One vs. Two Turn Races

[five-eighths]

I've been trying to look for an answer and couldn't find it.

With regards to 1 vs. 2 turn races with the same distance, for example a 6f race at a big track like Belmont is only one turn, but one at a smaller track would be two turns, does that extra turn favor front runner type horses or stalking/closing type horses?

[DeltaLover]

I've been trying to look for an answer and couldn't find it.

With regards to 1 vs. 2 turn races with the same distance, for example a 6f race at a big track like Belmont is only one turn, but one at a smaller track would be two turns, does that extra turn favor front runner type horses or stalking/closing type horses?

How would you find it? What you have tried already ?

[five-eighths]

How would you find it? What you have tried already ?

Just trying to search for articles via google.

Thinking that extra turn would be troublesome for horses with less class, and also thinking the shorter stretch run would favor front runners, just not seeing any literature on that.

[Dave Schwartz]

Interesting idea for a study.

In my software we do not list the number of turns. However, we do list the distance of the oval.

I will put this study on my agenda and report something. Some day. Possibly soon.

[Ocala Mike]

Not carved in stone, but I've always intuiitively felt that the more turns, the more "E/P" type horses are favored.

A trip in the wayback machine when Belmont had something called the Widener chute (1950's) that ran diagonally from Floral Park to the finish line, cutting across the training track, 6f sprints were commonly won by middle of the pack closers.

[PhantomOnTour]

I love the one turn two turn dynamic that comes into play when NY racing makes the Bel-Sar-Bel move every summer & fall.
What I look for are runners who seem to prefer the one turn routes at Bel vs the two turn variety they run at Sar, or anywhere else...distance preference is also a factor as the shortest route run at Sar on dirt is 1m1/8 while Bel runs 1m and 1m16.

Route winners at the Bel spring/summer meet may not like the two turns at Sar, and vice versa when they return to Bel.

[Robert Fischer]

I've been trying to look for an answer and couldn't find it.

With regards to 1 vs. 2 turn races with the same distance, for example a 6f race at a big track like Belmont is only one turn, but one at a smaller track would be two turns, does that extra turn favor front runner type horses or stalking/closing type horses?
It calls into play the racing dynamics of an additional turn near the starting gate. This favors tactical speed and reasonable post position draw. A quick start and a quick burst to get position, and a jock who knows what he's doing, is worth more than plain ol' early speed.

[whodoyoulike]

I've been trying to look for an answer and couldn't find it.

With regards to 1 vs. 2 turn races with the same distance, for example a 6f race at a big track like Belmont is only one turn, but one at a smaller track would be two turns, does that extra turn favor front runner type horses or stalking/closing type horses?

A 6f race with 2 turns??

Which tracks are you looking at?

Are these "bull rings" because the dynamics of running are very different than at 1 mile ovals?

[ultracapper]

Fairplex at the LA County Fair was a 2 turn 6f race. Isn't Portland Meadows? Maybe the track in Vancouver BC? Not sure if these are 6f ovals or not. I could look it up, but too lazy.

[ultracapper]

Isn't Charlestown or Mountaineer? One of those in W. Virginia runs a 3 turn 1 1/16th if I'm not mistaken. Didn't Game On Dude win a 3 turn 1 1/8th at one of those a couple years ago? That would suggest a 2 turn 6 1/2 or 7 furlong race, if not a 6f 2 turner.

[dirty moose]

http://helloracefans.com/handicapping/distance/guide-to-one-and-two-turn-track-configurations/

[pandy]

http://helloracefans.com/handicapping/distance/guide-to-one-and-two-turn-track-configurations/


This is good information. It's important to know the difference because the times are much faster around one turn.

Generally speaking, one turn races are better for outside posts. Two turn races are good for inside posts, bad for outside posts. As far as speed, at some tracks inside speed does very well in two turn routes but speed from the outside tends to do well in one turn races.

Sometimes it's best to ignore a horse's subpar speed figure when it gets an outside post in a two turn race. Sometimes the horse is caught wide and the jockey doesn't bother pushing the horse, or the horse is a leaver but the jockey can't leave from the wide draw so the horse is out of it's style. Many of these horses come back from a better post and run well at a price.

[Valuist]

Sportsman's Park was a 5/8th mile track where the 6 furlong races were around two turns. The first few years I was betting it, speed was deadly. Then there was a year or two with a very strong, prolonged outside bias that made the previous years results irrelevant.

[five-eighths]

Interesting idea for a study.

In my software we do not list the number of turns. However, we do list the distance of the oval.

I will put this study on my agenda and report something. Some day. Possibly soon.

Thanks Dave, wasn't trying to stump anybody :D , appreciate all of the info on your site, watched a number of your videos on my handicapping journey.

[five-eighths]

A 6f race with 2 turns??

Which tracks are you looking at?

Are these "bull rings" because the dynamics of running are very different than at 1 mile ovals?

My home track Hazel Park runs two turn 5.5 and 6f races on a regular basis on a 5/8 mile track. They have even ran 3 turn 1 mile races on occasion.

[DeltaLover]

In contrary to what almost all believe about comparing one to two turn races, there does not appear to exist any significant difference in the way they both treat early speed.

To prove this I will compare the behaviour of the first and second call leaders between the distance of 1 1/16 miles at Belmont's (one turn) and Aqueduct's (two turns) inner track.

In the following table you can see the related data:

http://i60.tinypic.com/28cn13k.png

[Ocala Mike]

Your assertion is plausible, however, I would hardly refer to the data you present for one pair of tracks statistical "proof." It's like if someone posits that red cars are faster than silver cars and offers as "proof" that they just got passed in their silver Mazda by a red Mercedes.

[DeltaLover]

Your assertion is plausible, however, I would hardly refer to the data you present for one pair of tracks statistical "proof." It's like if someone posits that red cars are faster than silver cars and offers as "proof" that they just got passed in their silver Mazda by a red Mercedes.

So, can you please go ahead with your data that prove the opposite?

[Robert Fischer]

not everything has to be chi squared into bolivian to make sense of it

sometimes you just have to have insight into the dynamics of the sport

when you start comparing a factor such as 'early speed' across turn distances, you also have to consider that 1-turn races typically have a shorter distance, which in and of itself would logically be strongly correlated to early speed

when looking at 2 turns, it isn't so much pure 'early speed' that has to be accounted for, but rather what if any entries will advantageously 'play the first turn', and conversely, what if any entries will be disadvantaged by the first turn.

[DeltaLover]

not everything has to be chi squared into bolivian to make sense of it

sometimes you just have to have insight into the dynamics of the sport

when you start comparing a factor such as 'early speed' across turn distances, you also have to consider that 1-turn races typically have a shorter distance, which in and of itself would logically be strongly correlated to early speed

when looking at 2 turns, it isn't so much pure 'early speed' that has to be accounted for, but rather what if any entries will advantageously 'play the first turn', and conversely, what if any entries will be disadvantaged by the first turn.

Data do not lie

[whodoyoulike]

My home track Hazel Park runs two turn 5.5 and 6f races on a regular basis on a 5/8 mile track. They have even ran 3 turn 1 mile races on occasion.

I misunderstood your OP. It appeared to me that you were comparing Belmont with a 2 turn 6f track. I didn't realize there were so many tracks which were less than a mile. I believe I've only played Fairplex which was years ago. The others just haven't interested me.

I agree with Robert Fisher's last part of post in #19.

[whodoyoulike]

In contrary to what almost all believe about comparing one to two turn races, there does not appear to exist any significant difference in the way they both treat early speed.

To prove this I will compare the behaviour of the first and second call leaders between the distance of 1 1/16 miles at Belmont's (one turn) and Aqueduct's (two turns) inner track.

In the following table you can see the related data:

http://i60.tinypic.com/28cn13k.png

I don't think this a good example of the OP's inquiry since for 6f races the horses are really moving for the first call.

[Ocala Mike]

I never asserted that I had data to "prove" anything; you did, but it is not a large enough sample.

[DeltaLover]

I never asserted that I had data to "prove" anything; you did, but it is not a large enough sample.
It covers several years worth of data in aqu and bel. As i said before there is no measurable difference in one vs two turns, those who believe so , need to investigate deeper.

[Cratos]

I've been trying to look for an answer and couldn't find it.

With regards to 1 vs. 2 turn races with the same distance, for example a 6f race at a big track like Belmont is only one turn, but one at a smaller track would be two turns, does that extra turn favor front runner type horses or stalking/closing type horses?
You have asked a very good question and the physics of horseracing with consistent empirical evidence shows that "turns" period, not just "1-turn" or "2-turns" favor the front running type of racehorse and the closer the start is to the turn; and the smaller the turn radius the greater the advantage to the front running type horse.

Incidentally, attempting to compare Aqueduct and Belmont is nonsense because Belmont's turn distance is nearly 1-1/2 times Aqueduct's turn distance.

However if there a racetrack in NA that have turns which minimize the front running effect it should be Belmont which have turns over 3/8 mile in length and we know from math as an arc (turn) gets larger it approaches a straight line.

Also another factor is the centrifugal force applied in the turns. This is the force that impacts the horse's turning ability by applying a side force causing the horse to want to run straight and this interaction takes energy away from the horse. This energy loss in the turn is lessen the farther away from rail the horse runs in the turn, but distance is added.

As the turns become smaller and the closer the horse runs to the rail, the greater this force. There is no doubt that American Pharoah's energy expenditure in this year's Ky Derby was helped by him being wide on the turns even though he was penalized by traveling more distance.

[DeltaLover]

You have asked a very good question and the physics of horseracing with consistent empirical evidence shows that "turns" period, not just "1-turn" or "2-turns" favor the front running type of racehorse and the closer the start is to the turn; and the smaller the turn radius the greater the advantage to the front running type horse.

Incidentally, attempting to compare Aqueduct and Belmont is nonsense because Belmont's turn distance is nearly 1-1/2 times Aqueduct's turn distance.

However if there a racetrack in NA that have turns which minimize the front running effect it should be Belmont which have turns over 3/8 mile in length and we know from math as an arc (turn) gets larger it approaches a straight line.

Also another factor is the centrifugal force applied in the turns. This is the force that impacts the horse's turning ability by applying a side force causing the horse to want to run straight and this interaction takes energy away from the horse. This energy loss in the turn is lessen the farther away from rail the horse runs in the turn, but distance is added.

As the turns become smaller and the closer the horse runs to the rail, the greater this force. There is no doubt that American Pharoah's energy expenditure in this year's Ky Derby was helped by him being wide on the turns even though he was penalized by traveling more distance.

Data mining trumps all your 'scientific' axioms and emperical opinions as well. Since you claim to have racing databases, go ahead and show us some concrete evidence instead of the generalities you like to repeat.

[PhantomOnTour]

Study the horse itself.

Has it demonstrated a preference for one turn or two turns?

[Cratos]

Data mining trumps all your 'scientific' axioms and emperical opinions as well. Since you claim to have racing databases, go ahead and show us some concrete evidence instead of the generalities you like to repeat.
If you have followed my posts I have given graphic proof of this and the science has been proven by many people; and there is no "us" on the Forum that don't understand, it is you

Data mining has never been the panacea for solving anything.

If you want proof, do the physics calculations they are very elementary; I am not doing them for you.

[DeltaLover]

If you have followed my posts I have given graphic proof of this and the science has been proven by many people; and there is no "us" on the Forum that don't understand, it is you

Data mining has never been the panacea for solving anything.

If you want proof, do the physics calculations they are very elementary; I am not doing them for you.

mr. scientist thanks for the lesson :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

If you have followed my posts I have given graphic proof of this and the science has been proven by many people; and there is no "us" on the Forum that don't understand, it is you

Data mining has never been the panacea for solving anything.

If you want proof, do the physics calculations they are very elementary; I am not doing them for you.

No, not true.
The calculations are trying to predict what will happen.
Data mining shows what did happen. Data mining is the proof.
As you well know, scientists formulate theory with formulas and then prove them with: testing -real results.

As someone said earlier, history beats math.

[gillenr]

I've been trying to look for an answer and couldn't find it.

With regards to 1 vs. 2 turn races with the same distance, for example a 6f race at a big track like Belmont is only one turn, but one at a smaller track would be two turns, does that extra turn favor front runner type horses or stalking/closing type horses?

The reason is horses must make lead changes into & out of turns. Some do it wel, others don't.

[ultracapper]

It covers several years worth of data in aqu and bel. As i said before there is no measurable difference in one vs two turns, those who believe so , need to investigate deeper.

I wonder if shorter distances are effected differently. My first assumption would be that they are. The thing about longer distances is that there is more opportunity for things to "shake out". I've done no studies, but I've found this thread to be kind of interesting.

[Ocala Mike]

As someone said earlier, history beats math.



Don't agree. Before there was any history, there was math in the sense that the universe is built with a set of laws along mathematical lines. The laws of the universe were in place before there was any history. The creator said, "Let there be light," not "Show me the data."

[ultracapper]

And as Cratos stated, the science says the shorter distances and tighter turns would have a different effect. I guess mining the data would then be the next step to prove or disprove the basic physics.

[Dave Schwartz]

Don't agree. Before there was any history, there was math in the sense that the universe is built with a set of laws along mathematical lines. The laws of the universe were in place before there was any history. The creator said, "Let there be light," not "Show me the data."

Mike,

I pretty much agree with you, but there is also "correlation vs causation," a known problem with pure math solutions.

This is easily evident in horse racing with factors such as weight.

(Or maybe I completely agree with you. Not sure I completely understand your position.)

[Tall One]

Study the horse itself.

Has it demonstrated a preference for one turn or two turns?



Much more simpler than calculus.

[Cratos]

And as Cratos stated, the science says the shorter distances and tighter turns would have a different effect. I guess mining the data would then be the next step to prove or disprove the basic physics.
What is being stated is that the shorter the straightaway before the turn, the more the closer is impacted by the natural forces which are acting against the closer's acceleration; meanwhile the front-runner is out of the turn or nearly out and into the homestretch.

This not an absolute, but it does give the front-runner an advantage.

[thaskalos]

Data do not lie
No...but they are not always conclusive either. If the "data" provided all the answers...then the winning horseplayers would be more plentiful.

[Cratos]

Much more simpler than calculus.
This is gambling and it shouldn't be about being simplistic, but maximizing and minimizing; getting the maximum winnings with the minimum losses.

[Tall One]

I understand that, Cratos. But, this game is difficult enough as is, so I prefer to try and keep things simple on my end. Subtraction, maybe some division, but I get lost in your posts sometimes. I had to get Merriam/Webster off the shelf and look up the meaning of panacea. :)

Also, for Thask, I learned that in Greek mythology, Panacea was a goddess of universal remedy.. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Don't agree. Before there was any history, there was math in the sense that the universe is built with a set of laws along mathematical lines. The laws of the universe were in place before there was any history. The creator said, "Let there be light," not "Show me the data."

We are not talking about that - we are talking about more racing. We have the historical data to verify the math. If fact, we do not need them math for this question - all we need to look and see what goes on at 1 and 2 turn races. Math will not tell you anything you can use to make a bet. History will.
If you want to do math, figure our your best bet using the knowledge you already know.

[Track Collector]

http://helloracefans.com/handicapping/distance/guide-to-one-and-two-turn-track-configurations/

Noticed an error on my hometown track Charles Town. Races at 1+1/16 miles are around 3 turns (and not 2).

[DeltaLover]

No...but they are not always conclusive either. If the "data" provided all the answers...then the winning horseplayers would be more plentiful.


Quite the opposite Thask!

If we were in the position to know all the answers, instead of plentiful horse players as you say here, the game would simply look like some sort of a roulette with a 25% take out.

In mutual pool based games like horse betting, the success does not depend on knowing all the answers but knowing a bit more than your competition, which as you can understand is not the same thing.

[DeltaLover]

What is being stated is that the shorter the straightaway before the turn, the more the closer is impacted by the natural forces which are acting against the closer's acceleration; meanwhile the front-runner is out of the turn or nearly out and into the homestretch.

This not an absolute, but it does give the front-runner an advantage.


Previously you stated that data minining has never been the panacea for solving anything and of course you keep on continuing your rhetoric about your handicapping opinions, with statements like This not an absolute, but it does give the front-runner an advantage .

In contrary to the image you try to project with your postings, which usually are full of high school physics and words that make a dictionary a necessity, you seem to be missing the main pieces of the scientific approach and most likely you have never done any R&D in your professional life.

At some point, you need to understand what a Popperian statement is, what a null hypothesis is all about and how it can be rejected it or not.

There is some possibility, that once you get past these steps, you will never again make the same silly statements that data mining has never been the panacea to solve anything, since you will probably get a sense about how data can be used to support or reject a hypothesis, that can be based on your "math", experience or anything else can be expressed as scientific statement.

[Robert Fischer]

Wow! I thought that I had a working knowledge of how the dynamics of a turn affects a race. After reading this thread, it's clear I need to get to work on a wind-tunnel and a flux-capacitor.

[classhandicapper]

In contrary to what almost all believe about comparing one to two turn races, there does not appear to exist any significant difference in the way they both treat early speed.

To prove this I will compare the behaviour of the first and second call leaders between the distance of 1 1/16 miles at Belmont's (one turn) and Aqueduct's (two turns) inner track.

In the following table you can see the related data:

http://i60.tinypic.com/28cn13k.png

I must be misreading your chart.

It looks to me like a much higher percentage of leaders are winning going two turns at Aqueduct.

[raybo]

The reason is horses must make lead changes into & out of turns. Some do it wel, others don't.

This is, IMO, the most important thing to consider regarding turns in horse racing. Horses that switch leads in the turns, readily, will save energy and make that energy available later in the race. Horses that do not readily switch leads in the turns will expend more energy and suffer later in the race.

It has been said here that turn radius affects energy expenditure, and that is quite true. Tight turn radius was also said here to favor early speed, and that just isn't always true. If the early speed horse is allowed to run slower then the tight turn does not cause as much energy expenditure as it would if the horse was forced to run faster early. The reason for that is that the faster the horse is running the more centrifugal force is applied to it, and the more energy it must expend in order to remain in the same path. Conversely, the slower the horse is allowed to run the less impact centrifugal force has on its energy expenditure in the tight turn.

The same thing can be said of wider turns, but to a lesser affect due to less centrifugal force being applied, but when you add another turn to the equation, that lesser effect is multiplied and becomes greater.

All horses are affected, to some extent, by turn radius and turn length, and the speed they are traveling into and through the turns, but IMO, the focus should be on which horses negotiate turns better than others, which ones switch leads easily and which ones don't, which ones will likely be forced to run faster in the turns and which ones won't.

The logical approach to this problem would seem to be an analysis of the turn ability of individual horses, an analysis of the likely pace dynamics of the field (will there be pressure put on the likely pace setter(s)), and an analysis of how the track and surface play with regard to turn dimensions, number of turns, and surface resistance.

Math goes a long way, but individual track history (historical database), by surface and distance which will automatically include turn radius, turn length, number of turns, run distance to the turn(s) and it's accompanying speed allowances at the entrance to the turn(s), and the general capabilities of the horse colony there, tells the "truth". From there one can then compare one turn to two turn distances, and track to track comparisons can be made more accurately, without really having to know the physics of the tracks. The track's history will reveal the effect of the physics in it's long term results. And, IMO, that is all we really need to know.

Just my 2 cents worth, and I didn't even mention "chutes" and their confounding affects on all the above!

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Cratos is correct. A tighter turning track favours leaders in general

[DeltaLover]

I must be misreading your chart.

It looks to me like a much higher percentage of leaders are winning going two turns at Aqueduct.

Yes you are absolutely correct!

Still, this percentage is not enough to reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two tracks.

[Tom]

Cratos is correct. A tighter turning track favours leaders in general

How do you use that information to make a wager?
Is it true for dirt and turf and artificial surfaces, or do other factors come to play?

[raybo]

Cratos is correct. A tighter turning track favours leaders in general

How's that working for you at DeD, etc.? Why do you think average win payouts are so high there, and other tracks of small dimension and tight turns (and don't tell me that it's race fixing)? Tight turns only favor leaders, if those leaders are not highly pressured up to and through the turns. The faster they go into and through the tight turns, the more those tight turns punish them and favor those laying off the pace. Do some totally unbiased home work and I'm certain you'll agree.

Almost any kind of racing, that involves tight turns, favors those who negotiate the turns most efficiently, efficiency leads to less time and waste of motion/momentum in the turns, and in the case of human and animal racing it leads to less energy expenditure by those participants.

[thaskalos]

It seems to me that, the tighter a track's turns are, the more difficult it is to predict who will take the early lead.

[raybo]

It seems to me that, the tighter a track's turns are, the more difficult it is to predict who will take the early lead.

Probably because jockeys that know the track well may not seek the lead like they might on a larger turn track. Also, the chutes that are used at some smaller tracks dramatically lengthen the distance to the first turn which might also have an affect on the early leader projection.

But, my premise, that tighter turn tracks don't necessarily favor early speed, would be enough to hamper, if not defeat, the effectiveness of early leader projections.

[thaskalos]

As Tom said in a prior post...suspecting something, and putting it to practical handicapping use...are two different things.

[classhandicapper]

From observation I think tight turns tend to favor speed more than wide turns. But imo you really have to observe these things from day to day. Not only do tracks change from day to day due to weather and maintenance, the best jockeys are smart enough to adjust their tactics to suit the track. So even if the physics tell you one thing, it won't hold true in practice if the jockeys get way more or way less aggressive than they would otherwise be.

[raybo]

From observation I think tight turns tend to favor speed more than wide turns. But imo you really have to observe these things from day to day. Not only do tracks change from day to day due to weather and maintenance, the best jockeys are smart enough to adjust their tactics to suit the track. So even if the physics tell you one thing, it won't hold true in practice if the jockeys get way more or way less aggressive than they would otherwise be.

Agree, that is why track specific records are so important. The casual player would almost certainly assume that small tight tracks favor early speed, but they probably don't keep track, day in and day out, of what is actually happening at those tracks. Real results don't lie, perceptions can, and often do.

[cnollfan]

As I interpret Delta Lover's stat posting:

Wire to wire 1 1/16 winners at Belmont: 21%
Wire to wire 1 1/16 winners at Aqueduct: 28%

1st or 2nd early call 1 1/16 winners at Belmont: 44%
1st or 2nd early call 1 1/16 winners at Aqueduct: 54%

So, early speed does better around two turns than one turn at 1 1/16.

However, Steve Klein noted that early speed does better in cheaper races than it does in higher class races. Aqueduct inner dirt is on the whole a lower-class meet than Belmont. So some of the difference could be attributable to class.

[raybo]

As Tom said in a prior post...suspecting something, and putting it to practical handicapping use...are two different things.

Yes, it's tough enough to successfully analyze field dynamics and its effect on which horse(s) will be on or near the lead at traditional size tracks. Throw in non-traditional track layouts/dimensions/chutes, and it becomes even tougher, unless one looks closely at the history of what happens most of the time with field dynamics, categorically, and at the different distances and surfaces, etc., run at those tracks. IMO, "observations" are only "suspicions" that need further research and analysis/investigation before truly informed decisions of this type can be made. Otherwise, we're only guessing aren't we?

[raybo]

As I interpret Delta Lover's stat posting:

Wire to wire 1 1/16 winners at Belmont: 21%
Wire to wire 1 1/16 winners at Aqueduct: 28%

1st or 2nd early call 1 1/16 winners at Belmont: 44%
1st or 2nd early call 1 1/16 winners at Aqueduct: 54%

So, early speed does better around two turns than one turn at 1 1/16.

However, Steve Klein noted that early speed does better in cheaper races than it does in higher class races. Aqueduct inner dirt is on the whole a lower-class meet than Belmont. So some of the difference could be attributable to class.

What it tells me is that, at Aqueduct, it is important to have the lead before the first turn (for obvious reasons), and at Belmont the importance falls in the turn, and when the jockeys make their move, not before it. Making a premature move in the turn at Belmont can, and often does, have disastrous consequences.

As I said before, comparing Aqueduct and Belmont, straight up, is apples to oranges, IMO.

[Cratos]

How's that working for you at DeD, etc.? Why do you think average win payouts are so high there, and other tracks of small dimension and tight turns (and don't tell me that it's race fixing)? Tight turns only favor leaders, if those leaders are not highly pressured up to and through the turns. The faster they go into and through the tight turns, the more those tight turns punish them and favor those laying off the pace. Do some totally unbiased home work and I'm certain you'll agree.

Almost any kind of racing, that involves tight turns, favors those who negotiate the turns most efficiently, efficiency leads to less time and waste of motion/momentum in the turns, and in the case of human and animal racing it leads to less energy expenditure by those participants.
Raybo,

Your post is good, but you have taken the debate to a different direction which is far greater than I think the OP intended.

When you introduced “highly pressured up” you are now speaking of the kinetic force which keep the horse in motion at a certain velocity and that calculation involves the coefficient of kinetic friction and the static force which accelerated the horse.

Also to speak of turn efficiency and energy expenditure you would have to isolate out aerodynamic drag, surface resistivity, and surface wind resistance to understand what the centrifugal force impact is on the horse.

Therefore to keep it simple and to the OP’s question, when a horse goes around a turn, it accelerates the whole time (this is why, when you make a turn in your own car, you feel a force pulling your body toward the outside of the car). The amount of acceleration is equal to the velocity of the horse squared divided by the radius of the turn.

For example, at Saratoga during the 2013 meet, the average 6F time on the main track was run at 55.85 Ft/sec and assuming that was the velocity in the turn which have a radius of 473 feet we can calculate the acceleration as 55.85 squared/473 = 6.59 Ft/sec and if we divide that by the acceleration due to gravity (1 g) which is 32, we obtain approximately .21g experienced by the horse and jockey.

How can the horse stay on the track under this kind of force? It's because of the banked turns which at Saratoga are 4-1/2 degrees.

This is my salient argument which data mining will not prove; and it is science is not hyperbole or conjecture; just fact.

Yes, you can look at historical data to correlate to your scientific calculations, but if you have ever done any engineering design you will quickly realized that your scientific calculations and historical findings will never be exactly matched and that is why we have tolerance zones in design engineering.

[pondman]

In contrary to what almost all believe about comparing one to two turn races, there does not appear to exist any significant difference in the way they both treat early speed.

To prove this I will compare the behaviour of the first and second call leaders between the distance of 1 1/16 miles at Belmont's (one turn) and Aqueduct's (two turns) inner track.

In the following table you can see the related data:

http://i60.tinypic.com/28cn13k.png

LIKE! This fits right in with a set of closing #s that have been profitable-- except, they don't hold up on off tracks days. I'm wondering about Aqueduct and front runner at 1 1/16th. Maybe they have an advantage in the rain.

[dilanesp]

I've always assumed that speed does better on tighter turns for the reasons already articulated.

But I suspect that this factor is dwarfed by the issue of contested speed versus uncontested speed, at least on tracks without a strong bias.

In other words, even though I might prefer to be betting my speed horse going 1 1/16th miles at Aqueduct rather than Belmont, I'd MUCH rather have a horse going out on an uncontested lead, even at Belmont, than a horse who is going to get pace pressure, even at Aqueduct.

Literally the absolute first thing I do when handicapping a dirt race is determine if a horse is going to get an uncontested lead.

[taxicab]

I think it's tougher on speed horses going a one turn mile than a two turn mile.
When handicapping I try to avoid speed types going the "long"(one turn) mile.

[Tom]

Yes, you can look at historical data to correlate to your scientific calculations, but if you have ever done any engineering design you will quickly realized that your scientific calculations and historical findings will never be exactly matched and that is why we have tolerance zones in design engineering.

Your formulas will tell you a general characteristic about the track, but
history will tell you, as Class pointed out, it changes due other conditions.

Your formula is not the only factor that matters. So how do you make specific bets on specific days when all you have a general characteristic for one singe factor? I have records of days where some races when wire to wire and one or two went to deep closers, predictable, because of the fast pace of the race.

We aren't doing engineering designs, we are make bets on horse races.

[thaskalos]

Your formulas will tell you a general characteristic about the track, but
history will tell you, as Class pointed out, it changes due other conditions.

Your formula is not the only factor that matters. So how do you make specific bets on specific days when all you have a general characteristic for one singe factor? I have records of days where some races when wire to wire and one or two went to deep closers, predictable, because of the fast pace of the race.

We aren't doing engineering designs, we are make bets on horse races.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Elliott Sidewater]

Probably because jockeys that know the track well may not seek the lead like they might on a larger turn track. Also, the chutes that are used at some smaller tracks dramatically lengthen the distance to the first turn which might also have an affect on the early leader projection.

But, my premise, that tighter turn tracks don't necessarily favor early speed, would be enough to hamper, if not defeat, the effectiveness of early leader projections.

:ThmbUp: I think you're right, over time, jockey tactics would tend to reduce or even nullify most of the natural advantages that tighter turns might create. Most, but not ALL.... the astute observer of short term trends and biases can still gain a betting advantage at times. Every meet at Pimlico has a few boxcar winners in turf routes where the winner had little to recommend except the ability to command the rail and the lead early. The turns are SO tight there. At Monmouth, I've seen the turf course bake to cement in hot periods with no rain, and when that happens, the handicapper should treat the race as a speed favoring dirt race. Seriously. A telltale sign that this is happening is the unusual amount of dust kicked up on the clubhouse turn.

[raybo]

:ThmbUp: I think you're right, over time, jockey tactics would tend to reduce or even nullify most of the natural advantages that tighter turns might create. Most, but not ALL.... the astute observer of short term trends and biases can still gain a betting advantage at times. Every meet at Pimlico has a few boxcar winners in turf routes where the winner had little to recommend except the ability to command the rail and the lead early. The turns are SO tight there. At Monmouth, I've seen the turf course bake to cement in hot periods with no rain, and when that happens, the handicapper should treat the race as a speed favoring dirt race. Seriously. A telltale sign that this is happening is the unusual amount of dust kicked up on the clubhouse turn.

You might be interested to know that the Pimlico dirt turn radius is not that tight. Churchill Downs, for example has tighter dirt turns than Pimlico. Now, I don't have the radius of the turf turns, but since the 1 mile dirt course and 7f turf courses are the same length, and the fact that Pimlico dirt turns are wider than Churchill Downs, one might logically assume that the Pimlico turf turns are also wider than the Churchill Downs turf turns (I have no data to back that up but, that possibly would negate your assertions about the turf turns at Pimilico being "SO tight").

Since he has the dimensions of most, if not all NA tracks, perhaps Cratos can shed some light on the exact current dimensions of both tracks.

The data I have on both is:

Pimlico
Main Track: 1 Mile Around
1152' Head of Stretch to Finish Line
162' Finish Line to First Turn
422' Turn radius
1327' Length of Turn
Turf Course: 7 Furlongs Around

Churchill Downs
Main Track: 1 Mile (Dirt Oval)
1234.5' Head of Stretch to Finish Line
129' Finish Line to First Turn
406' Turn radius
1276.5' Length of Turn
Turf Course: 7 Furlongs Around

[thespaah]

A 6f race with 2 turns??

Which tracks are you looking at?

Are these "bull rings" because the dynamics of running are very different than at 1 mile ovals?
The ones that come to mind first are Charles Town and Delta

[ultracapper]

Martin Pedroza is a notorious early hustler and is best recognized as a jock that gets them out of the gate and gets them running. He used to own Fairplex.

[Cratos]

:ThmbUp: I think you're right, over time, jockey tactics would tend to reduce or even nullify most of the natural advantages that tighter turns might create. Most, but not ALL.... the astute observer of short term trends and biases can still gain a betting advantage at times. Every meet at Pimlico has a few boxcar winners in turf routes where the winner had little to recommend except the ability to command the rail and the lead early. The turns are SO tight there. At Monmouth, I've seen the turf course bake to cement in hot periods with no rain, and when that happens, the handicapper should treat the race as a speed favoring dirt race. Seriously. A telltale sign that this is happening is the unusual amount of dust kicked up on the clubhouse turn.
Elliott,

Please find attached scaled layouts of Pimilco and Churchill Downs; I hope they will help you.

[Steve 'StatMan']

The ones that come to mind first are Charles Town and Delta

Delta Downs as I remember runs 5f at 1 turn, nothing at 6f, and 1-turn from 6-1/2f to 1 1/16 miles (they have that home stretch chute, perfect for 440-550yard QH races.

I don't recall if CT runs any 6f races. They run 4 1/2f at 1 turn, at 2-turns run 6-1/2f & 7f. They run 1 1/16 miles at 3-turns. I don't think they run at 1 mile.

[raybo]

Elliott,

Please find attached scaled layouts of Pimilco and Churchill Downs; I hope they will help you.

Thanks Cratos, perfect!

Proof that observation pales in the face of research into fact.

[magwell]

My home track Hazel Park runs two turn 5.5 and 6f races on a regular basis on a 5/8 mile track. They have even ran 3 turn 1 mile races on occasion.Is Hazel Park running TB's there again ? Yep they are I just looked it up .....:cool:

[pandy]

what do people prefer, I wonder? I prefer two turn routes over one turn routes, unless a track is speed favoring. Over a speed favoring track, inside speed and inside posts often have too much of an advantage around two turns. In 1999 I started following So. Cal and many of my bets were horses stretching out from inside posts around two turns because Santa Anita and Hollywood were speed favoring, especially Santa Anita. Cheap horses that weren't even bred to run long used to go wire to wire from post 1 all the time.

But on a fair track, two turns is a more interesting race because the jockeys have to try to negotiate two turns and horses can get tired from wide trips. There's more strategy. In one turn routes, the outside horses can just leave and stalk and get dream trips and easy wins.

[Cratos]

what do people prefer, I wonder? I prefer two turn routes over one turn routes, unless a track is speed favoring. Over a speed favoring track, inside speed and inside posts often have too much of an advantage around two turns. In 1999 I started following So. Cal and many of my bets were horses stretching out from inside posts around two turns because Santa Anita and Hollywood were speed favoring, especially Santa Anita. Cheap horses that weren't even bred to run long used to go wire to wire from post 1 all the time.

But on a fair track, two turns is a more interesting race because the jockeys have to try to negotiate two turns and horses can get tired from wide trips. There's more strategy. In one turn routes, the outside horses can just leave and stalk and get dream trips and easy wins.
What is a "speed favoring" racetrack?

Are you speaking of the surface or are you speaking of the environment? Many horseplayers only see the surface as influencing a horse's speed which is incorrect.

However I would like to read your explanation and why/how does a 2 turn race become preferred over a 1 turn race?

[pandy]

I just prefer two turn racing, I think it's more exciting, unless, as I said, the track is speed favoring, in which case inside posts have too much of an advantage. This is not a big deal for me, I just prefer two turn routes a little bit more over one turn routes, which to me are too much like sprints.

A speed favoring track is simply a track where horses that leave the gate well and race on or near the pace have an advantage over closers. As you may recall, three days in a row spread out over two years during the Breeders Cup at Santa Anita were speed favoring, Friday, Saturday, and then the next year, Friday, and then they got so many complaints that they worked on the track over night and Saturday it was fair. But those three days, the track was severely speed biased. Horses that like to save ground and rally looked like they were running uphill.

[Ocala Mike]

As was said years ago by someone about porn:

I can't define a speed-favoring track, but I know one when I see one!

[pandy]

The best example I can think of of a pure two turn speed bias was the old dirt track at Keeneland. I'm sure some of you remember it well. It may have been the worse track surface ever. Any horse that had the rail and speed and was in decent form was a virtual lock going two turns, unless the two or three horse could out sprint it. Closers had almost no shot unless the jockeys got into suicidal speed duels, but most of the time it was just one wire to wire winner after another from inside posts going two turns. This is one of the reasons why Keeneland changed the track configuration when they went back to dirt.

[magwell]

Horses dropping and stretching is a very strong play on a bull ring.....:cool:

[flatstats]

If you think taking into consideration one or two turns is difficult try handicapping a course such as Chester in the UK.

http://images.racingpost.com/course_maps/large/chester.jpg
Chester Racecourse Details (www.racingpost.com/horses/course_home.sd?crs_id=13&bottomCrsTabs=2#topCrsTabs=upcoming_races&bottomCrsTabs=course_map)

It's near enough a perfect circle :)

Now consider the fact that in their last race some of the horses may have run on a completely straight 8f course, some may have run on a right handed course, some may have run on firm, and some may have run in mud.

That's British racing for you.

[Cratos]

If you think taking into consideration one or two turns is difficult try handicapping a course such as Chester in the UK.

http://images.racingpost.com/course_maps/large/chester.jpg
Chester Racecourse Details (www.racingpost.com/horses/course_home.sd?crs_id=13&bottomCrsTabs=2#topCrsTabs=upcoming_races&bottomCrsTabs=course_map)

It's near enough a perfect circle :)

Now consider the fact that in their last race some of the horses may have run on a completely straight 8f course, some may have run on a right handed course, some may have run on firm, and some may have run in mud.

That's British racing for you.
The contour of a racetrack will probably will not affect all horses running on the course the dame, but math and science can calculate the impact through simulation.

[flatstats]

Yes it looks like the kind of track the Eudaemon's roulette system would work at :)

With a course like that it is natural there is a post position bias to the low stalls numbers, right?

Absolutely. There is an incredible low stall bias at this course. Races are often won by the horses in stalls 1, 2, or 3 ...

So what do you think happens to the odds of the horses in these stalls?

Zip. Nothing. Punters TOTALLY ignore it. These stalls are underbet.

This course has been traced back to the early sixteenth century. So you would think that after a few hundred years punters would know about this bias for now and thus lower the odds.

I don't have data going back that far but I do know that in the past 25 years backing Stall 1 at Chester (regardless of race type, form lines, jockey, trainer - just purely backing stall 1) has produced these results:

Backing Stall 1 at Chester 08-May-1990 to 13-Jun-2015
Races: 1919
Wins: 369
Strike Rate: 19.2%
ROI: 3.3%
A/E: 1.10

This is incredible, and it is totally due to the British punters fascination with the form book. They put far too much emphasis on form lines and little emphasis on the "bleedin' obvious".

Even tonight the Media Pundits covering the meeting say things like "A Horse won at Newbury last month, beating B Horse by 3 lengths. B Horse has a 1lb pull" Very little is said that Horse B is drawn in stall 1 one and Horse A is in stall 8.

---

Every time someone says "You can't win long term at the horses because if everyone knows the system the odds will go down and you will lose". I tell them about Chester: a course that has held race meetings for over 500 years and even now punters will still not believe that just backing stall 1 is profitable.

[Secretariat]

In looking at Beyer on Speed chart at the end of the book. A 1:37 Mile run on a One Turn track is a 92 Beyer, and a 1:37 Mile run on a Two Turn track is a 101 Beyer. So there is a 9 point Beyer difference which amounts to about 4/5ths of a second at the mile distance.

While a good estimate based on a Beyer's chart, there are variations on track to track basis.

[DeltaLover]

Yes it looks like the kind of track the Eudaemon's roulette system would work at :)

With a course like that it is natural there is a post position bias to the low stalls numbers, right?

Absolutely. There is an incredible low stall bias at this course. Races are often won by the horses in stalls 1, 2, or 3 ...

So what do you think happens to the odds of the horses in these stalls?

Zip. Nothing. Punters TOTALLY ignore it. These stalls are underbet.

This course has been traced back to the early sixteenth century. So you would think that after a few hundred years punters would know about this bias for now and thus lower the odds.

I don't have data going back that far but I do know that in the past 25 years backing Stall 1 at Chester (regardless of race type, form lines, jockey, trainer - just purely backing stall 1) has produced these results:

Backing Stall 1 at Chester 08-May-1990 to 13-Jun-2015
Races: 1919
Wins: 369
Strike Rate: 19.2%
ROI: 3.3%
A/E: 1.10

This is incredible, and it is totally due to the British punters fascination with the form book. They put far too much emphasis on form lines and little emphasis on the "bleedin' obvious".

Even tonight the Media Pundits covering the meeting say things like "A Horse won at Newbury last month, beating B Horse by 3 lengths. B Horse has a 1lb pull" Very little is said that Horse B is drawn in stall 1 one and Horse A is in stall 8.

---

Every time someone says "You can't win long term at the horses because if everyone knows the system the odds will go down and you will lose". I tell them about Chester: a course that has held race meetings for over 500 years and even now punters will still not believe that just backing stall 1 is profitable.


Very interesting statistic, assuming of course that your data and calculations are correct..

Still, do not expect to find anything similar in Northern American racing since the (slightly sophisticated) bettors are very quick to neutralize any kind of a trivial handicapping angle.

[flatstats]

I can assure you the data and calculations are correct.

More Low Stall winners today.

The 2:30GMT 27-Jun-15 race was run over 5 furlongs (the shortest possible trip). There were 9 runners in the race and the first three home were:

1st Blithe Spirit 9/2 from Stall 1
2nd Vimy Ridge 5/1 from Stall 2
3rd Captain Dunne 4/1 from Stall 3

So the first three home were from the three lowest stalls in the correct order. You can't get it any more pronounced than that.

The 11/4 favourite Seve was drawn in stall 5.

The Trifecta paid 195/1.

[traynor]

Yes it looks like the kind of track the Eudaemon's roulette system would work at :)

With a course like that it is natural there is a post position bias to the low stalls numbers, right?

Absolutely. There is an incredible low stall bias at this course. Races are often won by the horses in stalls 1, 2, or 3 ...

So what do you think happens to the odds of the horses in these stalls?

Zip. Nothing. Punters TOTALLY ignore it. These stalls are underbet.

This course has been traced back to the early sixteenth century. So you would think that after a few hundred years punters would know about this bias for now and thus lower the odds.

I don't have data going back that far but I do know that in the past 25 years backing Stall 1 at Chester (regardless of race type, form lines, jockey, trainer - just purely backing stall 1) has produced these results:

Backing Stall 1 at Chester 08-May-1990 to 13-Jun-2015
Races: 1919
Wins: 369
Strike Rate: 19.2%
ROI: 3.3%
A/E: 1.10

This is incredible, and it is totally due to the British punters fascination with the form book. They put far too much emphasis on form lines and little emphasis on the "bleedin' obvious".

Even tonight the Media Pundits covering the meeting say things like "A Horse won at Newbury last month, beating B Horse by 3 lengths. B Horse has a 1lb pull" Very little is said that Horse B is drawn in stall 1 one and Horse A is in stall 8.

---

Every time someone says "You can't win long term at the horses because if everyone knows the system the odds will go down and you will lose". I tell them about Chester: a course that has held race meetings for over 500 years and even now punters will still not believe that just backing stall 1 is profitable.

This is the type of statistic that can be quite misleading. The obvious question would be how likely the exact same (or close to the same) results would be realized in sectioned studies. That is, one high mutuel in the sample could account for the positive return. One--in 1900+ races. Unless that one mutuel repeats (along with all the others) in the next 1900+ races, the results would be negative.

That is not to be critical of your basic premise in any way, but rather to point out what should be an obvious deficiency in attempting to use such statistics in wagering. Interesting to look at, to think about, to talk about--but not to bet on.

Basic strategy. If the results suggest a positive return on stall 1, does that positive return derive from an actual bias or one or more anomalies? The same question should be asked of ALL other such statistics (especially those on which one intends to base wagers). Split the base population into four groups, and calculate the ROI on each segment individually. If the values are similar, it would indicate the bias is possibly real. If one segment spikes high while the other three dip into the red, it might be wise to look a bit deeper for the real meaning of the statisitics.