Track Effect on Pace

[MPRanger]

Track Effect on Pace

I suppose fast tracks are fast because horses run fast on them. But does the track itself favor closers or front runners?

Does a fast track favor front runners?
Does a slow track favor closers?

I'm not referring to an aberrant bias. Assumming a normal day with a variant of zero.

Thanks for any opinions.

[cj]

Track Effect on Pace

I suppose fast tracks are fast because horses run fast on them. But does the track itself favor closers or front runners?

Does a fast track favor front runners?
Does a slow track favor closers?

I'm not referring to an aberrant bias. Assumming a normal day with a variant of zero.

Thanks for any opinions.

Generally, yes, a faster track will favor speed horses. The race is shorter time wise, so the horse will require less stamina than on a slower track.

That said, "generally" can and will get you into trouble. We bet on specific races, not general ones.

No track, slow or fast, really ever favors closers in my opinion.

[pandy]

I've always felt, and I have no way of proving this, that one of the main reasons closers are at a bigger disadvantage over a fast surface because there is simply less time to catch up. On the other hand, if a track is producing very slow times, that means that the last half and last quarter is usually slow so the closer has more time to catch up. Some people would argue that the slower track will make the closer's rally slower so things will even out, but it doesn't seem to work that way. One of the reasons why Santa Anita favors horses that race close to the pace is because it is a very fast surface.

Gulfstream had some dead rail slow track days this winter, such as Florida Derby day, and closers did much better than they normally do.

If you were running in a race and coming from off the pace, what would you rather run into a :46 last half or a :49 last half? Even if the footing is deeper, you still have more time to catch up.

Of course another factor is that closers usually rally wide while front runners are towards the inside and often slow tracks have deep, sometimes called, "dead" rails so the speed horses are running in quicksand and the closers are on the better part of the track.

This is what happens at Parx.

[DJofSD]

I believe that lactic acid plays a key role.

For shorter races, the lactic acid build up in the sprinters does not happen quickly enough to allow the slower but more tolerating of lactic acid closers to press their advantage. When the distance increases and/or the surface conditions require more effort, the closers will have the advantage.

[Robert Goren]

A slow track does guarantee a closer bias by any means. Some of the slowest tracks I have seen were huge front runner bias. I word of warning about front running style. You take a closing grade I stakes horse and run him against a bunch of 25k claimers, chances are that it will go to the front. That is one of the reasons why very good horses are often on the lead in their Maiden and "NW of a race other than" and then become horses that sit just off the pace in 3rd or 4th position or even become closers when they become stakes horses.
I am of the opinion that most runners have a distance that when they reach they will begin to stop. That distance can be added to by track condition or by the shape they are in. Some trainers also hold a theory similar to mine. That is why if you ask a trainer you know will say " the horse will be a little short today" even though it looks like in the DRF that the race may be too short for it or just right. It has been in these cases, the trainer is almost always correct. Which why a handicapper friend of mine developed the pace theory I now subscribe to many years ago.

[Greyfox]

I am of the opinion that most runners have a distance that when they reach they will begin to stop.

I agree.
Of course a lot depends on how many front runners will vie for the lead, with lone speed runners being dangerous in any race.
More importantly though, on any given day a 6 furlong track can behave "as if" it's longer than 6 furlongs, or "as if" it's shorter than 6 furlongs in terms of the energy it's taking out of front runners.

[pandy]

There are certainly exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking, lightning fast surfaces favor horses that race close to the pace, and vice versa.

[MPRanger]

No track, slow or fast, really ever favors closers in my opinion.

With that said, as you know, some pace scenarios favor closers. Do you think such a scenario as a faster or slower track adds or detracts from a closers ability to take charge?

Would a pace scenario with a lot of early speed favoring a closer be different at speedy Keeneland than it would at slower Timonium?

[cj]

With that said, as you know, some pace scenarios favor closers. Do you think such a scenario as a faster or slower track adds or detracts from a closers ability to take charge?

Would a pace scenario with a lot of early speed favoring a closer be different at speedy Keeneland than it would at slower Timonium?

I would say yes, though I wouldn't use Timonium since it is such a small track. That effects times more than the surface itself.

[raybo]

With that said, as you know, some pace scenarios favor closers. Do you think such a scenario as a faster or slower track adds or detracts from a closers ability to take charge?

Would a pace scenario with a lot of early speed favoring a closer be different at speedy Keeneland than it would at slower Timonium?

Not to answer for CJ, but IMO, few, if any, traditional sized track surfaces ever favor closers. Closers become favored by dead rails and/or multiple fast early speed horses competing against each other early in races. Generally, closers are at a disadvantage before the gate opens, unless the previous races have indicated a deep/dead rail or a couple of paths off the rail, where most front runners run. Even if there are multiple speed horses in the race, the closer is still disadvantaged unless/until a speed battle ensues among those speed horses, and if it never happens then the closer continues to be disadvantaged, regardless of the actual speed of the track.

[cj]

Not to answer for CJ, but IMO, few, if any, traditional sized track surfaces ever favor closers. Closers become favored by dead rails and/or multiple fast early speed horses competing against each other early in races. Generally, closers are at a disadvantage before the gate opens, unless the previous races have indicated a deep/dead rail or a couple of paths off the rail, where most front runners run. Even if there are multiple speed horses in the race, the closer is still disadvantaged unless/until a speed battle ensues among those speed horses, and if it never happens then the closer continues to be disadvantaged, regardless of the actual speed of the track.

I agree, predicting pace scenarios with accuracy can be harder than picking the winner.

[raybo]

I agree, predicting pace scenarios with accuracy can be harder than picking the winner.

Yeah, trainers and jockeys have "snapped to" regarding the presence of multiple speed horses in races. Because they are aware of the deleterious affects of the "race within the race" scenario, some of them decide it is to their advantage to not take part in the speed duel and hope that others do become engaged in that duel. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, because they are not the only participants thinking the same thing.

I would say that, these types of perceived pace aberrations cause the vast majority of my losing tickets. :bang:

If one is a good handicapper, and is disciplined, patient, and consistent, and can also accurately assess the pace scenario, in enough races, that player is in perfect position to beat the game, consistently and continually.

[cj]

Yeah, trainers and jockeys have "snapped to" regarding the presence of multiple speed horses in races. Because they are aware of the deleterious affects of the "race within the race" scenario, some of them decide it is to their advantage to not take part in the speed duel and hope that others do become engaged in that duel. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, because they are not the only participants thinking the same thing.

I would say that, these types of perceived pace aberrations cause the vast majority of my losing tickets. :bang:

If one is a good handicapper, and is disciplined, patient, and consistent, and can also accurately assess the pace scenario, in enough races, that player is in perfect position to beat the game, consistently and continually.

I always consider predicting the pace a secondary factor, though there are times it is the main reason for the bet. Those times are when it doesn't appear obvious in print.

[raybo]

I always consider predicting the pace a secondary factor, though there are times it is the main reason for the bet. Those times are when it doesn't appear obvious in print.

Obviously, pace assessment is secondary, all the other work must be done first, but often that secondary pace assessment is the difference between losing the bet and winning it.

[Show Me the Wire]

I've always felt, and I have no way of proving this, that one of the main reasons closers are at a bigger disadvantage over a fast surface because there is simply less time to catch up. On the other hand, if a track is producing very slow times, that means that the last half and last quarter is usually slow so the closer has more time to catch up. Some people would argue that the slower track will make the closer's rally slower so things will even out, but it doesn't seem to work that way. One of the reasons why Santa Anita favors horses that race close to the pace is because it is a very fast surface.

Gulfstream had some dead rail slow track days this winter, such as Florida Derby day, and closers did much better than they normally do.

If you were running in a race and coming from off the pace, what would you rather run into a :46 last half or a :49 last half? Even if the footing is deeper, you still have more time to catch up.

Of course another factor is that closers usually rally wide while front runners are towards the inside and often slow tracks have deep, sometimes called, "dead" rails so the speed horses are running in quicksand and the closers are on the better part of the track.

This is what happens at Parx.

Pandy, I would agree with you if races were run against the clock. Races are run over a distance of ground and closers run out of ground to cover. I know you write handicapping books and I assume when you say out of time you mean the same thing I am saying. I am being literal to make a specific point, which is closers are at a disadvantage due to the head start given to the leaders. When the dynamics of pace or track surface nullify the benefit of the head start, the closers benefit.

Everyone should try this experiment. Time the front running winner from the 3/4 pole and time the losing closer. You should find the closer if it is trying will cover the 3 furlongs about same time, sometimes faster, as the front runner, the only difference is the front runner reached the 3/4 pole before the closer.

[classhandicapper]

I suspect the prevailing wisdom on this issue is all wrong, but I don't have proof of my own theory yet. All I have is strong evidence that I have yet to translate into numbers I can test.

[Robert Goren]

Yeah, trainers and jockeys have "snapped to" regarding the presence of multiple speed horses in races. Because they are aware of the deleterious affects of the "race within the race" scenario, some of them decide it is to their advantage to not take part in the speed duel and hope that others do become engaged in that duel. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, because they are not the only participants thinking the same thing.

I would say that, these types of perceived pace aberrations cause the vast majority of my losing tickets. :bang:

If one is a good handicapper, and is disciplined, patient, and consistent, and can also accurately assess the pace scenario, in enough races, that player is in perfect position to beat the game, consistently and continually.It has been my experience unless there is a real speed ball front runner in the race trainers have no problem with their horse vie for the lead even if their are 3 or 4 need to lead types in the race. The exception is they have tangled with one them before and came out 2nd best.

[cj]

I suspect the prevailing wisdom on this issue is all wrong, but I don't have proof of my own theory yet. All I have is strong evidence that I have yet to translate into numbers I can test.

What is the prevailing wisdom?

[Show Me the Wire]

What is the prevailing wisdom?

I had the same question.

[Tom]

Guess it isn't that prevailing! :lol:

[Cratos]

Track Effect on Pace

I suppose fast tracks are fast because horses run fast on them. But does the track itself favor closers or front runners?

Does a fast track favor front runners?
Does a slow track favor closers?

I'm not referring to an aberrant bias. Assumming a normal day with a variant of zero.

Thanks for any opinions.
Racehorses run fast or faster at a given time for a given distance because of the environment in which the horse is running is less resistance.

The racetrack surface is involved because of surface resistivity and plays a part in the horse’s speed impact, but so does aerodynamic drag and surface wind drag.

The environment components contribution to the horse’s speed retardation can easily be estimated with calculations and are very reliable.

The environmental resistances in general will always favors the front-runner because the slope of the performance curves typically will be downward and the rate of motion (pace) by all horses generally will be decreasing as the distance of the race increases.

Also in solving for displacement with respect to acceleration, it will always be difficult for the come-from-behind horse to catch up and there is an historical example of this in the first two races between Forego and Wajima.
Wajima would get the jump out of the gate and it was difficult for Forego to catch him.

Afterwards Sherrill Ward, Forego’s trainer said publicly that he would have Gustines put Forego on the pace and the rest is history.

[pandy]

I agree, predicting pace scenarios with accuracy can be harder than picking the winner.


Agree with both of you. I think you could make a case that trying to predict the pace scenario is a complete waste of time in most races. I've bet many horses that looked like lone speed, and yes, some did go wire to wire, but many others got into a speed duel and lost. Why? Because jockeys can read the past performances.

[dirty moose]

This is a great conversation fellas. Since Pandy and Cj, you both think the pace scenarios is secondary. What would be primary to you both? I guess what I'm asking is, you both open up the pp's and the primary thing you guys are looking for would be....?

[pandy]

This is a great conversation fellas. Since Pandy and Cj, you both think the pace scenarios is secondary. What would be primary to you both? I guess what I'm asking is, you both open up the pp's and the primary thing you guys are looking for would be....?


I think trying to find the fastest and sharpest horse in the race (that is not outclassed) is primary, secondary, and thirdary...:) Find the horse that's ready to win and let the jockey figure out the pace scenario.

If you can't find a horse that looks ready to win and is decent value, find another race.

[raybo]

This is a great conversation fellas. Since Pandy and Cj, you both think the pace scenarios is secondary. What would be primary to you both? I guess what I'm asking is, you both open up the pp's and the primary thing you guys are looking for would be....?

LOL, you just opened another can of worms! :lol:

[thaskalos]

Pandy, I would agree with you if races were run against the clock. Races are run over a distance of ground and closers run out of ground to cover. I know you write handicapping books and I assume when you say out of time you mean the same thing I am saying. I am being literal to make a specific point, which is closers are at a disadvantage due to the head start given to the leaders. When the dynamics of pace or track surface nullify the benefit of the head start, the closers benefit.

Everyone should try this experiment. Time the front running winner from the 3/4 pole and time the losing closer. You should find the closer if it is trying will cover the 3 furlongs about same time, sometimes faster, as the front runner, the only difference is the front runner reached the 3/4 pole before the closer.

Of course the closer will run the last part of the race faster than the pace-setter will...how could he not? The front runner used up energy during the race's early stages which the closer reserved. But the closer's apparent late charge is often an optical illusion. The closer is probably slowing down late too...although at a lesser rate of speed.

The front-runner's early lead should not be looked upon as a "head start", IMO. It's just that the other horses are employing different racing tactics.

[dilanesp]

One thing to remember is that there are far fewer pure speed/closer biases, and that a lot of those that appear to be that are actually good rails or bad rails (which of course, can happen on any track, fast or slow).

Not saying that's a total answer-- speed and closer biases do happen, but I've seen numerous situations where a speed horse won almost every race because of a rail bias, not a speed bias.

[pandy]

A lot of closers that win are just kind of grinding out similar splits and then passing tiring horses with their one paced style. But fast horses with off the pace styles, like Silky Sullivan and Zenyatta, obviously, these horses were very unusual in that they actually finished extremely fast, so fast that they could easily overcome a slow pace, which is supposed to be impossible for a deep closer. There aren't too many horses like that, though, very rare.

[pandy]

One thing to remember is that there are far fewer pure speed/closer biases, and that a lot of those that appear to be that are actually good rails or bad rails (which of course, can happen on any track, fast or slow).

Not saying that's a total answer-- speed and closer biases do happen, but I've seen numerous situations where a speed horse won almost every race because of a rail bias, not a speed bias.

To me it's the same thing. If I see every winner go to the lead, race on the rail and wire the field, that's a gold rail, and a speed bias. If the rail is dead and all the winners rally wide, that's a dead rail track that favored closers.

[pandy]

Some of these tracks can drive you crazy. Gulfstream is bizarre. Sometimes the rail is dead and the track is tiring, often in early winter, then usually in the spring it changes to the exact opposite...but this spring for a few weeks the rail was dead and the track was deep and slow.

Monmouth was tiring for a few years after they put a new surface in for the Breeders Cup, then it went back to it's old speed favoring ways for a couple of years. This year so far it seems fair on most days.

NYRA does an excellent job. Years ago when Charlie Hayward become CEO he fired the track super and told the new guy that he would not tolerate biased tracks. He also said, no more dead rails at Belmont.

Saratoga and Aqueduct inner track used to be very speed biased, and Belmont had dead rails where almost every race was won by horses making 6 wide moves on the far turn, the old Balcony Move, as New Yorkers called it. Ever since then all of the surfaces have been fair to all styles more often than not. Yes, there are some biased days due to weather, but not many extremes. In fact, they do such a good job that most of the time when the track is sealed and sloppy it's still fair to all styles, and that's amazing because years ago all of the sloppy tracks in New York were very speed biased.

[cj]

This is a great conversation fellas. Since Pandy and Cj, you both think the pace scenarios is secondary. What would be primary to you both? I guess what I'm asking is, you both open up the pp's and the primary thing you guys are looking for would be....?

Overall ability and current form.

[JustRalph]

How do you put any faith in figuring out the track when the Jocks have decided, apparently in concert, that nobody uses early speed anymore?

You can debate this point all day long......it won't matter if there's no pace.

[raybo]

Overall ability and current form.

My order is close to that, at most tracks: power, form, and velocities (both fractional and total velocities). In certain race types (high class and turf primarily) and at certain tracks, class and distance capability plays a large part in my analysis. But, form is always in the overall mix, as is early speed capability or lack thereof (early speed determines many race results, so it cannot be totally ignored, IMO).

[dirty moose]

Great stuff guys. Thanks for responding.

For a closer to win a race, I feel many thing have to go right for that horse. Weather it be a hot pace, dead rail... ect. Whatever example you wanna stick in there. For a horse to win from up front all the horse has to do is NOT stop. Obviously that's not as easy as we make it. Sure seems like a better option.
But of course it's not that easy, or everyone would be making money. So, we have to take it race by race and day by day at the track.

[classhandicapper]

What is the prevailing wisdom?

The prevailing wisdom is that tracks can be somewhere between very fast and very slow. People then try to correlate fast or slow to which running styles might have an advantage. IMO, that's about half right. I just haven't figured out how to create a number to express the right approach because it's more complex and also involves the way jockeys adjust to carious conditions and mislead people about the speed of the track and how tiring it actually was.

[thaskalos]

The prevailing wisdom is that tracks can be somewhere between very fast and very slow. People then try to correlate fast or slow to which running styles might have an advantage. IMO, that's about half right.

Where have you gotten the idea that what you say here is the "prevailing wisdom"?

[classhandicapper]

Where have you gotten the idea that what you say here is the "prevailing wisdom"?

Pretty much every book on the "process" of making figures and track variants is the same.

I see an endless stream of articles and notes etc.. about how track X was lighting fast and favored speed or vice versa.

There are non stop complaints about how riders choke horses without much consideration of the surface they are choking on and how those same guys might ride at a different track.

There's validity to all of it. IMO, it's just not the full model of what's going on. I'm trying to get at the whole model in a reasonably accurate way, but it's hard to put into numbers because it's hard to isolate "jockey influence" on race development and time numerically.

[thaskalos]

Pretty much every book on the "process" of making figures and track variants is the same.

I see an endless stream of articles and notes etc.. about how track X was lighting fast and favored speed or vice versa.

There are non stop complaints about how riders choke horses without much consideration of the surface they are choking on and how those same guys might ride at a different track.

There's validity to all of it. IMO, it's just not the full model of what's going on.
On dirt, the front is the place to be whether the racetrack is deemed fast OR slow. The horse who is able to cut the early fractions while unencumbered by his competition has placed itself in a most advantageous position...no matter which track the horse happens to be running at. IMO...when a jockey "chokes" a speed horse, he is doing so because he anticipates a contentious early speed struggle...not because he has concluded that the racing surface is hostile towards early speed.

[thaskalos]

This is a great conversation fellas. Since Pandy and Cj, you both think the pace scenarios is secondary. What would be primary to you both? I guess what I'm asking is, you both open up the pp's and the primary thing you guys are looking for would be....?

IMO...the first consideration is how good the horses are when they are at their best.

And the next consideration is whether or not the horses' own level of conditioning, and the perceived circumstances and dynamics of today's race...will allow these horses to PERFORM at their best.

[thaskalos]

I always consider predicting the pace a secondary factor, though there are times it is the main reason for the bet. Those times are when it doesn't appear obvious in print.
Many of these front runners are a lot more flexible than they have been reported to be. Jockeys at the minor tracks routinely reserve a speed horse during the early going of a race, in anticipation of a probable early speed duel...and then they mount a charge and win from 5-6 lengths back. If the cheap horses at the minor tracks can do it, then all the horses can do it...provided they receive a competent, patient ride.

Horses don't fit those nice and neat running-style designations that we horseplayers sometimes try to squeeze them into.

[DJofSD]

Many of these front runners are a lot more flexible than they have been reported to be. Jockeys at the minor tracks routinely reserve a speed horse during the early going of a race, in anticipation of a probable early speed duel...and then they mount a charge and win from 5-6 lengths back. If the cheap horses at the minor tracks can do it, then all the horses can do it...provided they receive a competent, patient ride.

Horses don't fit those nice and neat running-style designations that we horseplayers sometimes try to squeeze them into.

Well said.

Running styles by themselves warrant a discussion.

[classhandicapper]

On dirt, the front is the place to be whether the racetrack is deemed fast OR slow. The horse who is able to cut the early fractions while unencumbered by his competition has placed itself in a most advantageous position...no matter which track the horse happens to be running at. IMO...when a jockey "chokes" a speed horse, he is doing so because he anticipates a contentious early speed struggle...not because he has concluded that the racing surface is hostile towards early speed.

I agree that dirt surfaces tend to strongly favor speed, but not on the rest.

I think some jockeys are MUCH smarter than given credit for. The best of them adjust their style of riding to the nature of the surface. Sometimes they adjust mid card, sometimes the following day, and sometimes they even seem to know before the races start (possibly from workouts, word of mouth, walking over it etc...)

That adjustment can change the fractions, the final times, the development of a race, and throw off figure makers and bias handicappers as to what really happened and how fast the horses actually ran.

[thaskalos]

I agree that dirt surfaces tend to strongly favor speed, but not on the rest.

I think some jockeys are MUCH smarter than given credit for. The best of them adjust their style of riding to the nature of the surface, sometimes mid card, sometimes the following day, and sometimes they even know before the races start!

That adjustment can change the fractions, the final times, the development of a race, and throw off figure makers and bias handicappers as to what really happened and how fast the horses actually ran.
If the dirt surfaces do indeed "strongly favor speed"...then, under what conditions would a "smart" jockey choke his front-running horse in order to abide by the nature of the track surface?

[classhandicapper]

If the dirt surfaces do indeed "strongly favor speed"...then, under what conditions would a "smart" jockey choke his front-running horse in order to abide by the nature of the track surface?

Dirt surfaces tend to favor speed under what I would call "neutral dirt conditions", but when conditions are not neutral, the jockeys adjust their level of aggressiveness to recreate neutral. If they rode the same way at every track on every day, imo we'd get more volatile results.

[ReplayRandall]

Dirt surfaces tend to favor speed under what I would call "neutral dirt conditions", but when conditions are not neutral, the jockeys adjust their level of aggressiveness to recreate neutral.

At what point in a card, do the jockeys realize conditions are not neutral and adjust? 3rd race, 4th race, second sprint of the card, second route on the card? Do jockeys who have mounts in each of the first 3 races have an advantage over others who have no mounts until the 4th race on the card? What jockey would be foolish enough to give his competitors any kind of inside info regarding surface bias?......Food for thought....

[classhandicapper]

At what point in a card, do the jockeys realize conditions are not neutral and adjust? 3rd race, 4th race, second sprint of the card, second route on the card?

That the crazy part.

If the track tends to play a certain way almost every day, they get in tune to the appropriate level of aggressiveness for that surface and stay that way.

If the results start suggesting the track has changed, they pick up on it as the evidence accumulates much the way a handicapper might start suspecting a bias when he sees some unexpected results.

I have seen cases where a track had been playing honestly for days but the riders came out gunning in the first race. I thought they had ridden poorly. Then as the card went along I eventually determined that it was favoring speed. So it appeared as though they knew before the card started. I would guess some may be insightful enough to see and feel the track and know how it's probably going to play and where the best paths are just from working horses over it.

I've even seen a few cases where they started our neutral, got really aggressive mid card because it seemed like the track was favoring speed, and then reversed course when it became apparent they were mistaken (just like handicappers sometimes make mistakes about biases).

[Tom]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall
At what point in a card, do the jockeys realize conditions are not neutral and adjust? 3rd race, 4th race, second sprint of the card, second route on the card?


Many riders never realize anything is going on around them.

[Appy]

Most of the riders work horses over the track earlier in the morning before the races.

[pandy]

When Angel Cordero was the perennial leading rider at Saratoga, he would walk the track every morning to see how deep the rail was and if he felt there were any part of the track that seemed firmer.

[pondman]

Rain will significantly change the ability of horse to run from off the pace in a dirt route race. It lessens the ability for a horse to close. It's significant enough to rethink the way you play a race in the slop. Or you could just pass until the track dries out and your ratings become less volatile.