other ratings I've seen. And by the way, these are my favorite Timeform ratings.

I've often said that one of the best ways to identify class is to compare how a horse finishes against the pace of the race. These numbers do a great job of showing precisely that.

The best combination of the two numbers for a route is a horse that has good, but not the best early speed numbers, and good, but not the best late speed numbers. Why? Because that is the type of horse that will sit just behind the speed, move to the lead in the stretch and hold off the deep closers. This is the most common profile for horses that win route races.

However, I have noticed that this formula can be overcome if a horse has either a big early speed advantage, or a big late speed advantage. In the Belmont, Amer. Pharoah's early speed advantage was profound. In situations like this, not only does the horse have the ability to get the lead, but it is likely to control the pace.

It also works with late speed because if one horse has an overwhelming late speed advantage, the other horses won't be able to match it's late burst, which is what happened in almost all of Zenyatta's race. However, the advantage has to be even more profound with late speed, since most races are won by horses that are close to the pace.

You can't use regular pace figures for this to work. Pace figures only show a horse's speed to the pace call. The early speed number has to be a combination of first two call speed, and you can even incorporate some sort of speed point rating into the number. I've been working on a simple paper and pen formula that handicappers can use.

This is a powerful handicapping angle. Like any numbers, you have to learn how to interpret these ratings, but they are good.


Here is an example. The number on the left is early speed, the number on the right is late speed. Here is an 8 horse field.

Let's say that this is a one mile race, around one or two turns, I don't think it matters. The top horse is post 1, and so on.

100/20
98/11
75/75
33/81
33/82
50/69
102/15
29/88


Who has the best chance of winning this race? The three horse, without a doubt. Notice that there are three high early speed horses, the 1, 2, and 7. They all have poor finishing times, which is common with high early speed horses. At a mile, they will most likely tire each other out. The 8 horse is the strongest closer but notice that the 4, 5, and 8 horses all finish well but they are far back.

The three and five horses will be in good spots sitting behind the early pace. But the five horse doesn't have a strong kick (69). The five will make a run but it probably won't be strong enough. The three horse has the best late speed kick of any of the horses that can actually be forwardly placed. The three horse will sit behind the speed, take the lead and then it will be a matter of whether or not it can hold off the late charge of the 8. Most of the time it will because these deep closers usually finish underneath.

Hopefully I can put this all together in a clear and understandable way and it will be the subject of my next book.

Now in situations where there is one dominant early speed horse, the horse has a good chance to win regardless of the distance. Whether or not you should bet it depends on the odds, as it does in all cases.

The example race that you have furnished above is inadequate in proving your "pace handicapping" point...because the 3-horse is so outstanding relative to the rest of the field, that it would have a huge final-time figure advantage as well. How about an example where the horses lined up like this?

100/61
96/65
90/70
80/80
65/98
55/108
50/107
20/124

You say that "you can't use regular pace figures for this to work, because pace figures only show a horse's speed to the pace call. The early speed number has to be a combination of first two call speed." I may be misunderstanding you here...but won't combining the first two calls lead to exactly the same number as the number indicated by the "regular pace figure"? If a sprinter's first call is 22:00, and his second call is a 23:00...then combining the two will be a 45:00...which is exactly the same as the "regular pace figure" would indicate.

Lastly...you can't compare early ratings and late ratings in equal measure when you are pace-handicapping...because they don't both represent equal amounts of work done by the horse. Using a 6-furlong race as a convenient example, the early rating is earned while working over 4 furlongs of ground...while the horse only has to toil for 2 furlongs for the late rating. Big difference, IMO.

"Advanced pace handicapping" is called "advanced", because it grapples with advanced pace issues. Otherwise, it isn't "advanced".

[Tom]

These are not regular pace numbers. They have more to them.

[classhandicapper]

This may not be identical to your designations, but close enough for the kind of work we do around here.

If dbl1CPace <= 1.0 Then
strPreferredPaceStyle = "E"
End If

If dbl1CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dbl2CPace <= 1.0 Then
strPreferredPaceStyle = "P"
End If

If dbl1CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dbl2CPace > 1.0 _
AndAlso dbl3CPace <= 1.0 Then
strPreferredPaceStyle = "M"
End If

If dbl1CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dbl2CPace > 1.0 _
AndAlso dbl3CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dblStrCPace <= 1.0 Then
strPreferredPaceStyle = "L"
End If

If dbl1CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dbl2CPace > 1.0 _
AndAlso dbl3CPace > 1.0 AndAlso dblStrCPace > 1.0 Then
strPreferredPaceStyle = "F"
End If

The dbl-whatever-pace is equivalent to a doublo value representing beaten lengths at each position. The <= 1.0 would be not just the point at which the horse took the lead, but the point at which it began seriously contesting for the lead.



Are you looking at last race, multiple races, making adjustment for distance of race, looking at only races at a similar distance etc...?

[pandy]

The example race that you have furnished above is inadequate in proving your "pace handicapping" point...because the 3-horse is so outstanding relative to the rest of the field, that it would have a huge final-time figure advantage as well. How about an example where the horses lined up like this?

100/61
96/65
90/70
80/80
65/98
55/108
50/107
20/124

You say that "you can't use regular pace figures for this to work, because pace figures only show a horse's speed to the pace call. The early speed number has to be a combination of first two call speed." I may be misunderstanding you here...but won't combining the first two calls lead to exactly the same number as the number indicated by the "regular pace figure"? If a sprinter's first call is 22:00, and his second call is a 23:00...then combining the two will be a 45:00...which is exactly the same as the "regular pace figure" would indicate.

Lastly...you can't compare early ratings and late ratings in equal measure when you are pace-handicapping...because they don't both represent equal amounts of work done by the horse. Using a 6-furlong race as a convenient example, the early rating is earned while working over 4 furlongs of ground...while the horse only has to toil for 2 furlongs for the late rating. Big difference, IMO.

"Advanced pace handicapping" is called "advanced", because it grapples with advanced pace issues. Otherwise, it isn't "advanced".

I don't know exactly how Timeform is creating that early speed rating but it can't be just based on a regular pace call pace figure. I have a rating I developed called ESR (early speed rating) which combines first and second call times but also gives points for a horse's position at both calls. So it's sort of like combining first and second call pace figures with Quirin type Speed Points. I did that because I've never liked speed points. Speed points give too much credit for a horse getting the lead in a slow race.

My ESR is a much better indicator of which horse has an early speed advantage than speed points.

And so is this Timeform rating we've shown. As for the late rating, I'm not sure that Timeform is only using the last 2 furlongs. As some people know, I developed a late speed rating called KICK and that takes into account a much longer segment of the race. For instance, in a 9 furlong race, my Kick Rating is based on the last 5 furlongs of the race.

Timeform may also be using a longer segment of the race.

As many of you know, you can do similar things with Energy Ratings. I also created my own energy rating. An energy rating will give you an idea of how much a horse will have left for the finish, and how far back it may be. Horses with extremely high energy ratings tend to be too far back, however. That's why it's good to also use this sort of early/late comparison as a compliment to Energy. A horse with high late energy and a solid early speed rating is going to be tough to beat.

[pandy]

The example race that you have furnished above is inadequate in proving your "pace handicapping" point...because the 3-horse is so outstanding relative to the rest of the field, that it would have a huge final-time figure advantage as well. How about an example where the horses lined up like this?

100/61
96/65
90/70
80/80
65/98
55/108
50/107
20/124


In the example that Thaskalos provided, the 4 horse has an advantage. He finishes better than the front runners and he'll be in a better spot than the late closers. He'll get first run. I would have to get real good odds though because there are two strong closers here that aren't that far behind the 80/80 horse in tactical speed, so he would have to hold off two closers. And if the pace is really hot, the 20/124 horse will be coming on, too. Many times there is only one horse that has a good kick and won't be in another county when it makes its move, so the MIDPACK horse takes the lead and only has one horse to hold off.

By the way, using these Timeform numbers I have found horses that appeared to be in a perfect situation in route races and they did win and I did get some nice prices. Patience.

[cj]

I don't know exactly how Timeform is creating that early speed rating but it can't be just based on a regular pace call pace figure. I have a rating I developed called ESR (early speed rating) which combines first and second call times but also gives points for a horse's position at both calls. So it's sort of like combining first and second call pace figures with Quirin type Speed Points. I did that because I've never liked speed points. Speed points give too much credit for a horse getting the lead in a slow race.

My ESR is a much better indicator of which horse has an early speed advantage than speed points.

And so is this Timeform rating we've shown. As for the late rating, I'm not sure that Timeform is only using the last 2 furlongs. As some people know, I developed a late speed rating called KICK and that takes into account a much longer segment of the race. For instance, in a 9 furlong race, my Kick Rating is based on the last 5 furlongs of the race.

Timeform may also be using a longer segment of the race.

As many of you know, you can do similar things with Energy Ratings. I also created my own energy rating. An energy rating will give you an idea of how much a horse will have left for the finish, and how far back it may be. Horses with extremely high energy ratings tend to be too far back, however. That's why it's good to also use this sort of early/late comparison as a compliment to Energy. A horse with high late energy and a solid early speed rating is going to be tough to beat.

The TimeformUS ratings are combinations of running style and velocity over the last five races, and include adjustments for surface and distance.

I front runner is almost never going to have a high late speed rating because early position matters there too rating wise. I never believed in giving high "late" ratings to horses that set an easy lead and fly home. It is counter to reality. That is the last horse I'd want to consider if I expect a fast pace.

The late rating is about velocity, early position, and actually passing horses. It considers the last fraction (varies according to distance) and also the early pace, i.e. slow or fast.

[DeltaLover]

As I have said earlier, I think this is a very nice topic of conversation and this why I wrote a blog posting where I am expressing my views about advanced pace handicapping (http://tinyurl.com/nffasw3) which as you can read, are about detecting pace scenarios that will allow something completely unexpected to happen, cashing a large ticket and hitting a big upset..

[pandy]

The TimeformUS ratings are combinations of running style and velocity over the last five races, and include adjustments for surface and distance.

I front runner is almost never going to have a high late speed rating because early position matters there too rating wise. I never believed in giving high "late" ratings to horses that set an easy lead and fly home. It is counter to reality. That is the last horse I'd want to consider if I expect a fast pace.

The late rating is about velocity, early position, and actually passing horses. It considers the last fraction (varies according to distance) and also the early pace, i.e. slow or fast.


Thanks for the explanation. One of the things that makes the ratings so useful is that you aren't just using one paceline.

[classhandicapper]

Pandy,

I like the idea behind what you are trying to do, but I know from your web page you are also bias sensitive like me. So you know that can throw a huge curveball into this kind of analysis. The jockeys "might" change tactics to fit the track which also changes the fractions.

When I get conflicting information like that it creates a dilemma.

1. The pace looks it will be honest but track is carrying speed and the jockeys have been gunning. Will they or won't they gun in this race?

2. The pace looks like it will be hot but the rail is golden. Will it carry the inside speed anyway?

3. The pace looks like it will be slow but the rail is dead. Will the jockey know to avoid it or get himself beat by talking the speed right to the inside.

4. The pace looks like it will be slow, but speed has been bad. Will the jockey back the pace up enough to offset it?

This kind of things happens often enough to matter. I tend to just throw up my hands and wait for all the stars to line up.

What do you do?

[pandy]

Not all of these scenarios are based on entirely the race shape. For instance, in my first example I say that the 75/75 horse will win because it will sit behind the speed and get first run. Well, I'm not necessary assuming that the 102, 100, and 98 pace fig horses are going to get into a speed duel and kill each other. As we know, one often outruns the others, the speed of the speed.

But if often doesn't matter. These horses don't finish well under any circumstances. Even if they don't go out for the lead, they'll be forwardly placed, and they just don't finish well. So even if the pace is just average, the 75/75 horse is still going to be nicely placed and have more left in the stretch than the early speed types.

One thing about this type of approach, it's best to find situations that are ideal and then hope that the horse that sticks out does not go off as a big favorite. There are races, especially at the major tracks, where it's hard to find one horse that seems to have an advantage using these type of numbers.

[traynor]

Traynor,
Any idea when Pandy posted that stuff you mentioned?
I was looking for it but couldn't find it.

Thanks

Way back in the harness thread. I'll look.

[cj]

Pandy,

I like the idea behind what you are trying to do, but I know from your web page you are also bias sensitive like me. So you know that can throw a huge curveball into this kind of analysis. The jockeys "might" change tactics to fit the track which also changes the fractions.

When I get conflicting information like that it creates a dilemma.

1. The pace looks it will be honest but track is carrying speed and the jockeys have been gunning. Will they or won't they gun in this race?

2. The pace looks like it will be hot but the rail is golden. Will it carry the inside speed anyway?

3. The pace looks like it will be slow but the rail is dead. Will the jockey know to avoid it or get himself beat by talking the speed right to the inside.

4. The pace looks like it will be slow, but speed has been bad. Will the jockey back the pace up enough to offset it?

This kind of things happens often enough to matter. I tend to just throw up my hands and wait for all the stars to line up.

What do you do?

This is why I call you Passhandicapper, paralysis by over-analysis.

[traynor]

Traynor,
Any idea when Pandy posted that stuff you mentioned?
I was looking for it but couldn't find it.

Thanks

Pandy,
Do you remember the heading of the thread you posted it in?
Thanks

[thaskalos]

Not all of these scenarios are based on entirely the race shape. For instance, in my first example I say that the 75/75 horse will win because it will sit behind the speed and get first run. Well, I'm not necessary assuming that the 102, 100, and 98 pace fig horses are going to get into a speed duel and kill each other. As we know, one often outruns the others, the speed of the speed.

But if often doesn't matter. These horses don't finish well under any circumstances. Even if they don't go out for the lead, they'll be forwardly placed, and they just don't finish well. So even if the pace is just average, the 75/75 horse is still going to be nicely placed and have more left in the stretch than the early speed types.

One thing about this type of approach, it's best to find situations that are ideal and then hope that the horse that sticks out does not go off as a big favorite. There are races, especially at the major tracks, where it's hard to find one horse that seems to have an advantage using these type of numbers.

Yes, Pandy...but you are a little confusing in your original post here. First you tell us that the horses who show "balance" in their early/late ratings are the biggest threats to win the race...and right after that you tell us that a horse can also win if he has either a big EARLY, or a big LATE advantage over the field. So...which way do we turn in a race where we have TWO of the horses that you mention?

What if we have a nicely-balanced horse in a speed-contested race...but there is also a horse in there who has a big LATE advantage?

[pandy]

Pandy,
Do you remember the heading of the thread you posted it in?
Thanks


Sorry, I can't remember.

[pandy]

Yes, Pandy...but you are a little confusing in your original post here. First you tell us that the horses who show "balance" in their early/late ratings are the biggest threats to win the race...and right after that you tell us that a horse can also win if he has either a big EARLY, or a big LATE advantage over the field. So...which way do we turn in a race where we have TWO of the horses that you mention?

What if we have a nicely-balanced horse in a speed-contested race...but there is also a horse in there who has a big LATE advantage?

Well the balanced horse has the advantage simply based on the fact that midpack horses win much more often than late horses. But, in a situation like this the late horse could be the better bet if it is being overlooked. Of course it depends a bit on the track. At Santa Anita, for instance, deep closers rarely win.

For exotic players, they can use them both in a Pick 3, Double, etc.

[traynor]

Sorry, I can't remember.
I think it may have been a link to an article you wrote. In any event, it is a great idea, and you deserve the credit for it. Whether you can remember it or not.

[pandy]

It may come to me, if so I'll find the article repost. Thank you.

[traynor]

Are you looking at last race, multiple races, making adjustment for distance of race, looking at only races at a similar distance etc...?

All of the above (and considerably more) in the analysis stage. In the stage indicated, I am only assigning a label to the pace performance of that particular entry in a race it won (or nearly won, which is much the same). Those labels (and a bunch of other stuff) go into a dump file under that horse's name. In subsequent races, whenever an entry shows up that has a "pace profile of winning efforts" it shows up on my main screen (along with a rather complex output that correlates the pace preferences, race segments in FPS, and a bunch of other stuff).

Simply stated, an example would be an entry with "EEEE" indicates in every race in which it won or finished within a length of the winner, it had the lead (or was contesting it) at the first call and never gave it up. In order to "run its race," it has to be within one length (potential) early pace compared to the other contenders (not the other entries--that is a different thing). So the app compares the early pace of the other contenders and decides if the horse is question is likely to gets its preferred pace style in this particular race, this distance, this surface, this class level, against this particular field of contenders. Or not.

[Tom]

It may come to me, if so I'll find the article repost. Thank you.

I'll go through the Harness thread - didn't look in there.

[traynor]

I'll go through the Harness thread - didn't look in there.

I did. Couldn't find it. It may be in there, another heading. I just looked at threads started by pandy.

[whodoyoulike]

...

Here is an example. The number on the left is early speed, the number on the right is late speed. Here is an 8 horse field.

Let's say that this is a one mile race, around one or two turns, I don't think it matters. The top horse is post 1, and so on.

100/20
98/11
75/75
33/81
33/82
50/69
102/15
29/88


Who has the best chance of winning this race? The three horse, without a doubt. Notice that there are three high early speed horses, the 1, 2, and 7. They all have poor finishing times, which is common with high early speed horses. At a mile, they will most likely tire each other out. The 8 horse is the strongest closer but notice that the 4, 5, and 8 horses all finish well but they are far back...

Now in situations where there is one dominant early speed horse, the horse has a good chance to win regardless of the distance. Whether or not you should bet it depends on the odds, as it does in all cases.



The example race that you have furnished above is inadequate in proving your "pace handicapping" point...because the 3-horse is so outstanding relative to the rest of the field, that it would have a huge final-time figure advantage as well. How about an example where the horses lined up like this?

100/61
96/65
90/70
80/80
65/98
55/108
50/107
20/124

You say that "you can't use regular pace figures for this to work, because pace figures only show a horse's speed to the pace call. The early speed number has to be a combination of first two call speed." I may be misunderstanding you here...but won't combining the first two calls lead to exactly the same number as the number indicated by the "regular pace figure"? If a sprinter's first call is 22:00, and his second call is a 23:00...then combining the two will be a 45:00...which is exactly the same as the "regular pace figure" would indicate.

Lastly...you can't compare early ratings and late ratings in equal measure when you are pace-handicapping...because they don't both represent equal amounts of work done by the horse. Using a 6-furlong race as a convenient example, the early rating is earned while working over 4 furlongs of ground...while the horse only has to toil for 2 furlongs for the late rating. Big difference, IMO.

"Advanced pace handicapping" is called "advanced", because it grapples with advanced pace issues. Otherwise, it isn't "advanced".


So, under these two situations how did each turn out?

And, did both play out as you both predicted?

If you're both unwilling to present the actual results, I don't understand the purpose of either examples.

[pandy]

These are examples we made up. I can't use actual examples because it is not my property, it's Timeform's. I have had winners using these ratings in this manner. I'm not saying that this is the only way to handicap a race. It is just another way of analyzing the race using each horse's pace profile. In some races the ratings are very closely matched and it's not much help (just as speed figures are not much help when all of the horses have about the same speed figure).

If you think about, though, it's smart handicapping. You're looking at a horse's ability to stay with the early leaders and how the horse finishes compared to the other horse's in the race. Stalkers win a lot of races. If you bet on horses that sit just off the speed and finish better than the speed, you get a lot of winners. Of course these ratings also show when a horse has a big early speed advantage in which case you play the speed.

[Robert Goren]

These are examples we made up. I can't use actual examples because it is not my property, it's Timeform's. I have had winners using these ratings in this manner. I'm not saying that this is the only way to handicap a race. It is just another way of analyzing the race using each horse's pace profile. In some races the ratings are very closely matched and it's not much help (just as speed figures are not much help when all of the horses have about the same speed figure).

If you think about, though, it's smart handicapping. You're looking at a horse's ability to stay with the early leaders and how the horse finishes compared to the other horse's in the race. Stalkers win a lot of races. If you bet on horses that sit just off the speed and finish better than the speed, you get a lot of winners. Of course these ratings also show when a horse has a big early speed advantage in which case you play the speed.I will say this when you start to look at closers pace rating, you find quite a few shorter priced horses who are going to have close an ungodly number of lengths to win, often in the 10+ range. It has been my experience that those closers seldom win no matter contested the lead is. I use Bris's first quarter rating to determine how fast the pace will be. A point = a half length. An example of the above would be a couple of "need to lead" types with 98s or 99s pace rating and a closer who has not seen 78 or above pace rating. This kind of race shows up every 2 or 3 cards at least. It gives you an automatic throw out horse often going off at 3/1 or less. I have seen them as low as even money in a race with a lot of front runners. My general rule is they are not within 15 points, I toss them. I will say this, I do like comparing pace ratings unless they are from exactly same distance as today's race. Taking a pace rating from a 5 1/2 F for 6F is the height of folly in my opinion.

[classhandicapper]

This is why I call you Passhandicapper, paralysis by over-analysis.

When these kinds of things pop up, I see them as critical to evaluating the fair odds. If the rider takes a loose leader to a very bad rail, the horse is a toss. If he gets to the lead and stays in the 3 path, he might be even money.

The problem is that these circumstances are usually unique enough that it's very hard to make good value judgements. It's kind of like some really experienced chess player feeling a bit lost because he's never seen this variation of a certain opening before. It doesn't matter how good he is, if he hasn't had a chance to study it, he's going to be uncomfortable.

[pandy]

I will say this when you start to look at closers pace rating, you find quite a few shorter priced horses who are going to have close an ungodly number of lengths to win, often in the 10+ range. It has been my experience that those closers seldom win no matter contested the lead is. I use Bris's first quarter rating to determine how fast the pace will be. A point = a half length. An example of the above would be a couple of "need to lead" types with 98s or 99s pace rating and a closer who has not seen 78 or above pace rating. This kind of race shows up every 2 or 3 cards at least. It gives you an automatic throw out horse often going off at 3/1 or less. I have seen them as low as even money in a race with a lot of front runners. My general rule is they are not within 15 points, I toss them. I will say this, I do like comparing pace ratings unless they are from exactly same distance as today's race. Taking a pace rating from a 5 1/2 F for 6F is the height of folly in my opinion.

Good points, I agree about the closers. That's why in my example I'm not playing the strongest closer, I'm looking for the midpack horses that can finish. As for the pace ratings from the same race, the Timeform ratings I'm using as an example of this style of pace handicapping are based on an average of the last 5 races, so that sort of allieviates part of the risk of using pacelines that are not compatible.

[classhandicapper]

This approach has some things in common with the Sartin approach. I never became very familiar with what they do, but I always thought building race profiles for what typically wins at track A, on surface B, at distance C, with pace setup D was a very good way to specialize and find value given that most people have a more generalized view of how these things work. It was more their ratings I didn't like.

[Tom]

Using TFUS adjusted times in their formulas is a very good tool.

[classhandicapper]

Here's something I do sometimes.

Most people analyze a race and come to some conclusion about how a race is likely to develop. Then they structure their ticket around that conclusion. After they are wrong about the race development (which is inevitable some of the time), they curse and scream about jockeys choking horses back or whatever. The problem of course is that sometimes one of the speeds breaks badly, someone shows surprise speed, the jockeys don't cooperate etc...

One way around that is to construct what I call "OR" tickets.

Let's say you see 2 possible scenarios for a particular race. It will either be a really fast pace and meltdown or a more average pace depending on key jockey decisions you can't be sure of beforehand.

In the first scenario you like #1 best and #2 second best.

In the second scenario you like #3 best and #4 second best.

Instead of playing (#1 and #2) OR (#3 and #4) in horizontals depending on your pace view, play #1 and #3. You are basically conceding that you aren't sure how the race will develop, but covering both possibilities with the best horse under each scenario.

[pondman]

Here's something I do sometimes.

Most people analyze a race and come to some conclusion about how a race is likely to develop. Then they structure their ticket around that conclusion. After they are wrong about the race development (which is inevitable some of the time), they curse and scream about jockeys choking horses back or whatever. The problem of course is that sometimes one of the speeds breaks badly, someone shows surprise speed, the jockeys don't cooperate etc...

And then there are people who understand class. And don't care how the horse ran last out, because they know the horse is being run in the right spot, and the rider can win from any position because the horses are cheaper.