STARTING POSITION

[karlskorner]

Gordon Pine, worth a read and a re-read, asks a good question.

www.netcapper.com/TrackTractsArchive/TT010216.htm

[headhawg]

Wasn't there an article or two about this in the old C & O report several years ago? It might have even been a preliminary study from Jim Cramer, but I can't remember.

Has anyone here researched this "angle"?

[Tom]

No resarch, but I use as an everyday way to compare front runners. I love early horses who are 1-2--3 at this call. If two early horses are close on F-1 speed, but on has FCP of 1-2-2-3-1-2-1 and the other has 3-3-4-2-3-3-5, then I will give the nod to the former and many time eliminate the later, since it is an early horse that cannot get the lead today.

I also prefer horses who fight on the lead, by a head a neck, a half, over those who race celar out in front by 2-3-4 lengths.
I got this idea from Tom Ainsle way back in the early 70's and it is one of those "truths" I have always used. Learning handciapping at Finger Lakes, you learned to find early and bet it. For years, the FCP was rally 80% of what you needed to win at the thumb. Horses out of the gate first won. Closers were horseswho came from second postition! LOL
We used three running style designations: The leader, the closers, the ones in the next race. :D

[DJofSD]

Help me out here, guys.

Something in the article makes no sense to me. It's the 4th paragraph where the author discusses his paper and pencil analysis.

If you divide the field of each race into two halves, shouldn't the winner come out of either the 1st or the 2nd half? How can you only come up with a total of 32% winners?

What did he do, just look at 63 horse's pacelines then look to see if it won a race then, if so, see if it came from the 1st or 2nd half at the start call? How is this any different than any number of other studies about early speed in sprints?

DJofSD

[tdthomas]

I think what he is saying is that he looked at 630 PERFORMERS and not 630 races. It is strangely worded and otherwise makes no sense at all.