Effects of slow pace

[cj]

I'll never understand why those riding favorites seem to allow, and even encourage, slow paced races. This is my thinking. Slow paces lead to slow final times. The best horses are capable of running better times, so why in the world would you want a slow pace that allows more horses to be competitive?

Just a random thought for a Wednesday.

[classhandicapper]

I suspect I know what the thinking is, but I don't think it's always the best approach.

They are probably assuming that if they are on the fastest horse that day it will also be able to run the fastest last part of the race given it will be fresh. So if they have the lead, they should be able to win drawing away. If they are not on the fastest horse that day, the fact that the pace was so slow may make it impossible for the faster horses behind them to make up the difference in the last part.

That theory only holds water for me if the horse isn't using up energy fighting the rider's restraint and it has demonstrated it can finish well after going slow early. Also, there are probably some closers that are extremely fast for short periods of time that tend to get used up chasing normal paces. Those horses will now be fresh too and might catch you.

[mountainman]

Allow me to play devil's advocate: Aside from long grass races and occasional instances on dirt, I've never been totally convinced that slow fractions cause slow final times.

To me, it's a correlation rather than consequence. Of course slow splits correlate with slow final times: slow fractions often characterize a slow field-or a field that just isn't feeling it that day.

Giving some trips extra credit based on the fractions is one thing, but arbitrarily upgrading a final-time figure because of a slow pace strikes me as completely backwards and a classic confusing of cause and effect.

[mountainman]

I'll never understand why those riding favorites seem to allow, and even encourage, slow paced races. This is my thinking. Slow paces lead to slow final times. The best horses are capable of running better times, so why in the world would you want a slow pace that allows more horses to be competitive?

Just a random thought for a Wednesday.

Jocks want to be seen as the reason for victory. That's why they get cute and draw atn to themselves on chalk.

[cj]

Aside from long grass races and occasional instances on dirt, I've never been totally convinced that slow fractions cause slow final times.

To me, it's a correlation rather than consequence. Of course slow splits correlate with slow final times: slow fractions often characterize a slow field-or a field that just isn't feeling it that day.

Giving some trips extra credit based on the fractions is one thing, but arbitrarily upgrading a final-time figure because of a slow pace strikes me as completely backwards and a classic confusing of cause and effect.

When I say the pace is slow, I'm saying to in comparison to the final time, so that pretty much excludes races that are just slow overall.

I'm talking about, for example, horses that are capable of going in 1:09. If these horses go 24 for the quarter and 48 for the half, they simply can't finish in 21 to reach their potential. The 1:09 horses now have to deal with horses that are only capable of 1:10 or even slower.

[cj]

Jocks want to be seen as the reason for victory. That's why they get cute and draw atn to themselves on chalk.

I think that is some of it, and I think more of it might be this silly notion of "saving" some horse for the next start.

[mountainman]

When I say the pace is slow, I'm saying to in comparison to the final time, so that pretty much excludes races that are just slow overall.

I'm talking about, for example, horses that are capable of going in 1:09. If these horses go 24 for the quarter and 48 for the half, they simply can't finish in 21 to reach their potential. The 1:09 horses now have to deal with horses that are only capable of 1:10 or even slower.

I get your point. And a brisk final fraction could be one clue that certain horses weren't fully expended, but I would base that on my visual impression of tactics and reserve racing energy. And the example you give would be an extreme rarity.

With all respect, I remain skeptical that slow fractions actually impact final time on other than rare occasions.

[cj]

I get your point. And a brisk final fraction could be one clue that certain horses weren't fully expended, but I would base that on my visual impression of tactics and reserve racing energy. And the example you give would be an extreme rarity.

With all respect, I remain skeptical that slow fractions actually impact final time on other than rare occasions.

Of course my example was extreme to make a point, didn't mean to imply that happens often. As somebody that makes figures and track variants every day for every track, I'll have to agree to disagree. I see at least a few of these races every day where the final time is negatively effected by a slow pace.

[tophatmert]

Riders do seem to be less aggressive than they used to be. Perhaps the type of races we have now contributes to the problem. Poly racing , more turf and turf sprints, and a lot of short fields make for less urgency. The AQU inner used to be a speed track 75% of the time now it is more about being inside than speed. The old Chicago rider Juvenal Diaz used to go to the front then let the others come to him and pull away quickly. Make them use some energy to get to you instead of staying even and floating them out on the turn.

[thaskalos]

I'll never understand why those riding favorites seem to allow, and even encourage, slow paced races. This is my thinking. Slow paces lead to slow final times. The best horses are capable of running better times, so why in the world would you want a slow pace that allows more horses to be competitive?

Just a random thought for a Wednesday.
Yes...when the pace is slowed to an extreme level, it will negatively impact the final time...as will the QUICKENING of the pace to an extreme level. But the jockeys are not concerned about the "timing" of the particular race...they just want to WIN. And winning while setting a leisurely pace accomplishes the task of leaving the horse "fresher" for his subsequent race.

Question:

Let's say that you and I are runners...and you are obviously faster than me. You have the ability to take off and leave me far behind in the beginning of our race, but, for some reason, you decide to harness your "early speed"...thus making the early battle between us more "competitive" than it otherwise would have been. Would this strategy of yours improve my chances of beating you in the race...or would your superiority over me simply allow you to draw away from me late in the race? When a runner slows down the pace of the race and keeps the early pace "competitive"...it isn't as if he has given the rest of the field a "head start". The energy that he conserves by setting a leisurely pace still remains at his disposal within him...waiting to be used when it is most needed.

The problem, of course, is that these horses have pre-determined running styles...and sometimes have to be heavily restrained in order to slow down the pace. My guess is that this affects the temperament of the horse in a negative way...and that's why the stretch run isn't what the restraining jockey wants to to be. The horse probably gets frustrated and sulks during the early going...and just throws in the towel late.

The "theory" of the runner drastically slowing down the pace is sound...IMO. It just hasn't been thoroughly thought out as it applies to horses. :)

[thaskalos]

I suspect I know what the thinking is, but I don't think it's always the best approach.

They are probably assuming that if they are on the fastest horse that day it will also be able to run the fastest last part of the race given it will be fresh. So if they have the lead, they should be able to win drawing away. If they are not on the fastest horse that day, the fact that the pace was so slow may make it impossible for the faster horses behind them to make up the difference in the last part.

That theory only holds water for me if the horse isn't using up energy fighting the rider's restraint and it has demonstrated it can finish well after going slow early. Also, there are probably some closers that are extremely fast for short periods of time that tend to get used up chasing normal paces. Those horses will now be fresh too and might catch you.

I didn't see your post, CH. I started typing my post before you posted your comments...and finished it hours later...because I got tied up with something else. Had I seen your post...I would have rephrased mine.

[Cratos]

Allow me to play devil's advocate: Aside from long grass races and occasional instances on dirt, I've never been totally convinced that slow fractions cause slow final times.

To me, it's a correlation rather than consequence. Of course slow splits correlate with slow final times: slow fractions often characterize a slow field-or a field that just isn't feeling it that day.

Giving some trips extra credit based on the fractions is one thing, but arbitrarily upgrading a final-time figure because of a slow pace strikes me as completely backwards and a classic confusing of cause and effect.

Mountainman,

In all due respect and hopefully you won’t take my response to your post as some scientific intellectual goby-gook, but I respectfully disagree with you.

Pace of any moving object whether it is man, animal, or machine is the “rate of motion of the object with respect to time and distance.”

In horseracing the object is the horse and the distance is the fixed distance of the race.

Therefore the final time elapsed over the “fixed distance” is determined by the “rate of motion” or pace.

Yes, there are races where the horses run at a “slow pace” early and still yield a respectable final time; and conversely there are races with “fast pace” early and the final time is less than average.

However I believe in both of the aforementioned cases we are speaking of outliers because in the aggregate of all races run in North America at all distances on both turf and dirt you will find a downward sloping race curve with the average final times being faster as the pace is faster.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I love this topic. It took one of the craziest and best people I know to open my eyes to the reality that a fast horse that "slows the pace up front" is not necessarily improving his chances. All too often it simply allows the remainder of the field to dictate to said pacesetter when the real running will begin and negate the benefit of opening up and getting a mid-race breather.

[mountainman]

Mountainman,

In all due respect and hopefully you won’t take my response to your post as some scientific intellectual goby-gook, but I respectfully disagree with you.

Pace of any moving object whether it is man, animal, or machine is the “rate of motion of the object with respect to time and distance.”

In horseracing the object is the horse and the distance is the fixed distance of the race.

Therefore the final time elapsed over the “fixed distance” is determined by the “rate of motion” or pace.

Yes, there are races where the horses run at a “slow pace” early and still yield a respectable final time; and conversely there are races with “fast pace” early and the final time is less than average.

However I believe in both of the aforementioned cases we are speaking of outliers because in the aggregate of all races run in North America at all distances on both turf and dirt you will find a downward sloping race curve with the average final times being faster as the pace is faster.


Appreciate the response, sir, but must reiterate: faster fields that fire better to the points of call NATURALLY run faster final times-any parallel time chart establishes this. But in most cases, fields don't run faster final times BECAUSE they ran faster to the breaker beams, they run faster to the breaker beams because they are DESTINED (by reason of class or sharpness) to post faster final times.

With all respect, I think other theories confuse cause and effect. And final time figures upgraded because of soft increments strike me as arbitrary numbers derived from PREVIOUS performances that doubtful applied to the contest being rated. To paraphrase my opinion: I find it highly questionable to reward horses for running slowly.

Again, race-flow and running styles are a separate topic. And I do realize there are rare exceptions to my own theory.

And finally, this is just my subjective take on the issue. I could, of course, be completely mistaken.

[Appy]

"The problem, of course, is that these horses have pre-determined running styles"

It may be true that some horses tend to run to a certain style, but I believe a horses run style is determined more by the shape, or collection of styles, present in today's race.
Horses react to each other and that reaction can recreate a running style just for today.
It amazes me to watch my horses, who are well acquainted and have run with each other countless times, yet I can never be certain who will be the first back in the corral at the end of their stretch run.
I know which of my horses is the best sprinter, and which is the most enduring, and which is the best high rate cruiser, etc. But if you put Joel Rosario on one of them, and Joe Blow on another, I know which of those I'd choose.

[Tom]

I think MM is correct to an extent, then CJ is correct beyond that.

Think of roasting a turkey.
The ideal is to bake it at 350 for 3 hours.
You could vary that to 400 for maybe 2-1/2 hours, but you would not be happy if you baked it at 700 for 1-1/2 hours.

I think there is a sweet spot where a horse can go faster or slower and not hurt his final time much, but at some point, that curve bends and the pace "makes" the race.

If you remember Total Pace, where a race is broken out into early and late segment, where 100/100 if ideally balanced. the total pace is 200. Now, a horse cannot go 50/150. There are boundaries as to how fast the late pace can be, and if the early goes slow enough, it will be physically impossible to maintain the final figure.

I made a really nice pace graph to illustrate this a long time ago, using actual data, but I can't find it in my back ups. The one below is a quick recreation of the curve.

Another thing, I think the early horse who allows the closers to stay too close is at a disadvantage because closers are naturally going to decelerate slower in the stretch, but the early horse will be running against his normal style trying to match stride with no separation to draw on. Strictly opinion.

[cj]

Yes...when the pace is slowed to an extreme level, it will negatively impact the final time...as will the QUICKENING of the pace to an extreme level. But the jockeys are not concerned about the "timing" of the particular race...they just want to WIN. And winning while setting a leisurely pace accomplishes the task of leaving the horse "fresher" for his subsequent race.

Question:

Let's say that you and I are runners...and you are obviously faster than me. You have the ability to take off and leave me far behind in the beginning of our race, but, for some reason, you decide to harness your "early speed"...thus making the early battle between us more "competitive" than it otherwise would have been. Would this strategy of yours improve my chances of beating you in the race...or would your superiority over me simply allow you to draw away from me late in the race? When a runner slows down the pace of the race and keeps the early pace "competitive"...it isn't as if he has given the rest of the field a "head start". The energy that he conserves by setting a leisurely pace still remains at his disposal within him...waiting to be used when it is most needed.

The problem, of course, is that these horses have pre-determined running styles...and sometimes have to be heavily restrained in order to slow down the pace. My guess is that this affects the temperament of the horse in a negative way...and that's why the stretch run isn't what the restraining jockey wants to to be. The horse probably gets frustrated and sulks during the early going...and just throws in the towel late.

The "theory" of the runner drastically slowing down the pace is sound...IMO. It just hasn't been thoroughly thought out as it applies to horses. :)

It depends...I could very well be a better miler than you are but you are a faster 100 meter runner. So if we just jog around the track together and only race the last 100, I'm in big trouble. I think this is exactly what happens with thoroughbreds at times. The speed horses are rated too hard and don't have a big enough lead turning for home to withhold faster stretch runners.

It can all be complicated and generalities about pace are just that. Individual horses and races don't always fit the norm. I think it is more important to be clear even if going faster than it is to be rated and pressured. In the scenario above, let's say I know you don't have stamina so I go faster than my usual pace. I'll be tired and finish in a slower time than usual, but you'll be gassed sooner and I will win easy.

I don't claim to have all the answers, just giving my opinion and I appreciate the responses in this thread.

[RXB]

The data is quite clear on some things. Getting one length clear in the first couple of furlongs is a big advantage. More than that adds very little in the way of a greater advantage. So using enough horse to get (and stay) about 1.0-1.5 lengths clear is worth it but once that lead is gained the rider should try to rate the horse at least until the quarter pole is nearing.

Slow-paced races on the whole tend to create larger winning margins, especially on dirt. Slow-paced races also clearly favour frontrunners, and frontrunners on average win by larger margins than horses racing from off of the pace. And favourites are found on the front much more often than non-favourites.

There are exceptions to the rules, but generally I'd happily take my chances with the early leader if they'd let me bet it after a dawdling opening quarter was posted.

[mountainman]

I think MM is correct to an extent, then CJ is correct beyond that.

Think of roasting a turkey.
The ideal is to bake it at 350 for 3 hours.
You could vary that to 400 for maybe 2-1/2 hours, but you would not be happy if you baked it at 700 for 1-1/2 hours.

I think there is a sweet spot where a horse can go faster or slower and not hurt his final time much, but at some point, that curve bends and the pace "makes" the race.

If you remember Total Pace, where a race is broken out into early and late segment, where 100/100 if ideally balanced. the total pace is 200. Now, a horse cannot go 50/150. There are boundaries as to how fast the late pace can be, and if the early goes slow enough, it will be physically impossible to maintain the final figure.

I made a really nice pace graph to illustrate this a long time ago, using actual data, but I can't find it in my back ups. The one below is a quick recreation of the curve.

Another thing, I think the early horse who allows the closers to stay too close is at a disadvantage because closers are naturally going to decelerate slower in the stretch, but the early horse will be running against his normal style trying to match stride with no separation to draw on. Strictly opinion.

Cogent.

[mountainman]

It depends...I could very well be a better miler than you are but you are a faster 100 meter runner. So if we just jog around the track together and only race the last 100, I'm in big trouble. I think this is exactly what happens with thoroughbreds at times. The speed horses are rated too hard and don't have a big enough lead turning for home to withhold faster stretch runners.

It can all be complicated and generalities about pace are just that. Individual horses and races don't always fit the norm. I think it is more important to be clear even if going faster than it is to be rated and pressured. In the scenario above, let's say I know you don't have stamina so I go faster than my usual pace. I'll be tired and finish in a slower time than usual, but you'll be gassed sooner and I will win easy.

I don't claim to have all the answers, just giving my opinion and I appreciate the responses in this thread.

Good thread. I'm an intuitive handicapper who rarely enters the realm of you super-geeks. Plan to hit the ground running and xmas shop like a maniac tomorrow. (I find that a slower pace DOES compromise my final tab) For me, the season starts dec 1. And I always spend too much.

[cj]

The data is quite clear on some things. Getting one length clear in the first couple of furlongs is a big advantage. More than that adds very little in the way of a greater advantage. So using enough horse to get (and stay) about 1.0-1.5 lengths clear is worth it but once that lead is gained the rider should try to rate the horse at least until the quarter pole is nearing.

Slow-paced races on the whole tend to create larger winning margins, especially on dirt. Slow-paced races also clearly favour frontrunners, and frontrunners on average win by larger margins than horses racing from off of the pace. And favourites are found on the front much more often than non-favourites.

There are exceptions to the rules, but generally I'd happily take my chances with the early leader if they'd let me bet it after a dawdling opening quarter was posted.


Interesting. At TimeformUS, I give extra credit for going fast early in the speed figures, but any lead.over a.length is ignored for that purpose.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

the jock on the chalk ain't riding to win.

One of the biggest factors in my handicapping is looking through the "Trainer's Window", and figuring out what level of effort is planned for today's race. The horses out for exercise or setting up for another race down the road (ie, stakes horses in an allowance after a lay off), are often chalks that are not being ridden to win. Each horse only has so many races in them, and you can't go to the well every time. Not surprisingly, they sometimes end up in a paceless race they should be dominating - 'cause that's the result of a less than 100% "try".....

[Robert Goren]

No jockey who is 2 length in front at half in 48 flat is going push that lead to lengths just get a 47 flat time. Jockeys ask just enough of their mounts to get them in position they want to be in. They all believe in saving as much of the horse as they can for upcoming stretch run. Jockeys are in the business of winning races, not making life easy for figure makers.
When I made figures many moons ago, I used to add points to horses who ran in slow paced races. But those numbers always had a "?" behind them. I also deducted points for front runners who had an easy lead and finished with a really fast final time. The kind of races Quality Road was known for running. Revising numbers is fraught with risk though and it is best not to put too much trust in them.

[cj]

No jockey who is 2 length in front at half in 48 flat is going push that lead to lengths just get a 47 flat time. Jockeys ask just enough of their mounts to get them in position they want to be in. They all believe in saving as much of the horse as they can for upcoming stretch run. Jockeys are in the business of winning races, not making life easy for figure makers.
When I made figures many moons ago, I used to add points to horses who ran in slow paced races. But those numbers always had a "?" behind them. I also deducted points for front runners who had an easy lead and finished with a really fast final time. The kind of races Quality Road was known for running. Revising numbers is fraught with risk though and it is best not to put too much trust in them.

I'm not talking about horses that are two lengths clear or figure making. I'm mostly talking about horses with more quality that have riders that allow inferior horses to dictate the race to them in slow fractions. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that point, but those are the rides I just don't get.

Yes, it can be the leader, but again, I'm not talking about horses on a clear lead. That is a dream trip of course.

[classhandicapper]

Handicappers sometimes think in "general terms" when it comes to pace as if all horses have the same balance of speed and stamina. That makes them think that changes in pace will impact all of them in the same way. So all they have to do is worry the horse's position relative to that pace.

But horses have different degrees of each in different balances even when their overall ability is very similar. So they can be impacted differently by the same change. The real problem is that sometimes (especially among lightly raced horses) you don't know what the horse has in the tank until asked.

Also, at the extremes of pace, there are times when a pace may impact a horse's final time negatively but his chance of winning positively and vice versa. If you are analyzing a horse in terms of final times you have to think differently than you do if you are analyzing them in terms of finishing positions, lengths, and class etc..

[dilanesp]

FWUW, distance running in track and field has the same problem. Almost all Olympic and World Championship races have slow paces. Didn't used to be the case but is now, and the elite runners' theory is they have a faster kick at the end.

[Robert Goren]

I'm not talking about horses that are two lengths clear or figure making. I'm mostly talking about horses with more quality that have riders that allow inferior horses to dictate the race to them in slow fractions. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that point, but those are the rides I just don't get.

Yes, it can be the leader, but again, I'm not talking about horses on a clear lead. That is a dream trip of course. I think we all know that one of the best bets in horse racing is a horse who has pace numbers that say he could have an easy lead if his jockey wanted it, but the horse recent running style suggests that it will sit just off the pace in second, third or even fourth and open up in as it comes off the turn heading into the stretch. Often this type of horse wins so easily that it is hand ridden in the stretch knocking even a few more fifths of a seconds off its final time. A figure maker's nightmare all the way around. Put this type of race at a small track and the numbers really get screwed up. I am sure you face this problem several times a week. It has got be a time consumer for you trying to come with some sort good number you are famous for.

[ebcorde]

I'll never understand why those riding favorites seem to allow, and even encourage, slow paced races. This is my thinking. Slow paces lead to slow final times. The best horses are capable of running better times, so why in the world would you want a slow pace that allows more horses to be competitive?

Just a random thought for a Wednesday.

I agree jockeys are not rocket scientists. lately I've seen an awful lot of guys try to control the pace, then look under their butts to see where the other Horses are. Seems to me it's all about getting the first jump on the last turn while the other clowns are nursing pace.

[ebcorde]

Pace guys, the horse with the fastest pace could be a poor money producer.

don't forget that. whose making money.

[Robert Goren]

I agree jockeys are not rocket scientists. lately I've seen an awful lot of guys try to control the pace, then look under their butts to see where the other Horses are. Seems to me it's all about getting the first jump on the last turn while the other clowns are nursing pace. Not every horse can run full out the entire length of the stretch. The trainer should have some idea when to cut the horse loose and have told the jockey where that point is. I have seen a lot of my bets go down the drain because the jockey moved too soon. (It is the easiest way for a jockey to stiff a horse.) A lot more than when the jockey moved to late. That is one of the reasons I try to avoid late closers. Too many ways for things to go wrong even when you have much the best horse.

[bello]

Great thread, and if it was on a harness board the answers would be much different. Slowing the pace down as much as possible is key ( in most cases, i know there are some that need to run freely).

In T'bred racing I tend to agree with some others that it is more about being lose on the lead that is an advantage and not being pressed the entire race. But as one who started in harness racing I still would prefer my jocks on the front end to generally rate them as much as possible and save more for the final 1/8.

BTW I never saw a fine given to a jock for excessively slowing down the pace. Occurs a few times annually in harness racing.

[cj]

FWUW, distance running in track and field has the same problem. Almost all Olympic and World Championship races have slow paces. Didn't used to be the case but is now, and the elite runners' theory is they have a faster kick at the end.

Yep, and I seem to remember them trying rabbits to ensure a fast pace, but eventually the runners just ignored them and let them go.

[Delta Cone]

http://fittish.deadspin.com/an-exercise-physiologist-explains-why-800-meters-hurts-1694552448

This article is interesting...particularly this passage:

"My opinion is that the compromised performance at the end of an 800 was an 'allowed' failure of muscle contraction because optimal performance required that the athlete make good while they still could. That is, go hard early on good muscles. Yes, they'll fatigue and lose their force generating capability towards the end, but overall, it's still a better strategy than trying to keep something in reserve, because the intensity of even a conservative effort [in the first lap] is hard enough that this fatigue will happen anyway. You go out with the intention of making good on fresh legs, and then when the physiological payback happens, you hope it's not going to be too costly. If you run an even-paced 800 [both laps the same], you're under-performing. The guy who slows down the least is usually the winner."

[Delta Cone]

http://sportsscientists.com/2009/10/pacing-strategy-and-limits-to-performance/

This article raises some interesting ideas too, at least for human runners at the longer distances.

"It will be pretty obvious that something has changed in the way the world records have been paced. The first era, from 1920 to 1953, reveals a typical pacing strategy where the start is fast, the middle gets slower and slower, and the final kilometer is very fast.

The second era starts to look a little different – the drop in pace from 1 to 2km is not as large, and overall, the mid-race slowdown is nowhere near as pronounced. However, the same pattern exists, with kilometers 1 and 5 being significantly faster than the middle kilometers.

And then comes the third era. There is no longer a slowing down in the middle part of the race, and the only ‘pacing anomaly’ is a faster final kilometer. This period, from 1974 onwards, has seen the 5,000m WR fall from 13:13 to 12:37 (36 seconds), but the difference in the first kilometer is only 4 seconds."

[ebcorde]

Not every horse can run full out the entire length of the stretch. The trainer should have some idea when to cut the horse loose and have told the jockey where that point is. I have seen a lot of my bets go down the drain because the jockey moved too soon. (It is the easiest way for a jockey to stiff a horse.) A lot more than when the jockey moved to late. That is one of the reasons I try to avoid late closers. Too many ways for things to go wrong even when you have much the best horse.

I agree I hate when their back there :bang: . why I like Bris data S0, 2f pace

[mountainman]

Handicappers sometimes think in "general terms" when it comes to pace as if all horses have the same balance of speed and stamina. That makes them think that changes in pace will impact all of them in the same way. So all they have to do is worry the horse's position relative to that pace.

But horses have different degrees of each in different balances even when their overall ability is very similar.

That's why sustained types (late-runners) often retreat after sitting uncharacteristically close to soft fractions. It may SEEM inexplicable, but those types often lack reserve racing energy-no matter how pedestrian the tempo.

To put it differently: Two (theoretical) horses might have identical top speed of, say, 47 seconds for a half-mile. But slow the pace to 49, and one of them may do it easily, while the other still has to run hard. Attribute that to temperament or ability to be rated, but I suspect it's more about a horse's stride mechanics and indefinable engine. And that subtle truth in large part determines what distance a t-bred prefers.

[ebcorde]

That's why sustained types (late-runners) often retreat after sitting uncharacteristically close to soft fractions. It may SEEM inexplicable, but those types often lack reserve racing energy-no matter how pedestrian the tempo.

To put it differently: Two (theoretical) horses might have identical top speed of, say, 47 seconds for a half-mile. But slow the pace to 49, and one of them may do it easily, while the other still has to run hard. Attribute that to temperament or ability to be rated, but I suspect it's more about a horse's stride mechanics and indefinable engine. And that subtle truth in large part determines what distance a t-bred prefers.

I use class to select in that example.

hey when will you be back on air?

[cj]

I use class to select in that example.

hey when will you be back on air?

I'll take a shot in the dark and say he'll be back on when Mountaineer resumes live racing. :)

[mountainman]

I'll take a shot in the dark and say he'll be back on when Mountaineer resumes live racing. :)


You're correct, sir.

[mountainman]

I use class to select in that example.

hey when will you be back on air?

Have heard various return dates bandied about. I think our racing dates are still up in the air.

[classhandicapper]

As somebody that makes figures and track variants every day for every track, I'll have to agree to disagree. I see at least a few of these races every day where the final time is negatively effected by a slow pace.

I want to make another point related to this issue (obviously you already know I agree with you on this issue).

Beyond these races where the pace is extreme enough to tell that it clearly impacted the final time, I think there are others where there was an impact, but it was too small to tell or be sure one way or the other.

I also see examples where I'm pretty sure this is true for the race development too (how competitive and contested the race was).

Some figure makers are very active in breaking races out when they don't fit with the rest of the day's results. They do that on the assumption that the track changed speeds.

IMO, some of the time it's actually a pace or race development issue.

What those figure makers are actually doing (whether they realize it not) is creating class figures. They are looking at the quality of the field and not trusting the figure. So they change it to better reflect the quality.

It's not that changes in moisture, humidity, weather etc... don't change the final times. I agree that they sometimes do. But other things are going on. It's fun to for me know that there are class handicappers out there that don't really know they are class handicappers.

[cj]

It's not that changes in moisture, humidity, weather etc... don't change the final times. I agree that they sometimes do. But other things are going on. It's fun to for me know that there are class handicappers out there that don't really know they are class handicappers.

I've said that about turf racing for a long time.

[thaskalos]

I want to make another point related to this issue (obviously you already know I agree with you on this issue).

Beyond these races where the pace is extreme enough to tell that it clearly impacted the final time, I think there are others where there was an impact, but it was too small to tell or be sure one way or the other.

I also see examples where I'm pretty sure this is true for the race development too (how competitive and contested the race was).

Some figure makers are very active in breaking races out when they don't fit with the rest of the day's results. They do that on the assumption that the track changed speeds.

IMO, some of the time it's actually a pace or race development issue.

What those figure makers are actually doing (whether they realize it not) is creating class figures. They are looking at the quality of the field and not trusting the figure. So they change it to better reflect the quality.

It's not that changes in moisture, humidity, weather etc... don't change the final times. I agree that they sometimes do. But other things are going on. It's fun to for me know that there are class handicappers out there that don't really know they are class handicappers.
Are you saying that even a minor pace "deviation" can adversely affect a horse's final clocking?

[cj]

Are you saying that even a minor pace "deviation" can adversely affect a horse's final clocking?

I think he is saying some extreme pace deviations have an effect on final time, but it is small enough that it is tough to differentiate with certainty.

For example, we might say a track is 5 points fast for all the dirt races, but one in the middle with a slow pace was looked more like a 3 points fast race because of the pace.

[ebcorde]

You're correct, sir.


just trying to be pleasant and strike up conversation. :)

[thaskalos]

I think he is saying some extreme pace deviations have an effect on final time, but it is small enough that it is tough to differentiate with certainty.

For example, we might say a track is 5 points fast for all the dirt races, but one in the middle with a slow pace was looked more like a 3 points fast race because of the pace.
But in his second sentence, he writes..."Beyond these races where the pace is extreme enough to tell that it clearly impacted the final time, I think there are others where there was an impact..."

What "others"? Other races where the pace ISN'T "extreme enough"?

[ebcorde]

Have heard various return dates bandied about. I think our racing dates are still up in the air.

that really really sucks. MNR good underrated track, never been out there. Only track I've been to is Wheeling out there. MNR is a good win bet track, show money good. Handicappers good. Great for Sunday /Monday night football.


it's weird to watch monday night and I can't play the mountain.

I understand a little bit about West Virginia , 7 years living close to Harper's ferry. Beautiful country out there, I bet you got a nice spot deep in the mountains.

I'll take 6 races a day like the Brit tracks. good luck. I just need 1 race.

[classhandicapper]

Are you saying that even a minor pace "deviation" can adversely affect a horse's final clocking?

I'm saying that when the pace is extreme and we see a very suspicious final time relative to the ability of the horses, it's pretty easy to conclude the pace had an impact. But the impact of pace is not always either big enough to notice or ZERO. There are a bunch of things in between those obvious extremes.

I have no exact formula for it because there are loads of pace and track condition combinations.

It's those smaller variations of pace/final time (a couple of fifths here or there) that we can't be sure were pace related, the result of changes in form, or the result of changes in the surface or surface speed.

IMO sometimes they are pace and race development related.

[thaskalos]

I'm saying that when the pace is extreme and we see a very suspicious final time relative to the ability of the horses, it's pretty easy to conclude the pace had an impact. But the impact of pace is not always either big enough to notice or ZERO. There are a bunch of things in between those obvious extremes.

I have no exact formula for it because there are loads of pace and track condition combinations.

It's those smaller variations of pace/final time (a couple of fifths here or there) that we can't be sure were pace related, the result of changes in form, or the result of changes in the surface or surface speed.

IMO sometimes they are pace and race development related.

IMO...a pace deviation of a couple of fifths here and there will not adversely affect the final clocking of a race. The horseplayers sometimes become obsessed with these "adjustments", in their zeal to make all the pieces of the race puzzle fit with their pre-determined expectation of how the race "should" unfold. If a star horse gives a sub-par effort...then it must be because the "pace pressure" during some portion of the race proved too extreme to overcome...or the horse "wasn't running on the best part of the track". Some number-oriented players appear to me to be of the opinion that these horses should all be running the same ratings all the time...and these "precise handicappers" start looking for explanatory excuses every time the race yields a surprising clocking or result.

The truth, as far as I am concerned, is that there is an unpredictable element within this game which defies our efforts to completely make sense of it. Some races will simply need to be ignored...and our handicapping opinions will have to be formed by relying on other, more "sane" races. No matter how meticulous or "advanced" the horseplayer may be...he will often be left shaking his head after the race is done. To start making "adjustments" in order to explain the unexplainable is an exercise in futility...IMO.

[ultracapper]

Slow paces seem to do less for front runners that cough it up than you'd reasonably expect. A front runner that fades regularly will seldom get home any better after going 47 in a 6 furlong race than if it went 45.3. Even at the slowed down pace, those faders still are unable to get home.

Public handicappers regularly tout lightly raced horses that have faded when they now find them in a race where the pace looks tepid with remarks like "he should be able to control the pace", or "he should be able to slow it down", and even if that proves true, the fader still fades, or at least gets collared. A horse that can't get the final 3/16ths just isn't ever going to find a spot until he drops so low down the ranks he's not even mentioned on your watch list. I see the speed burners that fold in socal turn up in the first at Los Al some nights and then, and only then, do they get home in a 5 horse field.

[mountainman]

just trying to be pleasant and strike up conversation. :)
much appreciated, pal..and tx very much for your interest..

[classhandicapper]

IMO...a pace deviation of a couple of fifths here and there will not adversely affect the final clocking of a race. The horseplayers sometimes become obsessed with these "adjustments", in their zeal to make all the pieces of the race puzzle fit with their pre-determined expectation of how the race "should" unfold. If a star horse gives a sub-par effort...then it must be because the "pace pressure" during some portion of the race proved too extreme to overcome...or the horse "wasn't running on the best part of the track". Some number-oriented players appear to me to be of the opinion that these horses should all be running the same ratings all the time...and these "precise handicappers" start looking for explanatory excuses every time the race yields a surprising clocking or result.

The truth, as far as I am concerned, is that there is an unpredictable element within this game which defies our efforts to completely make sense of it. Some races will simply need to be ignored...and our handicapping opinions will have to be formed by relying on other, more "sane" races. No matter how meticulous or "advanced" the horseplayer may be...he will often be left shaking his head after the race is done. To start making "adjustments" in order to explain the unexplainable is an exercise in futility...IMO.

My view is not very complicated.

We know that extreme paces can sometimes have enough of an impact that it's obvious that pace was the issue in final time that does not make sense. I think we can confidently say that pace impacts are not all (as in the extreme cases) or nothing. There are smaller impacts between zero and obvious.

How you handle that reality is the trick because it is reality.

[thaskalos]

My view is not very complicated.

We know that extreme paces can sometimes have enough of an impact that it's obvious that pace was the issue in final time that does not make sense. I think we can confidently say that pace impacts are not all (as in the extreme cases) or nothing. There are smaller impacts between zero and obvious.

How you handle that reality is the trick because it is reality.
IMO...the effects of the early pace of the race are not always reflected by the race's final time. A horse takes the lead and runs a 45.40 half mile...and loses the race to a closer by a nose in a race run in 1:11 flat. In its next start...the same horse takes the lead and this time runs the half mile in 46:00...and now manages to beat the same horses by two lengths...while again running the race in 1:11 flat. Even though the final times of both races are the same...the second race's slower pace STILL had a profound effect on the race...IMO.

The different pace scenarios profoundly effect the performances of the horses in ways which are not always reflected by the final time of the race.

[classhandicapper]

IMO...the effects of the early pace of the race are not always reflected by the race's final time. A horse takes the lead and runs a 45.40 half mile...and loses the race to a closer by a nose in a race run in 1:11 flat. In its next start...the same horse takes the lead and this time runs the half mile in 46:00...and now manages to beat the same horses by two lengths...while again running the race in 1:11 flat. Even though the final times of both races are the same...the second race's slower pace STILL had a profound effect on the race...IMO.

The different pace scenarios profoundly effect the performances of the horses in ways which are not always reflected by the final time of the race.

I agree. I just don't care much about the race's final time. I only care about measuring the performances of the horses within it.

[JJMartin]

IMO...a pace deviation of a couple of fifths here and there will not adversely affect the final clocking of a race. The horseplayers sometimes become obsessed with these "adjustments", in their zeal to make all the pieces of the race puzzle fit with their pre-determined expectation of how the race "should" unfold. If a star horse gives a sub-par effort...then it must be because the "pace pressure" during some portion of the race proved too extreme to overcome...or the horse "wasn't running on the best part of the track". Some number-oriented players appear to me to be of the opinion that these horses should all be running the same ratings all the time...and these "precise handicappers" start looking for explanatory excuses every time the race yields a surprising clocking or result.

The truth, as far as I am concerned, is that there is an unpredictable element within this game which defies our efforts to completely make sense of it. Some races will simply need to be ignored...and our handicapping opinions will have to be formed by relying on other, more "sane" races. No matter how meticulous or "advanced" the horseplayer may be...he will often be left shaking his head after the race is done. To start making "adjustments" in order to explain the unexplainable is an exercise in futility...IMO.

Good points. IMO, past data is relied on too heavily as a crystal ball for future races. There are so many invisible, intangible variables at work in every race that will never be represented in data. When handicapping, instead of trying to incorporate things like the track variant and track bias etc, the focus should be more on determining the horse's current form.

[EMD4ME]

Aqueduct Race 3 today. Perfect example of knowing in 3 strides who will "win" a race.

I am NOT complaining about a 3/5 going down, don't take me the wrong way.

It was obvious on paper and from the gate break that the 6 (the 3/5) was the lone speed on paper and in the running.

As soon as you see certain jocks on lone speed horses, you can bank on the fact that their horse not only will lose BUT that they won't even hit the lead under any circumstances.

To top it off :D , as Aaron Gryder was driving away on the rail on the far turn. No way Ortiz was riding as if he had Forego under him, confident as can be.

It's like watching WWE Monday night raw. In 5 seconds (or in this case before the show comes on) you know exactly what will happen, what the surprised will be and WHO is always involved.

In closing.... I'll just say this...........This was not a case of stupid riding by No Way Ortiz. He knows exactly what he's doing.

For arguments sake, if you actually think No Way Ortiz was trying to win, then his strategy was completely assinine as you don't allow a slower horse to lead comfortably on slow splits. You never allow them in the race.

C VEL is the #1 culprit of this behavior.

Glad Gryder is back. Colony can use a few guys who actually try on speed horses. Wish CC would come back as well.

[Dave Schwartz]

Good points. IMO, past data is relied on too heavily as a crystal ball for future races. There are so many invisible, intangible variables at work in every race that will never be represented in data. When handicapping, instead of trying to incorporate things like the track variant and track bias etc, the focus should be more on determining the horse's current form.

Is form not determined by looking at the "past data?" (i.e. past performances)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Good points. IMO, past data is relied on too heavily as a crystal ball for future races. There are so many invisible, intangible variables at work in every race that will never be represented in data. When handicapping, instead of trying to incorporate things like the track variant and track bias etc, the focus should be more on determining the horse's current form.

Current form has to be viewed vis-a-vis ability. Two critical questions that have to be answered are

How fast can my horse run?

How likely is it that he will run that fast today?

If a horse is not good enough to beat a respective field, its form is secondary. If it is, then other handicapping factors come into play, including current form. I always believe that in every race a small number of factors wind up determining the winner, whether it is breeding or speed or pace or class or track bias or something else. And sometimes the factor is something you are unable to accurately predict or control, like a jockey getting stuck behind a wall of horses. The trick is determining in each race which factors are likely to determine the winners.

I always think about professional golfers. When they need a shot that hooks or fades, they can pull it off. A golfer that didn't have a full repertoire of shots couldn't make it on the tour. I'd say a full repertoire helps anyone in any endeavor.

[cj]

Aqueduct Race 3 today. Perfect example of knowing in 3 strides who will "win" a race.

I am NOT complaining about a 3/5 going down, don't take me the wrong way.

It was obvious on paper and from the gate break that the 6 (the 3/5) was the lone speed on paper and in the running.

As soon as you see certain jocks on lone speed horses, you can bank on the fact that their horse not only will lose BUT that they won't even hit the lead under any circumstances.

To top it off :D , as Aaron Gryder was driving away on the rail on the far turn. No way Ortiz was riding as if he had Forego under him, confident as can be.

It's like watching WWE Monday night raw. In 5 seconds (or in this case before the show comes on) you know exactly what will happen, what the surprised will be and WHO is always involved.

In closing.... I'll just say this...........This was not a case of stupid riding by No Way Ortiz. He knows exactly what he's doing.

For arguments sake, if you actually think No Way Ortiz was trying to win, then his strategy was completely assinine as you don't allow a slower horse to lead comfortably on slow splits. You never allow them in the race.

C VEL is the #1 culprit of this behavior.

Glad Gryder is back. Colony can use a few guys who actually try on speed horses. Wish CC would come back as well.

My belief, and smarter guys than me that follow NYRA have come around to this, is that the purses for 2/3/4 finishers are too good now and many would rather "play it safe" than try to win and risk and off the board finish.

[thaskalos]

Current form has to be viewed vis-a-vis ability. Two critical questions that have to be answered are

How fast can my horse run?

How likely is it that he will run that fast today?

If a horse is not good enough to beat a respective field, its form is secondary. If it is, then other handicapping factors come into play, including current form. I always believe that in every race a small number of factors wind up determining the winner, whether it is breeding or speed or pace or class or track bias or something else. And sometimes the factor is something you are unable to accurately predict or control, like a jockey getting stuck behind a wall of horses. The trick is determining in each race which factors are likely to determine the winners.

I always think about professional golfers. When they need a shot that hooks or fades, they can pull it off. A golfer that didn't have a full repertoire of shots couldn't make it on the tour. I'd say a full repertoire helps anyone in any endeavor.

True. Handicapping DOES resemble the game of golf. You carry several different clubs in your bag...and you let the circumstances decide which club you will use at any one particular time.

Sometimes, it's a horse's drop in class that will sway me...while, at other times, a horse's fast last race will do the trick. And there will be still other times...when my wager will be decided by some seemingly subtle move that a horse made in the face of a quick inner fraction. That's what "handicapping" means to me. Making the right move at the right time...or, at least trying to.

[shots]

My belief, and smarter guys than me that follow NYRA have come around to this, is that the purses for 2/3/4 finishers are too good now and many would rather "play it safe" than try to win and risk and off the board finish.
And if you know the trainers in a circuit who are prone to do this it helps when preparing verticle tickets. And the jock gets the easy lead or sets the soft pace because the other jocks give to him. Why they do, another answer that would be helpful to know.

[RXB]

My understanding is that the jockey gets 10% of a winning purse share and 5% of a second or third share. Using the NYRA purse sharing structure (60-20-11) and a purse of $80,000, jockeys' shares would be as follows:

First = 6% of total purse = $4,800
Second = 1.1% of total purse = $880
Third = 0.55% of total purse = $440

Riding for second or third seems like a very bad financial decision for a jockey.

[Tom]

Whatever the reason, my thoughts are some of the worst jockeys in history are at NYRA and I want no part of any of their racing. I'm surprised no one has leaped over the fence and grabbed one of those yankers by the throat.

[cj]

And if you know the trainers in a circuit who are prone to do this it helps when preparing verticle tickets. And the jock gets the easy lead or sets the soft pace because the other jocks give to him. Why they do, another answer that would be helpful to know.

I agree 100%...there are a few trainers that absolutely give these types of instructions.

[cj]

My understanding is that the jockey gets 10% of a winning purse share and 5% of a second or third share. Using the NYRA purse sharing structure (60-20-11) and a purse of $80,000, jockeys' shares would be as follows:

First = 6% of total purse = $4,800
Second = 1.1% of total purse = $880
Third = 0.55% of total purse = $440

Riding for second or third seems like a very bad financial decision for a jockey.

I didn't mean to imply this is strictly a jock decision...I think it is often the strategy they are told to employ.

[RXB]

If I was a jockey and somebody was telling me to ride to protect a top three finish more than trying to win, knowing what it would do to my bottom line over the long haul I'd be saying thanks-but-no-thanks without a moment's hesitation. And the jockey's agent would have the same reaction, I'm sure. Especially if we're talking about the type of locked-and-loaded horse upon which the initial post in this thread was based. There would also be an integrity issue.

[cj]

If I was a jockey and somebody was telling me to ride to protect a top three finish more than trying to win, knowing what it would do to my bottom line over the long haul I'd be saying thanks-but-no-thanks without a moment's hesitation. And the jockey's agent would have the same reaction, I'm sure. Especially if we're talking about the type of locked-and-loaded horse upon which the initial post in this thread was based. There would also be an integrity issue.

I don't think they are told, specifically, to ride for a placing instead of a win, but a specific way to ride the horse that has the same effect---conservatively.

I completely agree it isn't in the rider's best short term interest, but it certainly is in his best long term interest, particularly if riding for someone like Todd Pletcher or Chad Brown or Kiaran McLaughlin.

[RXB]

Guys who win at the rate of McLaughlin or Brown or Pletcher, I don't think they are very often giving instructions that compromise their horses' chances of winning. I'll agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that.

[cj]

Guys who win at the rate of McLaughlin or Brown or Pletcher, I don't think they are very often giving instructions that compromise their horses' chances of winning. I'll agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that.

Fair enough, but I've personally heard some pretty puzzling instructions given from some top level trainers.

[EMD4ME]

Whatever the reason, my thoughts are some of the worst jockeys in history are at NYRA and I want no part of any of their racing. I'm surprised no one has leaped over the fence and grabbed one of those yankers by the throat.

I've fantasized about it tremendously in the last 2 years and 11 months.

Unfortunately, my sanity, my responsibilities and my good natured soul stops me. :bang:

[EMD4ME]

My belief, and smarter guys than me that follow NYRA have come around to this, is that the purses for 2/3/4 finishers are too good now and many would rather "play it safe" than try to win and risk and off the board finish.

I can see that CJ. All I'll say in response is only 1 guy in the race (jock) will make $3,000 or so. The rest will make peanuts.

The pools at NYRA still have $500,000 plus a race in the middle of winter on a WED.

You complete the rest.

[EMD4ME]

And it's only become an issue (over slow paces-weird races) when Ramon was knocked out by No Way and Iherd in Jan of 2013 and has continued to be an issue since with those 2 boys running the room. It is extremely evident from Dec 1st thru May 1st when the veteran boys play at GP at KEE.

[whodoyoulike]

Is form not determined by looking at the "past data?" (i.e. past performances)

This is true but, how can one be certain of "current form" which I thought he was concerned with in determining a horse's condition.

[JJMartin]

Is form not determined by looking at the "past data?" (i.e. past performances)

Don't forget about physical appearance which counts for more than you think.

[Cratos]

Is form not determined by looking at the "past data?" (i.e. past performances)
Totally agree with you Dave and that "past data" should be sensitize to the environmental factors at the time of the horse's performance and not some nebulous anecdotal track variant.

[thaskalos]

Don't forget about physical appearance which counts for more than you think.
Do you honestly see such a big difference in physical appearance between the different horses in the race?

[JJMartin]

Do you honestly see such a big difference in physical appearance between the different horses in the race?

There can be some pre-race obvious signs (horse limping) and not so obvious. The gallop-out is another good indicator of form. Things not found in data in other words.

[Cratos]

There can be some pre-race obvious signs (horse limping) and not so obvious. The gallop-out is another good indicator of form. Things not found in data in other words.
You bring up some good points that might not be easily recognizable by the "untrained eye" and furthermore how would you quantitate such recognitions?

[JJMartin]

You bring up some good points that might not be easily recognizable by the "untrained eye" and furthermore how would you quantitate such recognitions?

By designing some form of evaluation that would yield a metric. It would of course be subjective but that's not new to handicapping. What ever the result of that metric, it could be integrated with hard data like speed figures, fps, points of call etc.

[shots]

If I was a jockey and somebody was telling me to ride to protect a top three finish more than trying to win, knowing what it would do to my bottom line over the long haul I'd be saying thanks-but-no-thanks without a moment's hesitation. And the jockey's agent would have the same reaction, I'm sure. Especially if we're talking about the type of locked-and-loaded horse upon which the initial post in this thread was based. There would also be an integrity issue.
A trainer would know your habits before he would put you on one of his horses. It's a matter of trust.

[EMD4ME]

A trainer would know your habits before he would put you on one of his horses. It's a matter of trust.

At AQU today I heard a trainer vent about how no matter what instructions I give these guys, they do the opposite.

I coincidentally marked the horse down as having a poor trip prior to hearing him.

5 minutes later, I hear him venting. Felt bad for him.

Horse had the rail and a nice spot. Jock went from the rail to 3/8 mid ct, chased hard in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the route (fastest parts of race as well). Could've just sat inside and earned a check or won the race. Made a total bonehead move.

Trust is not something I saw there.....

[shots]

At AQU today I heard a trainer vent about how no matter what instructions I give these guys, they do the opposite.

I coincidentally marked the horse down as having a poor trip prior to hearing him.

5 minutes later, I hear him venting. Felt bad for him.

Horse had the rail and a nice spot. Jock went from the rail to 3/8 mid ct, chased hard in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the route (fastest parts of race as well). Could've just sat inside and earned a check or won the race. Made a total bonehead move.

Trust is not something I saw there.....
What you going to do, the jocks have their own way. But at the track you have to be able to forget and move on.

[EMD4ME]

What you going to do, the jocks have their own way. But at the track you have to be able to forget and move on.

I don't forget LOL. I use it my trip notes for a horse's future starts. And I use it to judge how specific jocks ride.

It's just pathetic that a trainer has to have no trust in his jock.

He swore that he'll use all apprentices from now on. Maybe they'll listen better than the ortiz boys do

[shots]

I don't forget LOL. I use it my trip notes for a horse's future starts. And I use it to judge how specific jocks ride.

It's just pathetic that a trainer has to have no trust in his jock.

He swore that he'll use all apprentices from now on. Maybe they'll listen better than the ortiz boys do
Maybe he should find a jock not afraid of the rail.

[classhandicapper]

Guys who win at the rate of McLaughlin or Brown or Pletcher, I don't think they are very often giving instructions that compromise their horses' chances of winning. I'll agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that.

Guys like that spot their horses in races they can win.

[classhandicapper]

My belief, and smarter guys than me that follow NYRA have come around to this, is that the purses for 2/3/4 finishers are too good now and many would rather "play it safe" than try to win and risk and off the board finish.

I think most of this "try to win stuff" is overrated.

If you duel with a superior horse "trying to win", you are going to lose that battle and finish worse than you would have way more often than not.

If you sit just off him and that superior horse has a bad day, you'll inherit the lead early and be in a great spot. If he's sharp you can still get second.

There may be some marginal cases where you are on a horse that prefers the lead and you aren't really sure if you can outrun the other speeds or how aggressive they will get if you go, but either way it's going to work sometimes and screw you up other times.

IMO the only really bad rides are the ones when the horse clearly has enough speed to get the lead without being used, the pace winds up being slow, and the rider is choking back a horse that clearly wants to run.

[whodoyoulike]

...

IMO the only really bad rides are the ones when the horse clearly has enough speed to get the lead without being used, the pace winds up being slow, and the rider is choking back a horse that clearly wants to run.

I agree that this is one example of a bad ride but there are others i.e., jockey falls off etc.