New DRF pace indicators

[biggestal99]

Super Fast pace
Fast pace
Slow Pace
Super Slow Pace

not sure yet how I feel these yet.

What does everyone else think.

Allan

[Inner Dirt]

I think you may have answered a question I posted. Is that the S,H with or without the black ovals?

[Delta Cone]

Here is the official explanation from DRF:

http://www.drf.com/news/pace-ace-adds-new-tool-drf-past-performances

[EMD4ME]

Here is the official explanation from DRF:

http://www.drf.com/news/pace-ace-adds-new-tool-drf-past-performances

VERY ANNOYED. People work hard to know more. To the people who are lazy, I want them to lose lose lose lose and lose. Any more info that helps the lazy, annoys me.

I hope their pace designations are like Beyer Figures, wrong many times.

[Rollingpk3]

dont like how the field size is no longer on the far right, but now to the left. im a creature of habit

[pandy]

VERY ANNOYED. People work hard to know more. To the people who are lazy, I want them to lose lose lose lose and lose. Any more info that helps the lazy, annoys me.

I hope their pace designations are like Beyer Figures, wrong many times.


End4me, I wanted to ask you a question, pertaining to something you said on another thread. I believe you indicated that you were betting parlays, something I've always been interested in. Do you bet two horse parlays, round robins? I'd love to know. I used to do research on parlay betting and I liked what I found.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

VERY ANNOYED. People work hard to know more. To the people who are lazy, I want them to lose lose lose lose and lose. Any more info that helps the lazy, annoys me.

I hope their pace designations are like Beyer Figures, wrong many times.

Well, if Super Fast, Fast, Slow, and Super Slow are the only pace designations, then I wouldn't be too concerned about lazy and/or uninformed players all of sudden being "informed" or more intelligent on how to play races.

[EMD4ME]

End4me, I wanted to ask you a question, pertaining to something you said on another thread. I believe you indicated that you were betting parlays, something I've always been interested in. Do you bet two horse parlays, round robins? I'd love to know. I used to do research on parlay betting and I liked what I found.

Hey Pandy, Yes, I love round robins that are weighted.

Just like in the pick 4/5/6, you don't want to caveman as you are liking each race the same, it is my opinion that you should weigh out your opinions.

If you're gut says I'm pushing it with a certain race, then leave the race out, play a parlay with the remaining races for $60 bucks and then play a second ticket with the extra race added in for $10 or $20.

But I like to round robin the races I really love. That way if I am right, I cash 3, 4 , 5 ,6 times. Problem is, it's hard to find 6 races you like on the same card. I sometimes parlay to other tracks but hate doing that because their pools are small.

[EMD4ME]

Well, if Super Fast, Fast, Slow, and Super Slow are the only pace designations, then I wouldn't be too concerned about lazy and/or uninformed players all of sudden being "informed" or more intelligent on how to play races.

True. I was thinking of the 23 47 on the inner that looks slow but really was fast for that day. Those types of things.

What next, DRF will add TFUS pace figures into their numbers?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

True. I was thinking of the 23 47 on the inner that looks slow but really was fast for that day. Those types of things.

What next, DRF will add TFUS pace figures into their numbers?

I've taken a couple of surveys from them, and I have little doubt that they are looking to incorporate more and/or different speed numbers other than Beyers.

[NorCalGreg]

VERY ANNOYED. People work hard to know more. To the people who are lazy, I want them to lose lose lose lose and lose. Any more info that helps the lazy, annoys me.

I hope their pace designations are like Beyer Figures, wrong many times.


On behalf of lazy handicappers everywhere....I can honestly say we (the "Royal" we)...are hurt, insulted, and highly offended by your callous remarks.

Matter of fact....all kidding aside, I was just thinking about starting a thread on ways board cappers determine "pace pressure" which, as you know, is simply a function of the broader "race shape".

Looks like DRF --already late to the party-- are making inroads in that area--since the pesky TIMEFORM folks are already there.

Bris has their "+" and "-" pace fig notations--which work out fine, if one uses them. It's those damn lazy handicappers that ignore them completely :rolleyes:

[EMD4ME]

On behalf of lazy handicappers everywhere....I can honestly say we (the "Royal" we)...are hurt, insulted, and highly offended by your callous remarks.

Matter of fact....all kidding aside, I was just thinking about starting a thread on ways board cappers determine "pace pressure" which, as you know, is simply a function of the broader "race shape".

Looks like DRF --already late to the party-- are making inroads in that area--since the pesky TIMEFORM folks are already there.

Bris has their "+" and "-" pace fig notations--which work out fine, if one uses them. It's those damn lazy handicappers that ignore them completely :rolleyes:


I was talking about the joe schmo who never watches a replay, has no idea what a speed figure or performance figure is and who looks at a form for 5 minutes before making a wager. The type of person that fills the 1st floor grandstand at AQU.

Not us (PA nation) PAL! :)

[FrankieFigs]

I was talking about the joe schmo who never watches a replay, has no idea what a speed figure or performance figure is and who looks at a form for 5 minutes before making a wager. The type of person that fills the 1st floor grandstand at AQU.

Not us (PA nation) PAL! :)

You've been to the track enough to know that those folks only use the track program, scratch sheet or their favorite numbers. They ain't buying no Form.... ;) :D

[ultracapper]

dont like how the field size is no longer on the far right, but now to the left. im a creature of habit

I'm guessing 8/10 means the 8 post in a 10 horse field?

[ultracapper]

So I'm looking at a horse right now that went 21.3 44.4 and it has the "Very Slow" designation.

I'm not sure I'm getting this entirely. I'll have to look at replays of those races that have designations to see what they mean visually.

I don't think this is going to make the "lazy" any more dangerous to EMD4Me's bankroll.

[RXB]

[QUOTE=ultracapper]So I'm looking at a horse right now that went 21.3 44.4 and it has the "Very Slow" designation.
/QUOTE]

What horse in what race?

[ultracapper]

[QUOTE=ultracapper]So I'm looking at a horse right now that went 21.3 44.4 and it has the "Very Slow" designation.
/QUOTE]

What horse in what race?


Saturday 3/5 Santa Anita

:1: Best Two Minutes

[Racey]

are these new symbols for turf and dirt

[NorCalGreg]

So I'm looking at a horse right now that went 21.3 44.4 and it has the "Very Slow" designation.

I'm not sure I'm getting this entirely. I'll have to look at replays of those races that have designations to see what they mean visually.

I don't think this is going to make the "lazy" any more dangerous to EMD4Me's bankroll.

It's obvious, from those opening splits---you aren't looking at PP's from Aqueduct.
I see it now..SA.

[classhandicapper]

I don't want to turn my comments into an unpaid advertisement because I work at DRF and have been using the product privately for many months. I'm sure DRF will be holding webinars with Kenny Peck explaining the product and how best to use it in the near future.

If you are a DRF customer and dying to know some details, you can contact me privately and I'll explain what it is, how it works, and what my experience suggests is the best way to use it.

[Inner Dirt]

I don't want to turn my comments into an unpaid advertisement because I work at DRF and have been using the product privately for many months. I'm sure DRF will be holding webinars with Kenny Peck explaining the product and how best to use it in the near future.

If you are a DRF customer and dying to know some details, you can contact me privately and I'll explain what it is, how it works, and what my experience suggests is the best way to use it.

Is a person considered a DRF customer if they now get their forms from TVG? Some how the DRF site does not mesh well with the signal latency or whatever of my crappy satellite internet buying forms there is painful. I would just be curious what factors they are using to arrive
at the designation. I make my own pace figures, so I would just be curious.

[thaskalos]

I don't want to turn my comments into an unpaid advertisement because I work at DRF and have been using the product privately for many months. I'm sure DRF will be holding webinars with Kenny Peck explaining the product and how best to use it in the near future.

If you are a DRF customer and dying to know some details, you can contact me privately and I'll explain what it is, how it works, and what my experience suggests is the best way to use it.
Does the DRF make these pace determinations WITHOUT taking the fractions into account? Are these really CONTESTED paces instead of "hot" paces?

[VigorsTheGrey]

....I guess there would be some fast deductions to use...you know "If-Then senarios to highlight in the form....

If a raceline shows a super-hot symbol, then here's what to look for....

If a raceline shows a hot symbol then here's what to look for....

If a raceline show a slow symbol then here's what to look for....

If a raceline show a super-slow symbol then here's what to look for...

I'll need to start thinking along those lines now until I can get into this pace way of organizing my thoughts...maybe i'll begin to understand pace alittle better if I focus on these symbols and see if they make a difference in my profitability..

[bello]

Waste of toner, but not as wasteful as the moronic ads on top of the start of a new PP. Toner is expensive guys, have a heart.

Regarding the dopey S H $ and whatever else I started noticing, it is ridiculous. Those of us who are regular players hopefully take these things into account already and do not need a symbol. Anyone new won't have a clue anyways and will likely misconstrue how to use it or be frightened away from symbols they don't understand.

Not to mention the likelihood of yet another price increase for valueless crap that someone at DRF thinks is some kind of value add we desperately need.

Don't get any more ideas on a price increase guys...next one I am history!

[VigorsTheGrey]

at $10 a pop for a form less and less bettors can afford them...makes me wonder if fans will stop going to the races because price of form too high and they know you don't stand a rat's chance on hawk hill without one...Hong Kong has boatloads of info free....wonder how long DRF has before dinosaur time?

[PaceAdvantage]

at $10 a pop for a form less and less bettors can afford them...makes me wonder if fans will stop going to the races because price of form too high and they know you don't stand a rat's chance on hawk hill without one...Hong Kong has boatloads of info free....wonder how long DRF has before dinosaur time?How do most people in Hong Kong get their PPs? Printed or electronic?

[the little guy]

Seems like a change caused by TimeformUS to me.

[VigorsTheGrey]

How do most people in Hong Kong get their PPs? Printed or electronic?

Not sure about the printed but the digital is: http://racing.hkjc.com/racing/content/PDF/RaceCard/20160228_starter_all.pdf

[Delta Cone]

Seems like a change caused by TimeformUS to me.

Agree 100%. In fact, I was already going into Formulator and doing extensive data entry of TimeformUS data that I found helpful, centered on race shapes, pace figs vs final figs, etc.

I can't shake my habit of the "look and feel" of DRF pps, but also want to incorporate some better info into them, without having to spend hours on each card transcribing notes by hand in the margins.

[deelo]

I'm not seeing these on Formulator...must not be implemented yet. You can get Moss pace figures which I have yet to read up on though.

[Delta Cone]

I'm not seeing these on Formulator...must not be implemented yet. You can get Moss pace figures which I have yet to read up on though.

Correct...I follow DRF Formulator on Twitter and there was a comment the other day about how they hadn't implemented the new pace symbols into Formulator yet...no timeline was given as to when that will happen.

As of now, you should only see the pace symbols in classic PDF pps and in the printed newspaper.

[classhandicapper]

I'm not seeing these on Formulator...must not be implemented yet. You can get Moss pace figures which I have yet to read up on though.

I've been told Formulator will be implemented in a few weeks.

If you use the Moss figures in combination with Pace Ace you will get two different views of the pace. One would be based on the fractions (Moss) and the other would be based on the makeup of the field and the race flow/development that actually occurred (Pace Ace). They will compliment each other. They may verify each other and give you greater certainty and they may flag races that need deeper digging in the charts and replays that would be a click away.

[deelo]

I've been told Formulator will be implemented in a few weeks.

If you use the Moss figures in combination with Pace Ace you will get two different views of the pace. One would be based on the fractions (Moss) and the other would be based on the makeup of the field and the race flow/development that actually occurred (Pace Ace). They will compliment each other. They may verify each other and give you greater certainty and they may flag races that need deeper digging in the charts and replays that would be a click away.

Nice...2 different looks that check and balance each other sounds excellent.

[biggestal99]

Seems like a change caused by TimeformUS to me.

Nothing better than competition to improve a product. :-)

Allan

[Tom]

Those $ signs I asked about - put on my glasses and they turned into S. :blush:

Speaking of DRF symbols, what do they running style letters mean in the Winner's books? P-M-C Closer, presser, middle? They used to publish the key as to how many lengths each was, but not recently.

[Stillriledup]

All these Hs and Ss are meaningless. There's just creating more clutter.

[ultracapper]

All these Hs and Ss are meaningless. There's just creating more clutter.

I definitely need some time with them. I've been looking at replays most the morning, and making note before the race starts whether their is one of these designations or not. I'm kind of going in and out, thinking I've got some kind of handle what they're trying to impart, then the next race I watch doesn't seem to convey what I was expecting to see. If it ultimately turns out that there is some kind of reasoning to them that I can grasp, and everyone else does what you're doing and just giving up on them, that might give me an edge. :)

No?

[1st time lasix]

I simply shake my head and laugh at the negative vibe regarding additional info on the form. It reminds me of all the negative comments regarding some particular nuance of TVG. If you don't want it or care about the new pace symbols they provide....simply don't use it! If you don't like what they say on the TVG telecasts....don't listen. My goodness.....why call other players who use their data lazy??? If the buyers of the racing form are willing to pay their money....the editors should try to help their customers with any info or insight that might assist their handicapping decisions. That is one very important way to gain client loyalty. Competition is a good thing....as it ups everyone's game. Assume the DRF players who have a weakness in their pace handicapping skills may benefit if they learn how to use the designations correctly. Of course experienced players already know that no one angle or stat ...wins every race. Just a tool....like a turf number, a timeform fig or a brisnet choice that might separate contenders or give one an insight on how the upcoming race might be run. Good luck to all....

[ultracapper]

There is not a mark on a traditional DRF pp that I do not understand, fully. I would like to keep it that way.

[pandy]

All these Hs and Ss are meaningless. There's just creating more clutter.


Unless you've researched and tested these new symbols, I would think you're evaluation is premature.

[Stillriledup]

Unless you've researched and tested these new symbols, I would think you're evaluation is premature.

I'm not going to test them or use them, my biggest problem now is not confusing those symbols as the symbol for synth surface.

[EMD4ME]

I'm not going to test them or use them, my biggest problem now is not confusing those symbols as the symbol for synth surface.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It crossed my mind too as I noticed that "S".

Gave me a heart attack as I detest synthetic races!

[classhandicapper]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It crossed my mind too as I noticed that "S".

Gave me a heart attack as I detest synthetic races!

There was some internal debate about which symbols to use and I suppose they could be changed rather easily depending on feedback.

[classhandicapper]

I would love to post a write up detailing how the symbols are derived, how they are intended to be used, and how I personally use them, but I work for DRF and don't want to post an unpaid advertisement. That kind of thing is also outside my responsibilities at DRF. DRF will soon be holding webinars with Kenny Peck where he'll explain it better and give examples of how he uses the information.

[Stillriledup]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It crossed my mind too as I noticed that "S".

Gave me a heart attack as I detest synthetic races!

I'm set in my ways I don't need that stuff!! :D

[EMD4ME]

There was some internal debate about which symbols to use and I suppose they could be changed rather easily depending on feedback.

That's nice to hear Class. Thank you!

[EMD4ME]

I'm set in my ways I don't need that stuff!! :D

I picture you as a 21 year old in a basement, living the life. Don't ruin the image :lol: :lol:

[Lemon Drop Husker]

I picture you as a 45 year old living in your parents basement, living the life. Don't ruin the image :lol: :lol:

I fixed your post. :ThmbUp:

[ArlJim78]

Forget about new symbols I wish they would do something about that awful website. I cringe when I see it, on the odd occasion that I want to use their product.

[mountainman]

I've often contended that the competitive intensity of the pace-the quality of the splits, in a sense- should carry more weight than actual fractions. And although more and more handicappers now consider race-flow a big factor,T there's still value when it contradicts the splits.

And it's also been my observation that fractions tend to cluster at certain distances over some surfaces. Sometimes much faster horses, even when urged, run splits oddly similar to slower animals.

[ultracapper]

I've often contended that the competitive intensity of the pace-the quality of the splits, in a sense- should carry more weight than actual fractions. And although more and more handicappers now consider race-flow a big factor,T there's still value when it contradicts the splits.

And it's also been my observation that fractions tend to cluster at certain distances over some surfaces. Sometimes much faster horses, even when urged, run splits oddly similar to slower animals.

I'm with you on this, and it seems to me that the new DRF product is trying to address that. It will be interesting. What will be very important is the competence of the person determining whether to grade the race, and to what degree it should be graded.

[EMD4ME]

I fixed your post. :ThmbUp:


Hey......That's my little buddy...Not funny! (although if it was aimed at someone else it would be :lol: )

[classhandicapper]

Speaking of DRF symbols, what do they running style letters mean in the Winner's books? P-M-C Closer, presser, middle? They used to publish the key as to how many lengths each was, but not recently.

I haven't been able to find anyone that knows the specs off the top of their head and I don't use the Winner's Book much. If I can find the answer I'll let you know, but it make be as simple as whether the horse was in the top 1/3 of the field, middle 1/3, or last 1/3.

[bello]

I've often contended that the competitive intensity of the pace-the quality of the splits, in a sense- should carry more weight than actual fractions. And although more and more handicappers now consider race-flow a big factor,T there's still value when it contradicts the splits.

And it's also been my observation that fractions tend to cluster at certain distances over some surfaces. Sometimes much faster horses, even when urged, run splits oddly similar to slower animals.

Once again why there is no substitute to actually watching a race, making your own trip notes and drawing conclusions from there. Before I got into T'bread racing I was solely a harness player. First at Monticello and then at yor neighboring Northfield....Without the visuals and trip notes, you might as well not bet.

BTW Moutainman, you should weigh in on the bias thread. Mountaineer has the most pronounced bias' I have ever seen. Why one MUST lesten to you if they are going to bet there as you will let us know who was compromised and who was not.

[thaskalos]

I would love to post a write up detailing how the symbols are derived, how they are intended to be used, and how I personally use them, but I work for DRF and don't want to post an unpaid advertisement. That kind of thing is also outside my responsibilities at DRF. DRF will soon be holding webinars with Kenny Peck where he'll explain it better and give examples of how he uses the information.
These pace-flow symbols should have been in numerical form...so they could be applied to more races in the PPs. In their current "H" and "S" form...they only appear in a tiny percentage of the races.

Maybe with the NEXT price increase...

[Capper Al]

These pace-flow symbols should have been in numerical form...so they could be applied to more races in the PPs. In their current "H" and "S" form...they only appear in a tiny percentage of the races.

Maybe with the NEXT price increase...

More number to pencil in? Come over to the dark side and use a spreadsheet!

[cj]

I checked these out some to see if they match Moss pace figures, but they don't. They actually often contradict each other. Good luck explaining that one.

[cj]

More things that make you go hmmmm.

[Delta Cone]

The list of things Todd Schrupp doesn't understand is a pretty long one.

DRF has said over and over and over again that the pace ratings don't use fractional times as a primary factor. Not sure why that's too hard to understand.

"Pace Ace provides information based on how races shape up in terms of pace using running styles and how a race was run, as opposed to strictly using race fractions."

http://www.drf.com/news/peck-pace-ace-shows-how-race-flow-affects-horses

[cj]

The list of things Todd Schrupp doesn't understand is a pretty long one.

DRF has said over and over and over again that the pace ratings don't use fractional times as a primary factor. Not sure why that's too hard to understand.

"Pace Ace provides information based on how races shape up in terms of pace using running styles and how a race was run, as opposed to strictly using race fractions."

http://www.drf.com/news/peck-pace-ace-shows-how-race-flow-affects-horses

If you can't use times to determine the pace, I'll just say good luck with that. DRF can say how they do these things over and over again. If people know it doesn't make sense, what is the value? It would be like me making speed figures but telling people "I don't really consider race times".

[classhandicapper]

Pace Ace is the brainchild of Kenny Peck who is a handicapper at DRF that primary uses race flow to find value plays. He'll be doing articles, podcasts, and webinars on how to use the product. Here's a quick summary.

The Pace Ace symbols are giving you an alternate view of the race flow that is NOT based on the fractions. The idea being that the fractions can sometimes be VERY misleading about what actually happened on the racetrack.

We've all seen races where the fractions and pace were fast, but the speeds kept going and the race did not collapse as you would have expected.

We've all seen races where the fractions were slow, but the speeds collapsed under pressure anyway.

We've all seen biased tracks where the jockeys adjusted their aggressiveness to that specific surface bias and the typical relationships between pace and final time were changed for that day (faster or slower paces than expected but without much impact on race flow).

We've all also seen races where the fractions were distorted because of wind, run up changes, changing track conditions and biases, changed rail settings etc (or even worse didn't see those things) and it turned into a guessing game.

Instead of focusing on the fractions and the complexities of measuring them and their impact, Pace Ace is primarily concerned with the makeup of the field (the running styles of the horses) and how the race actually developed on the track.

Moss will tell you how fast the fractions were and how they related to that final time under typical conditions. That's important and often necessary information, but fractions don't necessarily tell you the whole story.

Pace Ace will tell you about the makeup of the field and how the race actually developed on the track.

It will tell you "speed horse X may have been outrun in moderate fractions last out, but it was a race loaded with early speed types and it collapsed so he may be sharper than he looks".

It will tell you "mid pack horse Y may have set an honest pace on the lead last out, but he inherited the lead because there were no other speed types in the race".

It will find many of those races mentioned above where the race did not develop as expected based on the fractions and pace because of the makeup of the field, how the race actually developed pressure wise, or how the track was playing that day etc...

They are complimentary pieces of information that can be used or ignored as the reader sees fit. Sometimes they will tell the same story, but sometimes they will tell you different things about the same race, with both pieces being important.

Note: I work at DRF. So take my comments appropriately. Like I said, Kenny will be doing informative presentations on how to use the product, but that should be enough to get the gist.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Put me in the camp with Schrupp then. I just watched the replay and the horse was in a heated duel from the word go, before they even hit the turn most in the second flight were trying to carve into the lead pretty well while the two leaders were still engaged in a duel, pretty much assuring that there would be no sort of breather in the middle quarter. I can understand concluding that the rest of the field was just hopelessly beaten because the winner was too fast and too good to get beaten once part of a big lead and the pressure peeled off finally - but I still can't understand how it could lead to denoting the race as heavily disfavoring closers. Maybe closers that can't run at all, but that wasn't the sort of race where the horse carved out rapid fractions, got a breather, got away again, and the 'flow of the race' or whatever these symbols allege to mean severely handicapped a legit rally.

[thaskalos]

I am in the Schrupp camp too when it comes to this DRF "improvement". I find the new "pace indicators" to be terribly misleading, and totally unnecessary. Yes...we have all seen speed horses who have set a torrid pace and still held on to win the race...but these are horses who have taken uncontested leads...and we can identify those cases even WITHOUT these new indicators. And, when we see a horse running fifth while being 1.5 lengths off the early lead...we don't need the new indicators to tell us that the early pace was contentious.

Attaching an S to a lightening-quick pace is utterly ridiculous, IMO....regardless of circumstance. To do it when such a pace is contested isn't just ignorant; it's downright CRIMINAL.

[RXB]

Fitting that I was listening to an old Hüsker Dü song called "Makes No Sense At All" when I saw the example race that Schrupp called out. Naming the thing Pace Ace while ignoring the times makes no sense at all. (The first song on that particular record is titled "Flip Your Wig" and I can understand why people who are looking at this Pace Ace stuff might flip their wigs.)

It is bound to confuse class and form with pace and bias. Of the eight contestants within the race in question, two of the horses running near the back throughout were 54/1 and 81/1; should anyone have expected them to catch up?

The horse that prevailed in the early duel and won the race, My Ole Bud came back and won again in his next start. Hardly the sign of a horse that had everything in his favour when he broke his maiden that day.

Seems to me that both the product and its marketing/naming are in need of revisiting.

[PaceAdvantage]

On a somewhat unrelated note, when online poker was still quasi-legal in the USA, my user name on many poker sites used to be PaceAce. :lol:

[biggestal99]

Pace Ace is the brainchild of Kenny Peck who is a handicapper at DRF that primary uses race flow to find value plays. He'll be doing articles, podcasts, and webinars on how to use the product. .

Had an article in Saturday's form about a horse named Natchez in Oaklawn's 6th off a super slow race in his previous race where he closed mildly.

Jiggy-jogs from off the pace at the tune of a 15.60 PM payoff.

Allan

[Tom]

On a somewhat unrelated note, when online poker was still quasi-legal in the USA, my user name on many poker sites used to be PaceAce. :lol:

That's better than Poker Joker. :D

[RXB]

Had an article in Saturday's form about a horse named Natchez in Oaklawn's 6th off a super slow race in his previous race where he closed mildly.

Jiggy-jogs from off the pace at the tune of a 15.60 PM payoff.

Allan

It made sense it Natchez' case. Not in the My Ole Bud race. I'm attaching Natchez' previous running line from TimeformUS, and also My Ole Bud's. Blue indicates slow fractions; red indicates fast fractions.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Isn't this just the latest attempt to escape the reality that pace figures are necessary? I still prefer a quality opinion vs a quantity of opinions. But I have made that not so difficult realization that by simplifying the approach and looking at a lot more races and hence playing more races this quantity will outplay that quality. Pace figures make the approach simpler so you can attempt to mass produce winners. The goal of today's player! :cool:

[thaskalos]

The DRF sees fit to exclude pace figures from its printed edition...and continues publishing a track variant which can only be described as LAUGHABLE. And...instead of doing something to rectify these noticeable shortcomings...they supply us with an "improvement" that can only confuse us even further than we already are.

As if shelling out $10 for a copy of their product isn't a clear indication that we are already confused enough.

[Kash$]

Those $ signs I asked about - put on my glasses and they turned into S. :blush:

Speaking of DRF symbols, what do they running style letters mean in the Winner's books? P-M-C Closer, presser, middle? They used to publish the key as to how many lengths each was, but not recently.

Tom exactly correct presser,middle,closer...Drf plus seminar few weeks ago explained it.

[classhandicapper]

This is me as a handicapper speaking.

This will be my last post on this because I don't have the time or inclination to address every race that people disagree with from a race flow perspective. I could question dozens of races each day where the fractions are completely misleading also. I don't want to defend the use of fractions and pace figures either. IMO, both matter and comprehensive handicappers should be interested in both.

If you want to understand the race in question in terms of Pace Ace, I would suggest you ignore the fractions entirely. I'd only look at the makeup of the field (how much natural speed the horses within the race actually had). Then I'd look at how the race developed on the track. That analysis suggests there was very little speed in this race and the race flow was good for the speed.

In terms of fractions, I would look at the Moss pace figures. They rated the rate +8; +5 meaning the reported fractions were fast, but not killer fast relative to the final time.

This is a race where they do not agree.

In cases like this I personally would take the analysis further and not trust just the fractions or the race flow.

In looking at the race itself, the winner had shown very little natural speed to date and the horse chasing him had shown stalking speed at most to that point. Feynman, who was laying 3rd, was more of a mid pack horse that could run a little closer at times. So being several lengths off the top 2 didn't mean much in terms of how fast they were actually going. Other than that, there wasn't much speed in the race. It looked like a race without much speed that could go wire to wire.

In the race itself, the winner went wire to wire at 10.30-1 and ran a lifetime top Beyer figure. He came back and won, but barely improved his Beyer. IMO, that is not much evidence that the fractions on 2/19 (if they were an accurate representation) had a major negative impact on him that day.

The stalker was 7.80 - 1. He also ran a lifetime top Beyer despite chasing those supposed fast fractions. He was a lightly raced horse and eligible to improve, but if you add in some theoretical impact from that theoretical fast pace, it suggests he improved dramatically. Possible, but no certainty.

The favorite had a good pace setup sitting off that theoretically fast pace and duel but could not get up against the winner.

I would say that the preponderance of evidence from the makeup of the field and the chart itself ALONE suggests that that theoretically fast pace was actually 2 not particularly fast horses opening up on a even slower bunch and the pace wasn't that fast at all.

So as a handicapper, that's a bit of a dilemma for me.

Do I trust the Moss figures and fractions that tell me the pace was fast or do I trust the PPs of the horses and the results that tell me there wasn't much speed in that race and maybe the fractions were misleading because of other factors?

I don't think there is a 100% answer to questions like that. What I know is that I am way better off knowing to ask the question every once in awhile.

I'd lean towards the pace (in reality) being neutral. Those were not very fast horses near the lead and I don't think the pace took as much out of them as someone using fractions alone would think.

I do not always assume that fast fractions accurately portray how fast the horses ran or the impact they had on the performances any more than I personally assume that the PPs of the horses and what happened on the track does without also consulting the pace figures.

In many cases they will agree. Then there is no issue.

If it's too much dig deeper into a race when varying methodologies tell a different tale, then you should ignore whichever one you don't like, be it Pace Ace, Moss, or whatever else you use. But worship at the alter of fractions alone at your own peril. They are often wrong, misleading, or do not describe the impact on the horses themselves.

[thaskalos]

This is me as a handicapper speaking.

This will be my last post on this because I don't have the time or inclination to address every race that people disagree with from a race flow perspective. I could question dozens of races each day where the fractions are completely misleading also. I don't want to defend the use of fractions and pace figures either. IMO, both matter and comprehensive handicappers should be interested in both.

If you want to understand the race in question in terms of Pace Ace, I would suggest you ignore the fractions entirely. I'd only look at the makeup of the field (how much natural speed the horses within the race actually had). Then I'd look at how the race developed on the track. That analysis suggests there was very little speed in this race and the race flow was good for the speed.

In terms of fractions, I would look at the Moss pace figures. They rated the rate +8; +5 meaning the reported fractions were fast, but not killer fast relative to the final time.

This is a race where they do not agree.

In cases like this I personally would take the analysis further and not trust just the fractions or the race flow.

In looking at the race itself, the winner had shown very little natural speed to date and the horse chasing him had shown stalking speed at most to that point. Feynman, who was laying 3rd, was more of a mid pack horse that could run a little closer at times. So being several lengths off the top 2 didn't mean much in terms of how fast they were actually going. Other than that, there wasn't much speed in the race. It looked like a race without much speed that could go wire to wire.

In the race itself, the winner went wire to wire at 10.30-1 and ran a lifetime top Beyer figure. He came back and won, but barely improved his Beyer. IMO, that is not much evidence that the fractions on 2/19 (if they were an accurate representation) had a major negative impact on him that day.

The stalker was 7.80 - 1. He also ran a lifetime top Beyer despite chasing those supposed fast fractions. He was a lightly raced horse and eligible to improve, but if you add in some theoretical impact from that theoretical fast pace, it suggests he improved dramatically. Possible, but no certainty.

The favorite had a good pace setup sitting off that theoretically fast pace and duel but could not get up against the winner.

I would say that the preponderance of evidence from the makeup of the field and the chart itself ALONE suggests that that theoretically fast pace was actually 2 not particularly fast horses opening up on a even slower bunch and the pace wasn't that fast at all.

So as a handicapper, that's a bit of a dilemma for me.

Do I trust the Moss figures and fractions that tell me the pace was fast or do I trust the PPs of the horses and the results that tell me there wasn't much speed in that race and maybe the fractions were misleading because of other factors?

I don't think there is a 100% answer to questions like that. What I know is that I am way better off knowing to ask the question every once in awhile.

I'd lean towards the pace (in reality) being neutral. Those were not very fast horses near the lead and I don't think the pace took as much out of them as someone using fractions alone would think.

I do not always assume that fast fractions accurately portray how fast the horses ran or the impact they had on the performances any more than I personally assume that the PPs of the horses and what happened on the track does without also consulting the pace figures.

In many cases they will agree. Then there is no issue.

If it's too much dig deeper into a race when varying methodologies tell a different tale, then you should ignore whichever one you don't like, be it Pace Ace, Moss, or whatever else you use. But worship at the alter of fractions alone at your own peril. They are often wrong, misleading, or do not describe the impact on the horses themselves.

I would ask you a couple of questions about what you say here, but, since you indicated that you have no time or inclination to discuss the matter further...it doesn't make any sense for me to pursue this matter any further either.

[proximity]

The DRF sees fit to exclude pace figures from its printed edition...and continues publishing a track variant which can only be described as LAUGHABLE. And...instead of doing something to rectify these noticeable shortcomings...they supply us with an "improvement" that can only confuse us even further than we already are.

As if shelling out $10 for a copy of their product isn't a clear indication that we are already confused enough.

long ago i extensively discussed pace figures here:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54655&page=1&pp=15&highlight=moss

....and always believed drf's pace project was too ambitious and that a simple (energy based) beyer style halfway(example: 3f estimation for 6f race, 3.25 estimation for 6 1/2 f race.....) pace figure was the way to go in the print edition.

[RXB]

I assume that a significant % of DRF customers buy the print or PDF versions and thus don't have access to Moss' pace figures.

Seems very strange to call something Pace Ace yet leave the times totally out of the equation. And on top of that, to refer to the race as Slow or Fast, even though times aren't involved in that decision. Plenty of users are going to be confused and misled.

[cj]

I would ask you a couple of questions about what you say here, but, since you indicated that you have no time or inclination to discuss the matter further...it doesn't make any sense for me to pursue this matter any further either.

It isn't really fair to those that advertise for CH to come here as a representative of DRF and answer questions. I think that is why he tries to limit his responses. They are the biggest PP provider of all and should pay if they want that privilege.

Add: For the record, I've never deleted or edited a post by Classhandicapper.

[ReplayRandall]

It isn't really fair to those that advertise for CH to come here as a representative of DRF and answer questions. I think that is why he tries to limit his responses. They are the biggest PP provider of all and should pay if they want that privilege.

Add: For the record, I've never deleted or edited a post by Classhandicapper.

CJ, I might not be on my game today, so would you explain why you had to "add" your last comment.....

[cj]

CJ, I might not be on my game today, so would you explain why you had to "add" your last comment.....

Just because it could be seen as a conflict of interest (moderator vs TimeformUS figure guy), which is specifically why I never have. I never edit or modify anything that could be perceived as going against competitors.

[ReplayRandall]

Just because it could be seen as a conflict of interest (moderator vs TimeformUS figure guy), which is specifically why I never have. I never edit or modify anything that could be perceived as going against competitors.

Got it... :ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

It isn't really fair to those that advertise for CH to come here as a representative of DRF and answer questions. I think that is why he tries to limit his responses. They are the biggest PP provider of all and should pay if they want that privilege.

Add: For the record, I've never deleted or edited a post by Classhandicapper.

That's it.

I've been a daily contributor to this forum for a long time. Everyone knows these pace and figure issues have long been a favorite topic of mine. Now that I work for DRF, I try to limit my contributions to more general figure and pace issues that impact everyone. If I do respond it's always as a "handicapper". I am being honest about what I do in my personal betting. I just happen to work for DRF now. To be clear, I never post as a representative of DRF. That's not my job. I am a QA guy on the technology side.

I made an exception in this case because the product was being misunderstood (misleading name and the terms being used being the most likely reasons) and I knew I could help. People should at least know what it does before they discuss it.

(no post of mine has ever been deleted, though thinking back I wish a few were :lol: )

[thaskalos]

It isn't really fair to those that advertise for CH to come here as a representative of DRF and answer questions. I think that is why he tries to limit his responses. They are the biggest PP provider of all and should pay if they want that privilege.

Add: For the record, I've never deleted or edited a post by Classhandicapper.
But he prefaced the post which I responded to with the comment that he was talking as CH, the handicapper. And he was responding mainly to CRITICISM about these new pace indicators...not as a means of "advertisement" for the DRF. If we find that we hate DRF's new "improvement", and we want to rail against the popular paper...then, it's nice to have a guy who works there to direct our aggravation towards. :)

Look at that other DRF thread here, for instance. I wrote that Steve Crist has declared that the printed edition of the DRF remains very profitable. I said that...because I actually read the articles where these comments of Crist were made. And yet...our fellow poster Rutgers has come along, and has flatly stated that I am making the whole thing up...and that Crist has never made such public comments. Rutgers is actually calling me a liar...simply because I can't provide the actual links where Crist made these comments. I could have reached out to Classhandicapper to help me out in my argument with Rutgers, but I didn't...because I didn't want CH to be placed in a position where he had to speak from a position of "official" authority.

But in the conversation here, since he had already said that he was speaking just as a "handicapper", I thought it might be OK to ask him a couple of more questions..."unofficially", that is.

[cj]

But in the conversation here, since he had already said that he was speaking just as a "handicapper", I thought it might be OK to ask him a couple of more questions..."unofficially", that is.

He can say it, but that doesn't make it true. He is a DRF employee. He can't change that with a simple disclaimer.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not really sure this falls into the realm of a "big deal," so let's not try and make it one. I say this to all parties..and I meant this as a reply to Thaskalos, but I see cj's post jumped in front...

[thaskalos]

I'm not really sure this falls into the realm of a "big deal," so let's not try and make it one. I say this to all parties..and I meant this as a reply to Thaskalos, but I see cj's post jumped in front...
It's no big deal to me either. I saw that CH thought highly of these new DRF indicators, and he was making a case for their handicapping usefulness...and I just wanted to ask him a couple of questions...about the INDICATORS, not about the DRF. But I saw that he didn't want to comment any more in the thread...so I dropped to topic myself.

[whodoyoulike]

When these podcasts and webinars are given, how can we find out?

I was receiving email alerts for some webinars but uncertain if it included all of them from DRF or even how I was included on their list.

[ultracapper]

S=Slow?
H=Fast?

I think "Soft" and "Hot" would be better, if that's not it already, which I thought it was. It doesn't have to do with race times, so slow and fast don't make any sense. It has to do with race flow, so soft and hot make more sense, to me anyway.

[the little guy]

The past performances are sacred to horseplayers. Additions to them need to be handled with the utmost of care. I think it's fair to ask if that was the case with these pace designators, which seem to be raising more questions than answers.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think the DRF past performances are great the way they were. There is nothing I'd rather handicap from. All other numerical information IMO needs to be elsewhere because there would be no room for it in PP's or it would be cluttered to the point of ridiculousness. We all develop our own ratings from combinations of numbers provided. But if those numbers are not able to be downloaded into Excel etc so a handicapper can work with them they aren't worth much IMO no matter how good they are. DRF is trying to keep up with the competition but the competition isn't keeping up with the needs of the handicapper IMO. That's why we end up getting stuff from 5-6 different places!

[thaskalos]

The past performances are sacred to horseplayers. Additions to them need to be handled with the utmost of care. I think it's fair to ask if that was the case with these pace designators, which seem to be raising more questions than answers.

First race at Gulfstream today. The :6: Bold Summit, in his second-back race, took a clear lead at the quarter...and extended it to a 3.5 length lead at the half. And yet...the DRF new pace indicator reports the race as being Hotly contested. The two races surrounding this race were run just as fast, and Bold Summit held a shorter lead during the early going...but neither of those two races warrant the PaceAce indicator.

How does a race with a 3.5 length pace-setter deserve the "H" mark?

[Stillriledup]

I picture you as a 21 year old in a basement, living the life. Don't ruin the image :lol: :lol:

Wow, you set up LDH for the ally-oop jam, you really gave him no choice! :lol:

[Stillriledup]

The past performances are sacred to horseplayers. Additions to them need to be handled with the utmost of care. I think it's fair to ask if that was the case with these pace designators, which seem to be raising more questions than answers.

Couldn't have said it better.

[the little guy]

I just read the recent DRF article discussing this new feature..



http://www.drf.com/news/peck-pace-ace-uncovers-sneaky-good-efforts







Despite opening the piece with the following quote...

" DRF's newest handicapping feature, Pace Ace, has uncovered hidden longshots and exposed many vulnerable favorites since it launched two weeks ago."

...the author chooses to use one example, Bold Summit, from Gulfstream Park, who had blown a clear lead in his prior start only to return to win his next start fairly easily. However, some important points were left out...the horse is trained by Jorge Navarro, he was dropping down in his subsequent start, and won at even money. There is also a more important handicapping piece that was left out, one that anyone seriously paying attention to Gulfstream knew....the rail was dead on February 7th, the day Bold Summit blew his clear lead....while racing right on the rail for virtually all of the race ( the winner circled widest ).

If you are going to open the piece with unnecessary hyperbole, certainly you can come up with a better example than a returning even money shot, much less one that has a dead rail for an excuse in its prior start.

[DeltaLover]

Even if these new indicators are gaining an edge it is a matter of time until it will be evaporated. Horse players will quickly incorporate them to their handicapping, neutralizing their effect on the betting game and minimizing the advantages that a custom pace figure maker might currently have over his competition.

[cj]

That example is pretty comical.

[thaskalos]

That example is pretty comical.
An even-money winner...and he built it up as if the horse was "overlooked", and paid $20. Next article, Peck will probably claim that the new indicators are responsible for dramatically affecting the odds of the winners.

Give us a decent track variant, and forget about the gimmicks...I say.

[Racey]

To brisnet plus and minus race shape ratings....all about race flow according to Peck and running against the race bias.

[aaron]

i agree using an even money example was not a great idea. If you look at the DRF for Aqueduct 3/24. Go to the 3rd race- Look at #5 Crazy Love. On Feb 4th,was 3 wide vs a slow pace and came back March 3 to win at 24-1. I am sure someone will point out other reasons why this horse won,but I think this race is a great example. After all Pace Ace is just another tool,if you don't like it, just ignore it. It is the same as speed numbers,pace numbers,trainer patterns,track biases. They are all tools,sometimes they lead you to the right horse,sometimes they don't.

[the little guy]

i agree using an even money example was not a great idea. If you look at the DRF for Aqueduct 3/24. Go to the 3rd race- Look at #5 Crazy Love. On Feb 4th,was 3 wide vs a slow pace and came back March 3 to win at 24-1. I am sure someone will point out other reasons why this horse won,but I think this race is a great example. After all Pace Ace is just another tool,if you don't like it, just ignore it. It is the same as speed numbers,pace numbers,trainer patterns,track biases. They are all tools,sometimes they lead you to the right horse,sometimes they don't.

The tools you mention ( save Beyer figs, which came with established credibility ) are not included in the running lines in the past performances. That's the problem. Nobody is, or would, complain about them offering some sort of race flow notation if desired. However, including them as part of the running line heads into a new/different direction.

There is another problem with them....it has been stated vociferously that they are NOT numerically based. OK, fine. However, they shouldn't be labelled as fast ( don't even get me started about "hot" ) or slow. Shouldn't they find a way to say whether or not the pace was contested? Their labelling is a major reason there has been confusion.

[Cratos]

The tools you mention ( save Beyer figs, which came with established credibility ) are not included in the running lines in the past performances. That's the problem. Nobody is, or would, complain about them offering some sort of race flow notation if desired. However, including them as part of the running line heads into a new/different direction.

There is another problem with them....it has been stated vociferously that they are NOT numerically based. OK, fine. However, they shouldn't be labelled as fast ( don't even get me started about "hot" ) or slow. Shouldn't they find a way to say whether or not the pace was contested? Their labelling is a major reason there has been confusion.
An excellent post with good insight to the problem.

[cj]

i agree using an even money example was not a great idea. If you look at the DRF for Aqueduct 3/24. Go to the 3rd race- Look at #5 Crazy Love. On Feb 4th,was 3 wide vs a slow pace and came back March 3 to win at 24-1. I am sure someone will point out other reasons why this horse won,but I think this race is a great example. After all Pace Ace is just another tool,if you don't like it, just ignore it. It is the same as speed numbers,pace numbers,trainer patterns,track biases. They are all tools,sometimes they lead you to the right horse,sometimes they don't.

I don't see that race pace as slow velocity wise. But even if it was, why is being three wide and close up to a slow pace an excuse? He backed up and was passed by two others and beaten pretty soundly.

Now if you take my view, that the pace was pretty fast (not blazing or anything), that is much more of an excuse in my opinion. In fact these are my favorite plays bar none---wide on first turn vs a fast pace. The pace figures below are for the leader, not crazy love.

[aaron]

I don't see that race pace as slow velocity wise. But even if it was, why is being three wide and close up to a slow pace an excuse? He backed up and was passed by two others and beaten pretty soundly.

Now if you take my view, that the pace was pretty fast (not blazing or anything), that is much more of an excuse in my opinion. In fact these are my favorite plays bar none---wide on first turn vs a fast pace. The pace figures below are for the leader, not crazy love.
You could take the view,if you are chasing a slow pace and are 3 wide and chasing after going on the pace in his race before and just missing at 53-1 ,you are probably taking the worse of it,especially on the inner track,which in my opinion has been playing inside more than outside. If I understand the Pace Ace,it is based more on flow,while you are basing your opinion on numbers.Now if you came up with this horse based on your numbers that is great,but if someone else was able to come up with the based on the Pace Ace,that is equally great. Crazy Love has run his best races on the lead,so if you could have made him speed after chasing on an off track 3 wide,that would be a plus.A horse chasing a slow pace wide is not expected to make up ground unless he is much the best.

[classhandicapper]

I agree that understanding them has been a problem so far. That's why I entered this thread. Believe me, I would perfectly happy to not be part of this discussion at all. I'm a QA guy that would rather be at Belmont Cafe gambling or watching the Knicks lose again. :lol: But it was clear that since most people think in terms fractions, thinking in terms of races sometimes developing counter to personal beliefs about the fractions, for reasons other than fractions, or because the accuracy of the fractions and figures were compromised by other factors, was not coming through.

Once people understand it and study it (and imo you should learn about it first), then they can decide for themselves whether a race flow metric is something they might want to incorporate into their thinking with or without their favorite pace figures. I see them as perfectly complimentary pieces of information, but that's just me. If you believe 100% in fractions, just ignore this and use your favorite pace figures.

Also, these ratings are not coming out of thin air. They reflect the "reality" of what happened in the race based on the chart (as opposed to what anyone might think should have theoretically happened). They are supported by an analysis of what the field looked like coming in. Without support from both, a race will not be rated. So a race that was clearly a merry-go-round will not get rated unless it also looked like it lacked speed and a race that totally collapsed will not get rated unless it also looked heavy on speed. One supports the other, but neither supports a rating alone.

There are loads of things other people use and swear by that I disregard and vice versa. That's why we all go to the windows. It wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed on everything. ;) It's just another tool in the kit. Enjoy or ignore.

[the little guy]

I agree that understanding them has been a problem so far. That's why I entered this thread. Believe me, I would perfectly happy to not be part of this discussion at all. I'm a QA guy that would rather be at Belmont Cafe gambling or watching the Knicks lose again. :lol: But it was clear that since most people think in terms fractions, thinking in terms of races sometimes developing counter to personal beliefs about the fractions, for reasons other than fractions, or because the accuracy of the fractions and figures were compromised by other factors, was not coming through.

Once people understand it and study it (and imo you should learn about it first), then they can decide for themselves whether a race flow metric is something they might want to incorporate into their thinking with or without their favorite pace figures. I see them as perfectly complimentary pieces of information, but that's just me. If you believe 100% in fractions, just ignore this and use your favorite pace figures.

Also, these ratings are not coming out of thin air. They reflect the "reality" of what happened in the race based on the chart (as opposed to what anyone might think should have theoretically happened). They are supported by an analysis of what the field looked like coming in. Without support from both, a race will not be rated. So a race that was clearly a merry-go-round will not get rated unless it also looked like it lacked speed and a race that totally collapsed will not get rated unless it also looked heavy on speed. One supports the other, but neither supports a rating alone.

There are loads of things other people use and swear by that I disregard and vice versa. That's why we all go to the windows. It wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed on everything. ;) It's just another tool in the kit. Enjoy or ignore.


Pretty much sums up why they have no business being in the running lines. Makes you wonder who is minding the store.

[VigorsTheGrey]

How does the DRF define pace versus speed verbally? So now that have BEYER figure, SPEED FIGURE + TRACK VARIANT, and now, super hot, hot, slow, and super slow...PACE....For what portion of the race are these new PACE adjectives supposed to be for? Early pace, Late Pace? Overall Pace? And how does SUPERHOT PACE in 1 race compare with SUPERHOT PACE in another race? Should not there be a figure?

[classhandicapper]

Pretty much sums up why they have no business being in the running lines. Makes you wonder who is minding the store.

Andy,

You are a really smart and experienced guy. So surely you are aware of the following.

1. There are whole threads on multiple forums where people argue about final time figures for major stakes because of wind, pace, changing track conditions, watering between races, biases, subjective disagreements about the outcome, variations in the relationships between distances etc... Yet virtually all PPs incorporate speed figures even though they are subjective and disagree with each other all the time (meaning many if not all are wrong on a routine basis). Some people are even crazy enough to use them for year end awards even though they all disagree. Why are they in the PPs?

2. People look at running lines and beaten lengths that are based on human observation. Those are clearly wrong quite often. Yet those flawed beaten lengths are used by people to figure out where horses were at various stages of the race and others even calculate pace figures based on them that are in many sets of PPs. [/B] Why are they in the PPs?

3. There are whole threads about the lack of run up information, changing run ups, rails being set all over the place, malfunctioning teletimers, fat fingered fraction information etc.. Yet people make figures with and without this information that are in the PPs. Why are they in the PPs?

4. I've seen several popular sets of PPs so crowded with automated bias calculations, race flow information, class info, power ratings and other calculated hieroglyphics I don't even understand them. I can barely read the PPs. Why is this nonsense in the PPs?

Our sport is too complex to say virtually anything of real significance is like 1 + 1 = 2 other than the names of the horses and a few other things. We demand all these things in our PPs anyway because they are tools and information that help us pick winners and generate value. They give us different views and insights that we are better off with than without. They help us solve problems and do analysis that other tools do not.

There are people that use race flow information that is already in PPs. Others buy it separately and import it into their PPs on their own because they know it has value. I have paid for race flow information and imported it into my PPs because I know it has value and has helped me. I've used these ratings privately for quite some time and have seen test results. I will continue to do so.

On the flip side, I do not argue that turf final time figures are idiotic and should therefore not be in the PPs because I personally don't think they belong there. They and all those other things I listed are in there because other people want them and some have been successful using them. They must have value even though they have very big warts.

[thaskalos]

Andy,

You are a really smart and experienced guy. So surely you are aware of the following.

1. There are whole threads on multiple forums where people argue about final time figures for major stakes because of wind, pace, changing track conditions, watering between races, biases, subjective disagreements about the outcome, variations in the relationships between distances etc... Yet virtually all PPs incorporate speed figures even though they are subjective and disagree with each other all the time (meaning many if not all are wrong on a routine basis). Some people are even crazy enough to use them for year end awards even though they all disagree. Why are they in the PPs?

2. People look at running lines and beaten lengths that are based on human observation. Those are clearly wrong quite often. Yet those flawed beaten lengths are used by people to figure out where horses were at various stages of the race and others even calculate pace figures based on them that are in many sets of PPs. [/B] Why are they in the PPs?

3. There are whole threads about the lack of run up information, changing run ups, rails being set all over the place, malfunctioning teletimers, fat fingered fraction information etc.. Yet people make figures with and without this information that are in the PPs. Why are they in the PPs?

4. I've seen several popular sets of PPs so crowded with automated bias calculations, race flow information, class info, power ratings and other calculated hieroglyphics I don't even understand them. I can barely read the PPs. Why is this nonsense in the PPs?

Our sport is too complex to say virtually anything of real significance is like 1 + 1 = 2. We demand all these things in our PPs anyway because they are tools that help us pick winners. They give us different views and insights that we are better off with than without. The help us solve problems and do analysis that other tools do not.

There are people that use race flow information that is already in PPs. Others buy it separately and import it into their PPs on their own because they know it has value. I have paid for race flow information myself and imported it into my PPs because I know it has value and has helped me. I've used these ratings privately for quite some time.

On the flip side, I am not arguing that turf final time figures are idiotic and should therefore not be in the PPs because I personally don't want them. They and all those other things I listed are in there because some people want them and some have been successful using them.

I know that you work for the DRF, and I have no desire to put you on the spot...but doesn't it seem odd to you that the DRF is interested in providing us with help on an "esoteric" topic like "race flow", while, at the same time, they insist on peddling a totally worthless track variant to us? Isn't this a little like putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't they provide us with a reasonable track variant first, since they already have that information already at their disposal...so we could first tackle the more important topic of pace-figure calculation...and THEN we can tackle "race-flow"...when we have some reliable pace-figures at our disposal?

As I said, I don't want to put you on the spot...and perhaps it isn't right to bother you with this question. But I find this terrible DRF track variant to be a very troubling matter in today's "information age"...and I wonder how long the DRF plans to be featuring it in their paper. And I don't know to whom else I should direct this question other than you.

[Tom]

I'd be happy if they fixed the Beyer Pars section of SimDaily, that I PAY for.
Headings have been missing for several YEARS and I have reported it MANY times, all to dead ears. C'est live!

It's a lot like the old joke, the radio guys says, now it's time for the baseball scores. 3-1, 4-2, 1-0, and in a thriller, 7-6.


Andy spoke out on the Steve Byk show, Tuesday this week, start for the second hour.

[biggestal99]

well 3 weeks have passed since I posted the question and since I am a daily DRF digital subscriber I will offer my opinion.

the race flow designation is helpful. I'd say a 7-8 on a 1-10 scale.

Keep or Dump? Keep.

Thanks

Allan

[aaron]

I know that you work for the DRF, and I have no desire to put you on the spot...but doesn't it seem odd to you that the DRF is interested in providing us with help on an "esoteric" topic like "race flow", while, at the same time, they insist on peddling a totally worthless track variant to us? Isn't this a little like putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't they provide us with a reasonable track variant first, since they already have that information already at their disposal...so we could first tackle the more important topic of pace-figure calculation...and THEN we can tackle "race-flow"...when we have some reliable pace-figures at our disposal?

As I said, I don't want to put you on the spot...and perhaps it isn't right to bother you with this question. But I find this terrible DRF track variant to be a very troubling matter in today's "information age"...and I wonder how long the DRF plans to be featuring it in their paper. And I don't know to whom else I should direct this question other than you.
I assume you mean the variant shown as 82-18 for example. I asked this question years ago. The answer I got is that many people use this variant and complained when they were thinking of taking it out. I have been around the track a long time,and I have known players who use this,some of them bet pretty good.

[classhandicapper]

I know that you work for the DRF, and I have no desire to put you on the spot...but doesn't it seem odd to you that the DRF is interested in providing us with help on an "esoteric" topic like "race flow", while, at the same time, they insist on peddling a totally worthless track variant to us?

Thaskalos,

This is a simple enough question. Even though I don't speak for the people at DRF that have decided to keep it there, I more or less know why.

A LOT of customers are elderly horseplayers that have devised handicapping techniques that use them. It doesn't matter if you explain to them why looking at Beyer figures is a better option. They want what they've been using for decades.

If they were removed it would give DRF an extra 5-6 positions in the running line to add more relevant data. There are a lot of people that would prefer that. But there would be a highly negative reaction to their removal from x% of the customer base. People are incredibly resistance to change and new ideas. That's my understanding. I hope the illogic of that made sense. ;)

[HorsemenHeist]

Track variant absolutely must stay in the form if only because tracks often play loose with their track condition. Maybe if tracks became consistent by using a penetrometer, there would be less need of a variant.

All 'good' turf courses aren't the same. The course was GOOD at Keeneland for this years BC and for the early races BC Saturday at Santa Anita, but you could hardly say that the tracks were equally fast.

[PaceAdvantage]

I know that you work for the DRF, and I have no desire to put you on the spot...but doesn't it seem odd to you that the DRF is interested in providing us with help on an "esoteric" topic like "race flow", while, at the same time, they insist on peddling a totally worthless track variant to us? Isn't this a little like putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't they provide us with a reasonable track variant first, since they already have that information already at their disposal...so we could first tackle the more important topic of pace-figure calculation...and THEN we can tackle "race-flow"...when we have some reliable pace-figures at our disposal?

As I said, I don't want to put you on the spot...and perhaps it isn't right to bother you with this question. But I find this terrible DRF track variant to be a very troubling matter in today's "information age"...and I wonder how long the DRF plans to be featuring it in their paper. And I don't know to whom else I should direct this question other than you.The reason why that track variant has endured is because there are a LOT of systems and software that STILL USE that number...hell, the Sartin Methodology uses that number!

There is still plenty of demand for that number...you should be grateful it's still in there... ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

I assume you mean the variant shown as 82-18 for example. I asked this question years ago. The answer I got is that many people use this variant and complained when they were thinking of taking it out. I have been around the track a long time,and I have known players who use this,some of them bet pretty good.This.

[thaskalos]

The reason why that track variant has endured is because there are a LOT of systems and software that STILL USE that number...hell, the Sartin Methodology uses that number!

There is still plenty of demand for that number...you should be grateful it's still in there... ;)

There were a lot of systems that used the old-time DRF speed figures too...but the Form evolved to the Beyers. The same should happen with the track variant...IMO. Leave the old variant there so the "old guys" can still use it...and give us "younger" guys a new, improved one. There is still some room on the outside margin of the paper that they could use for additional information. Now that they made the paper magazine-size...there is nothing else to do with that margin space anyway. You sure can't write your own figures there anymore.

When I was younger and more "enthusiastic" about the game...I made my own track variants for multiple tracks. But I've reached the point where time is becoming more valuable...and it would be nice if the printed edition of the DRF actually offered something that the modern player could consider a "new development". The DRF keeps bragging about it's "New Look"...but the paper still looks embarrassingly similar to the version that I used to buy 36 years ago. About he only drastic difference that I can see is the PRICE.

[aaron]

The reason why that track variant has endured is because there are a LOT of systems and software that STILL USE that number...hell, the Sartin Methodology uses that number!

There is still plenty of demand for that number...you should be grateful it's still in there... ;)
I think that answers the question of the track variant. Nothing left to say about it.

[thaskalos]

I think that answers the question of the track variant. Nothing left to say about it.
Oh...OK. Sorry...

[aaron]

Oh...OK. Sorry...
I certainly didn't mean that as a put down. I should have said,I have nothing more to say or comment on the track variant.

[thaskalos]

I certainly didn't mean that as a put down. I should have said,I have nothing more to say or comment on the track variant.
My mistake then. It looked to me as if you were closing down the variant discussion there.

[RXB]

There are people that use race flow information that is already in PPs. Others buy it separately and import it into their PPs on their own because they know it has value.

Yes, but Racing Flow-- assuming that is the imported info that you are referencing-- uses variant-adjusted times as part of their analysis. They also show separated ratings for "flow" and "bias" and then combine those into a single rating, too.

Perhaps there are contractual/monetary obligations regarding any additional usage of Moss' figures that DRF doesn't want to deal with. Regardless of the reason, DRF is now pretending that times aren't important when conducting pace analysis.

[classhandicapper]

Regardless of the reason, DRF is now pretending that times aren't important when conducting pace analysis.

Not true at all.

Some people are very pace figure and fraction oriented.

Some people do not trust fractions, pace figures, etc.. to be both accurate enough or to fully represent all the factors involved in the race development. In fact, that's why so many big name final time figure makers have refused to make them.

DRF already offers a product for analysis of races using fractions and pace figures (Moss).

Race Shape/Flow is an entirely different way of looking at how the race developed because it goes beyond just the chart. It also looks at the makeup of the race itself and uses each to support the conclusion and accuracy.

When I've analyzed races, I've always looked at the fractions, the race flow, and the makeup of the field as part of my overall analysis. So I personally see these as complimentary products. I have independent views of the same information and the freedom to use them how I feel they are most effective instead of in a prepackaged number I may not like.

It took close to 2 years to be fully implemented, has been reviewed by in house handicappers, and a 5 year study was done to ensure they offer value. Hopefully people understand it better. If not there will be FAQs, podcasts, webinars, and articles.

[cj]

Not true at all.

Some people are very pace figure and fraction oriented.

Some people do not trust fractions, pace figures, etc.. to be both accurate enough or to fully represent all the factors involved in the race development. In fact, that's why so many big name final time figure makers have refused to make them.

DRF already offers a product for analysis of races using fractions and pace figures (Moss).

Race Shape/Flow is an entirely different way of looking at how the race developed because it goes beyond just the chart. It also looks at the makeup of the race itself and uses each to support the conclusion and accuracy.

When I've analyzed races, I've always looked at the fractions, the race flow, and the makeup of the field as part of my overall analysis. So I personally see these as complimentary products. I have independent views of the same information and the freedom to use them how I feel they are most effective instead of in a prepackaged number I may not like.

Hopefully people understand it better. If not there will be FAQs, podcasts, webinars, and articles.

I think what is probably confusing people is that one is being placed above the other. Moss Pace Figures are a separate product and not in the running line unless somebody wants them. This Pace Ace stuff is there whether you want it or not. I understand why, the conflicts between the two would be even harder to explain than the Pace Ace itself seems to be. I bet if you took a poll most people would choose pace figures in running lines over this. It just seems weird that this tool was placed above pace figures. I don't think I've heard many people clamoring for a race flow designation in the PPs as standard fare.

[classhandicapper]

I think what is probably confusing people is that one is being placed above the other. Moss Pace Figures are a separate product and not in the running line unless somebody wants them.

I would say a major reason the Moss figures were never put into the print products is that it would add 10 extra lines of PPs for each horse. Multiply that by 100s of horses and the paper would explode (as would print costs). It would also dramatically change the look and feel of the PPs. If you want to learn about resistance to change in the paper business, that might be a good test. ;)

The same is true of Classic PPs that people buy to selectively print. Customer costs and the look would change dramatically.

Our customers seem to like print.

So they are available separately.

Formulator is different. People can customize what they want to see and what they want to print. People can set Moss on to look at them, but print without, look at and print them, ignore them totally etc...

The S or H has no cost and is a minimal change that's easily ignored if you aren't interested.

[cj]

The S or H has no cost and is a minimal change that's easily ignored if you aren't interested.

But they can't turn it off?

[betovernetcapper]

If you bet $25 on DRFBETS you get this edition free. I like it, not as much as I like the Formulator but for free, why not? It provides a quick & dirty way of viewing or incorporating pace. :)

[RXB]

Not true at all.

Some people are very pace figure and fraction oriented.

Some people do not trust fractions, pace figures, etc.. to be both accurate enough or to fully represent all the factors involved in the race development. In fact, that's why so many big name final time figure makers have refused to make them.

DRF already offers a product for analysis of races using fractions and pace figures (Moss).

Race Shape/Flow is an entirely different way of looking at how the race developed because it goes beyond just the chart. It also looks at the makeup of the race itself and uses each to support the conclusion and accuracy.

When I've analyzed races, I've always looked at the fractions, the race flow, and the makeup of the field as part of my overall analysis. So I personally see these as complimentary products. I have independent views of the same information and the freedom to use them how I feel they are most effective instead of in a prepackaged number I may not like.

It took close to 2 years to be fully implemented, has been reviewed by in house handicappers, and a 5 year study was done to ensure they offer value. Hopefully people understand it better. If not there will be FAQs, podcasts, webinars, and articles.

How many people, not just in the horse racing realm but anywhere at all, think that the word "slow" is unrelated to speed/time/velocity?

How many people who have legitimately studied pace have found that reasonably good variant-adjusted time estimates do not improve pace/flow analysis compared to the same analysis without any consideration of pace figures?

How many people who buy the DRF print version-- that's a sizable portion of DRF's customer base-- have access to Moss' pace figures within their purchased copies?

I believe the answer to all three of those questions is "Zero."

DRF could very easily combine or cross-reference the Moss pace figures with this new flow tool prior to assigning any race designations in order to help prevent false designations and thus improve the quality of the info. For whatever reason(s), DRF chooses not to do so. Thus, effectively if not literally DRF is in fact pretending that pace figures are irrelevant, at least to their print/PDF customers.

By the way, when something is "reviewed by in-house handicappers" it is similar to the practice of preaching to the converted. Take the message out to people who would be considered by the converted to be among the unenlightened, unwashed masses and often the reaction is very different.

[thaskalos]

Not true at all.

Some people are very pace figure and fraction oriented.

Some people do not trust fractions, pace figures, etc.. to be both accurate enough or to fully represent all the factors involved in the race development. In fact, that's why so many big name final time figure makers have refused to make them.

DRF already offers a product for analysis of races using fractions and pace figures (Moss).

Race Shape/Flow is an entirely different way of looking at how the race developed because it goes beyond just the chart. It also looks at the makeup of the race itself and uses each to support the conclusion and accuracy.

When I've analyzed races, I've always looked at the fractions, the race flow, and the makeup of the field as part of my overall analysis. So I personally see these as complimentary products. I have independent views of the same information and the freedom to use them how I feel they are most effective instead of in a prepackaged number I may not like.

It took close to 2 years to be fully implemented, has been reviewed by in house handicappers, and a 5 year study was done to ensure they offer value. Hopefully people understand it better. If not there will be FAQs, podcasts, webinars, and articles.

I would have rejected the idea in 5 minutes. :cool:

[dnlgfnk]

How many people, not just in the horse racing realm but anywhere at all, think that the word "slow" is unrelated to speed/time/velocity?

How many people who have legitimately studied pace have found that reasonably good variant-adjusted time estimates do not improve pace/flow analysis compared to the same analysis without any consideration of pace figures?

How many people who buy the DRF print version-- that's a sizable portion of DRF's customer base-- have access to Moss' pace figures within their purchased copies?

I believe the answer to all three of those questions is "Zero."

DRF could very easily combine or cross-reference the Moss pace figures with this new flow tool prior to assigning any race designations in order to help prevent false designations and thus improve the quality of the info. For whatever reason(s), DRF chooses not to do so. Thus, effectively if not literally DRF is in fact pretending that pace figures are irrelevant, at least to their print/PDF customers.

By the way, when something is "reviewed by in-house handicappers" it is similar to the practice of preaching to the converted. Take the message out to people who would be considered by the converted to be among the unenlightened, unwashed masses and often the reaction is very different.

There are at least two of us.

Me, who sat in a grandstand nightly, with high-powered binoculars in tow, during the local '81-'82 seasons and daily witnessed hard used frontrunners frequently record slower times than lightly restrained leaders in subsequent races...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1042331&postcount=77

and Andy Beyer, describing dueling leaders in slowish fractions throwing fast 1/16ths at each other in The Winning Horseplayer.

[EMD4ME]

There are at least two of us.

Me, who sat in a grandstand nightly, with high-powered binoculars in tow, during the local '81-'82 seasons and daily witnessed hard used frontrunners frequently record slower times than lightly restrained leaders in subsequent races...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1042331&postcount=77

and Andy Beyer, describing dueling leaders in slowish fractions throwing fast 1/16ths at each other in The Winning Horseplayer.

That's why taking painstaking notes on how hard a horse is used/rated and for how long and when it happened is vital.

Throw in some really good pace figs and you have an information edge when combining the 2.

[cj]

That's why taking painstaking notes on how hard a horse is used/rated and for how long and when it happened is vital.

Throw in some really good pace figs and you have an information edge when combining the 2.


Definitely a good idea. I personally don't give much credit if a horse is going fast but is clear. And I've seen races fall apart that didn't look fast on the clock and make note of those too. Who was that horse that almost beat Tepin, Isabella Sings? Some think she ran great but this was a case where the flow didn't match the pace figures. I think both have merit at times.

[RXB]

There are at least two of us.

Me, who sat in a grandstand nightly, with high-powered binoculars in tow, during the local '81-'82 seasons and daily witnessed hard used frontrunners frequently record slower times than lightly restrained leaders in subsequent races...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1042331&postcount=77

and Andy Beyer, describing dueling leaders in slowish fractions throwing fast 1/16ths at each other in The Winning Horseplayer.

So, a speed-figure maker who has never been a pace-figure maker plus another guy in the grandstand, each offering anecdotal evidence qualifies as a legitimate pace/flow study?

How about the guys at Racing Flow-- you know, people who have really gotten down into the guts of it with a large database, and have made a business out of it? They include running positions, lengths gained, track bias and other factors in their analysis. But they indicate quite clearly that velocity as measured per quarter-mile is also a major indicator. Gee, I wonder why?

http://racingflow.com/images/jake-jacobs-interview.pdf

"Over time, we created a series of models to predict how much closing should have occurred in a given race, using various variables tailored to each track and configuration, including: How fast was the first quarter? How fast was the second quarter relative to the first quarter? How much did the runners decelerate during the second half of the race? Where was the rail positioned? How big was the field? How fast was the final time?"

[dnlgfnk]

So, a speed-figure maker who has never been a pace-figure maker plus another guy in the grandstand, each offering anecdotal evidence qualifies as a legitimate pace/flow study?

How about the guys at Racing Flow-- you know, people who have really gotten down into the guts of it with a large database, and have made a business out of it? They include running positions, lengths gained, track bias and other factors in their analysis. But they indicate quite clearly that velocity as measured per quarter-mile is also a major indicator. Gee, I wonder why?

http://racingflow.com/images/jake-jacobs-interview.pdf

"Over time, we created a series of models to predict how much closing should have occurred in a given race, using various variables tailored to each track and configuration, including: How fast was the first quarter? How fast was the second quarter relative to the first quarter? How much did the runners decelerate during the second half of the race? Where was the rail positioned? How big was the field? How fast was the final time?"


There's not much I disagree with in the link. My singular opening move in a race is to determine who was helped/hurt by the pace previously, in the search for overlays. And by this time, I know not to disparage Benter wannabe's armed with Law of Large Number ammunition. I'm not at all saying that every fraction must be inverted, i.e., fast equals slow and vice versa. Look at the 1981 Derby.

But I can state with Jack, regarding my two year accumulation of visual data, and the often mysterious fractions posted by visually, significantly, prolongedly urged leaders:

"As for fractional times, I don’t know why it is, but...aside from academic interest, I really don’t care why this is true. I just need to know that it
is indeed true."

And you can find me quoting Beyer's "Charlie" in my initial posts here. "It's not how fast they run. It's how they run fast that counts." That's why I began sitting in that grandstand.

[the little guy]

And you can find me quoting Beyer's "Charlie" in my initial posts here. "It's not how fast they run. It's how they run fast that counts." That's why I began sitting in that grandstand.




Similar to when "Charlie" and I drove to Keeneland once, and a trooper pulled us over in PA when "Charlie" was driving about 90.....he told the Trooper, with a straight face ( I actually think he was serious ) " I didn't realize there was a speed limit on this road. "

It's not how fast you're driving....it's how fast you think you're allowed to drive.

[dnlgfnk]

Similar to when "Charlie" and I drove to Keeneland once, and a trooper pulled us over in PA when "Charlie" was driving about 90.....he told the Trooper, with a straight face ( I actually think he was serious ) " I didn't realize there was a speed limit on this road. "

It's not how fast you're driving....it's how fast you think you're allowed to drive.

I enjoyed that, TLG. I also enjoyed your work at Gulfstream.

I can't tell you how many times I used to scrutinize the Glorious Sheik race (pps and chart of 8/9/77 SAR in "My $50k Year...") in order to glean something of Charlie's methodology. I drove my postman nuts when receiving the WAPO daily in the early '80's, opening to Beyer's column like a birthday present, hoping he would mention Charlie.

Nowadays I have bookmarked archived articles mentioning Charlie.

[Racey]

So after 3 weeks in what does the board think of the race flow symbols by DRF's longtime handicapper Kenny Peck. It appears to have a few interesting nuances and shows a player that going against flow under the right conditions can be rewarding :cool:

[Racey]

After reading entire thread I see 90% of board reaction is negative. Seems like it took many including Shrupp 3 weeks to understand it is not based on fraction time. Maybe once folks get by that they can see it is all about projected race flow. I hope some will be flexible and use this feature

[CincyHorseplayer]

After reading entire thread I see 90% of board reaction is negative. Seems like it took many including Shrupp 3 weeks to understand it is not based on fraction time. Maybe once folks get by that they can see it is all about projected race flow. I hope some will be flexible and use this feature

It means racing forms can reach the $10 mark. That was the god damn goal IMO once it reached 7.50. I don't care because I'm buying it anyway. The DRF PP's are like my sacred grandmothers and they work. They are perfect. All these other add ons and $$ changes is see through. No player needs this BS. It's just tax. I'll pay it but it's still fluff and BS

[the little guy]

After reading entire thread I see 90% of board reaction is negative. Seems like it took many including Shrupp 3 weeks to understand it is not based on fraction time. Maybe once folks get by that they can see it is all about projected race flow. I hope some will be flexible and use this feature

You think players here should be flexible and agree with the notion that relative time is NOT a factor in determining whether a pace was fast or slow?

There is a better chance smart people will suddenly start believing the moon is made of green cheese.

[pandy]

After reading entire thread I see 90% of board reaction is negative. Seems like it took many including Shrupp 3 weeks to understand it is not based on fraction time. Maybe once folks get by that they can see it is all about projected race flow. I hope some will be flexible and use this feature

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Experiment with it and see if you can get it to work for you. There is information in the past performances that I used to think was superfluous, but then I noticed that horses who fit certain criteria that this information pointed to were winning and paying big prices. So I studied it, and lo and behold, it wasn't just a coincidence.

[SandyW]

The DRF should explain what and how to use these new flow tools in every edition of the paper until the public get the hang of them.

[Racey]

I guess little Andy thinks Kenny Peck is way off base here. However I am doing well going against the flow in H & S races...... watch the emboldened H and a horse up close to pace speed holding no significant fade....dropping crush it.

[pandy]

I guess little Andy thinks Kenny Peck is way off base here. However I am doing well going against the flow in H & S races...... watch the emboldened H and a horse up close to pace speed holding no significant fade....dropping crush it.


That sounds like a smart approach.

[classhandicapper]

Seems like it took many including Shrupp 3 weeks to understand it is not based on fraction time. Maybe once folks get by that they can see it is all about projected race flow. I hope some will be flexible and use this feature

I think the idea is that fractions are often reported inaccurately, much more difficult to make accurate track variants for than speed figures due to wind, run ups, rail settings, rack maintenance, horses not doing their best running early etc.... They are also sometimes misleading as to the impact on the horses due to pressure (or lack of pressure), between call pace variations, how the tack was playing, and how the jockeys were adjusting to that track etc... So if you are just looking at fractions you are often looking at a flawed or incomplete picture of the pace and its impact.

All that said, IMHO you'd have to be crazy to think fractions don't help with the analysis also.

That's why races aren't marked just by how the race flowed after the fact. THere are other reasons a race could flow a certain way that has nothing to do with the actual race setup. That's why the field is analyzed both before and after the race. There must also be good evidence from the makeup of the field that the race was likely to flow a certain way before it is marked. One helps verify the other. That way there is a good correlation between the real pace, the impact it was likely to have, what the chart is saying, and the rating.

It would be possible to also incorporate fractions heavily into the analysis (as opposed to playing a minor role) to increase accuracy further, but you would then also leave yourself open to introducing the errors inherent in fractions/pace mentioned above. So you'd probably add accuracy in some spots and lose accuracy in others.

Unfortunately, pace and its impact is pretty darn complex.

Pace figures are an already existing product that mesh perfectly as a compliment to flow ratings for those that look at fractions also (I do).

Think of it like class and speed.

There are class handicappers that look at who beat who with what trip.

There are speed handicappers that look at the final times and trips.

They are two pieces of the same puzzle with different strengths and weaknesses. It would be possible to create a rating that combines both class and speed that works better than either alone (I have demonstrated this to be so in personal research), but it also takes away some of the strengths of each as a stand alone when you add in the occasional inaccurate or misleading info from the other.

Most people want to evaluate class and speed separately in their own way or they choose to look at one and ignore the other.

If you think race flow adds value as a stand alone product (it does), then use it.

If you believe 100% in what the fractions say, then ignore it.

If you think both pieces of information are helpful (as I do), then look at both the flow rating and the pace figures in a way that suits you hoping you can achieve a superior understanding.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the subject.

[the little guy]

So now the latest defense is that fractions are reported inaccurately?

The BS never ends.

[Kash$]

[QUOTE=the little guy]So now the latest defense is that fractions are reported inaccurately?

The BS never ends.[/QUOTE

Entire thread dedicated to fractional errors
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128057

[cj]

[QUOTE=the little guy]So now the latest defense is that fractions are reported inaccurately?

The BS never ends.[/QUOTE

Entire thread dedicated to fractional errors
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128057

These errors might occur once in about every 200 races. Can't really see that as a reason for not using them. The main reason I catch the ones I do is because I know fractions do matter and when they don't make sense they stick out to me.

[biggestal99]

I guess little Andy thinks Kenny Peck is way off base here. However I am doing well going against the flow in H & S races...... watch the emboldened H and a horse up close to pace speed holding no significant fade....dropping crush it.

I like the 3 or 4 wide press and fade with the embolden H. The horse was running fast and losing ground and obviously will tire. Next race in a non embolden H race, the horse will run better than the odds indicate.

if its dropping in class....well. :-)

Allan

[o_crunk]

The figure makers have a bull horn on wrong / impossible reported times.

You're fooling yourself if you think the same errors don't occur with points of call and lengths behind / ahead. I've seen official charts with the wrong finish position reported and not corrected for months. So you can imagine the in-race call errors.

There's a lot of talk about official times because figure makers rely on them as the primary value to derive figures but there's errors everywhere, especially when values are derived from human observations like in-race points of call.

This is not to say that Equibase does a bad job. I don't think they do, they have a tough job that is not always appreciated. But if you believe that time is unreliable, you also have to accept the same for pretty much every value that Equibase reports.

[cj]

The figure makers have a bull horn on wrong / impossible reported times.

You're fooling yourself if you think the same errors don't occur with points of call and lengths behind / ahead. I've seen official charts with the wrong finish position reported and not corrected for months. So you can imagine the in-race call errors.

There's a lot of talk about official times because figure makers rely on them as the primary value to derive figures but there's errors everywhere, especially when values are derived from human observations like in-race points of call.

This is not to say that Equibase does a bad job. I don't think they do, they have a tough job that is not always appreciated. But if you believe that time is unreliable, you also have to accept the same for pretty much every value that Equibase reports.

Very true, of course. Things like run up and temp rail settings are often in error. Pretty sure everyone has figured out the "1st gelding" stuff is crazy flawed.

[classhandicapper]

[QUOTE=the little guy]So now the latest defense is that fractions are reported inaccurately?

The BS never ends.[/QUOTE

Entire thread dedicated to fractional errors
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128057

It's not just the reported fractions. To be honest, that's the very least of the problems.

Like I said, it's the ability to adjust the fractions relative to the final time correctly so you know what actually happened. There are varying run ups from track to track, day to day, and race to race, there is wind with or against the horses for different parts of the race, different rail settings on turf, certain sections of the track can be faster or slower than others (the less used chute could be slower than the rest of the track, the first turn could be different from rest of the track etc..).

These complexities and others are why so many smart people haven't wanted to make or rely on pace figures to begin with.

On top of that you still have to worry about pressure related issues and the impact that pace actually had on the horses on that surface.

I think the skeptics are wrong.

If you put a lot of work into the figures, you can account for some of that with enough accuracy to make the figures very useful. That's why I use them. But I also think it's more complicated than just the fractions and I know that accuracy is a much bigger issue for pace than final time. So looking at race flow helps. If you reject that view, you are free to ignore it. It doesn't cost a nickel.

[EMD4ME]

The figure makers have a bull horn on wrong / impossible reported times.

You're fooling yourself if you think the same errors don't occur with points of call and lengths behind / ahead. I've seen official charts with the wrong finish position reported and not corrected for months. So you can imagine the in-race call errors.

There's a lot of talk about official times because figure makers rely on them as the primary value to derive figures but there's errors everywhere, especially when values are derived from human observations like in-race points of call.

This is not to say that Equibase does a bad job. I don't think they do, they have a tough job that is not always appreciated. But if you believe that time is unreliable, you also have to accept the same for pretty much every value that Equibase reports.


Not knocking EB either but I see huge mistakes with them. A horse may be 4th after the 1st Q of a 6F race but maybe 4 back, not 1 as they report. Have seen some ridiculous errors.

[Cratos]

[QUOTE=Kash$]

It's not just the reported fractions. To be honest, that's the very least of the problems.

Like I said, it's the ability to adjust the fractions relative to the final time correctly so you know what actually happened. There are varying run ups from track to track, day to day, and race to race, there is wind with or against the horses for different parts of the race, different rail settings on turf, certain sections of the track can be faster or slower than others (the less used chute could be slower than the rest of the track, the first turn could be different from rest of the track etc..).

These complexities and others are why so many smart people haven't wanted to make or rely on pace figures to begin with.

On top of that you still have to worry about pressure related issues and the impact that pace actually had on the horses on that surface.

I think the skeptics are wrong.

If you put a lot of work into the figures, you can account for some of that with enough accuracy to make the figures very useful. That's why I use them. But I also think it's more complicated than just the fractions and I know that accuracy is a much bigger issue for pace than final time. So looking at race flow helps. If you reject that view, you are free to ignore it. It doesn't cost a nickel.
I am curious, a typical racetrack layout in NA is 2 straight-a-ways in parallel connected by turns at each end.

Therefore all races are run around at least 1 turn and most if not all races have a run up distance to allow the horses to go from a standing start to a "running" race start.

With that in mind and the horse runs initially down a straight-a-way into a turn which imposes a side force on the horse before the horse enters into another straight-a-way in the opposite direction I would like to understand how would you calculate the run up impact on the horse's final time given that you have 3 vectors during the race.

Also would there be a difference if there weren't any turns; in other words there would be a straight (no turns) from start to finish with the same run up.

[Kash$]

Drf has now changed its symbol

C-race flow favors closers
C circle-race flow extremely favors closers
S-race flow favors speed
S circle-race flow extremely favors speed

[EMD4ME]

Drf has now changed its symbol

C-race flow favors closers
C circle-race flow extremely favors closers
S-race flow favors speed
S circle-race flow extremely favors speed

Let the arguing BEGIN ! :lol:

[VigorsTheGrey]

Let the arguing BEGIN ! :lol:

Shouldn't it be...."race flow favored...."...etc..

[SandyW]

These new pace notations are completely worthless,they have zero effect on how anybody handicaps a race.
When you have a notation here and there what good are they?

[EMD4ME]

Shouldn't it be...."race flow favored...."...etc..

No argument from me ;) It is a past tense when discussing past performances :lol:

[VigorsTheGrey]

Strange terminology...Hard Flow, Super Hard Flow, Soft Flow, Super Soft Flow?? Phrases that require phrases to explain the original phrases?

All the while no quantitative insight....soft by how much? Super Hard by how much?

Maybe just PFC, PFC+ and PFS and PFS+ ....For Pace Favored Closers, etc...

.Or even better PFC:5 or PFC:7, or PFC:12 to indicate just HOW MUCH the pace favored closers....

Or S-3:C7 to indicate just how much it hindered Speed AND how much it favored closers.

Or just C7, or just S4......with 0 being no bias and 10 being extreme bias..

[VigorsTheGrey]

Strange terminology...Hard Flow, Super Hard Flow, Soft Flow, Super Soft Flow?? Phrases that require phrases to explain the original phrases?

All the while no quantitative insight....soft by how much? Super Hard by how much?

Maybe just PFC, PFC+ and PFS and PFS+ ....For Pace Favored Closers, etc...

.Or even better PFC:5 or PFC:7, or PFC:12 to indicate just HOW MUCH the pace favored closers....

Or S-3:C7 to indicate just how much it hindered Speed AND how much it favored closers.

Or just C7, or just S4......with 0 being no bias and 10 being extreme bias..

Or just S3, or just C7....with 0 being no bias, and 9 being extreme bias.

[Racey]

folks are really having issues with this.....not at all :confused: sure why.

[o_crunk]

There's a horse in the Lexington, Yo Carm. Debut start on 8/1/15 in a 2YO straight maiden. The race is flagged for S. It's a 5 horse field, 4 of the starters were making their debuts.

DRF says that these flags are generated based on an algorithm that:

Prior to every race run in North America, the field is scanned to find a projected race shape, whether it be one that should be expected to develop well for closers or for speed, due to the amount of projected frontrunners in the race.

http://www.drf.com/news/new-symbols-more-clearly-define-race-shape-feature

How is there "no subjectivity" involved in projecting the race shape of a race where 80% of the starters haven't raced before?

New tools are cool and everything and I don't think it's fair to trash a new idea. Just not sure there's been an honest explanation for what these new tools are measuring.

[biggestal99]

These new pace notations are completely worthless,they have zero effect on how anybody handicaps a race.
When you have a notation here and there what good are they?

How can you say that when I have used them successfully.

They are worthless to you, not to everyone. :-)

don;t cry when I take your money using them.

Allan

[Kash$]

There's a horse in the Lexington, Yo Carm. Debut start on 8/1/15 in a 2YO straight maiden. The race is flagged for S. It's a 5 horse field, 4 of the starters were making their debuts.

DRF says that these flags are generated based on an algorithm that:

Prior to every race run in North America, the field is scanned to find a projected race shape, whether it be one that should be expected to develop well for closers or for speed, due to the amount of projected frontrunners in the race.

http://www.drf.com/news/new-symbols-more-clearly-define-race-shape-feature

How is there "no subjectivity" involved in projecting the race shape of a race where 80% of the starters haven't raced before?

New tools are cool and everything and I don't think it's fair to trash a new idea. Just not sure there's been an honest explanation for what these new tools are measuring.


:ThmbUp:

[VigorsTheGrey]

I think good my idea of using S1 as the starting figure printed on the form line when their algorithm detects a race shape favorable to early speed....on some races the algorithm will sense higher levels of "favor toward early speed" at which point the form line might show S2, S3, S4, S5 up to a predetermined highest level of "favor."

The process would be the same for horses moving into the early speed, when the algorithm detects this C1 would be used followed by C2, C3, C4, and finally C5, or whatever the highest level is pre-programmed to be.

This way, Form readers will rapidly get a sense of that race shape and the severity of that shape.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Strange terminology...Hard Flow, Super Hard Flow, Soft Flow, Super Soft Flow?? ...

Another Web seminar to explain coming up called Maxipadyourbankroll.

[ultracapper]

Another Web seminar to explain coming up called Maxipadyourbankroll.

OMG!!!! That's a touchdown. Funny.

[whodoyoulike]

I think good my idea of using S1 as the starting figure printed on the form line when their algorithm detects a race shape favorable to early speed....on some races the algorithm will sense higher levels of "favor toward early speed" at which point the form line might show S2, S3, S4, S5 up to a predetermined highest level of "favor."

The process would be the same for horses moving into the early speed, when the algorithm detects this C1 would be used followed by C2, C3, C4, and finally C5, or whatever the highest level is pre-programmed to be.

This way, Form readers will rapidly get a sense of that race shape and the severity of that shape.

You're suggestion of adding numbers is similar to what BRIS is currently doing.

... Here’s how the Race Shape symbols are assigned: Prior to every race run in North America, the field is scanned to find a projected race shape, whether it be one that should be expected to develop well for closers or for speed, due to the amount of projected frontrunners in the race. Then, after the race is run and the official chart is available, the program checks to see if the race was run as expected. If it was, the pre-race symbol is applied. If it was not, there is no race shape symbol for the race. There is no subjectivity involved, and the “chart check” application ensures that the pre-race designation was in fact correct.

Not every race receives a race shape symbol – in fact, most do not. That doesn’t necessarily mean the race was neutral, as it could also mean that the post-race analysis did not match the pre-race analysis. Or, the lack of defined running styles of the runners in the field made it too difficult to project a race flow with any degree of certainty. The symbols are applied only in situations where the flow of the race clearly aided a particular running style.

From the DRF article. It appears okay in concept.

But, does this mean they are only looking at the race shape in the early going?

[VigorsTheGrey]

You're suggestion of adding numbers is similar to what BRIS is currently doing.



From the DRF article. It appears okay in concept.

But, does this mean they are only looking at the race shape in the early going?

This is not what I expected about the race being scanned prior to race time for projected race shapes then a symbol applied if a race meets a projection...

What I thought, without knowing how it worked, was that the post race pace actualities would be analysed for significant pace anomalies that typically cause speed to last or break down. If the race met certain sets of criteria then certain symbols would be applied .....Maybe this amount to the same thing eventually...

In any event, what I am looking for is a fast easy way to understand if any given prior race had any significant pace anomalies.

Using a nomenclature like S1 through S4 for speed favoring pace actualities and C1 through C4 for closing into the pace actualities seems like enough categories to be useful and could be applied to more races just the nothing-regular-super application.

Obviously, I know very little about any of this so I hope my comments are not construed by others in a negative light....I'm just a lowly and for the most part unprofitable horse player and racing fan that just happens to buy a lot of Daily Racing Forms so I like to talk about stuff related to all this...thanks for your patience...Vig.

[whodoyoulike]

My comment about a similarity with BRIS' pace numbering i.e., E7, P3 etc., is actually different because BRIS' focus is the horse versus this DRF labeling is focused on the race not the individual horse. At least this is the way it appears to me.

[Racey]

has a podcast up where Peck explains the symbols......maybe with DRF changing H to C perhaps folks can relate better to the flow idea . I bet horses against the flow .

[Racey]

that players are overthinking it... watch the podcast

[VigorsTheGrey]

I'm looking at the DRF's New Race Shapes Symbols in Saturday's April 16 2016 Edition. For me it is an improvement over the last way the info was presented. I do wonder though, what their cutoff parameters are for(1) NOT indicating anything; and (2) For Favored versus Extremely Favored.

In reality there exists, I presume, a very broad range, but this simplification resolves it down to 5 categories of race shapes: Indifferent; (2) for Speeds; and (2) for Closers.

What it doesn't tell you is the difference between two races of the same categories. Or how extreme was the favoring. This can only be done only with a numerical valuation, e.g., S1, S2, S3....C1, C2, C3...

If DRF is making demarcations delineating between 5 basic race shapes, what is preventing them from expanding the range of race shape out further and making more demarcations?

The mind has an easier time processing S1, S2, S3....C1, C2, C3...than it does remembering (4) types of BOLD, BULLET/UNBOLD symbols especially when all four or more occur in a horses's PP lines....so I still think there is room here for improvement....and they can still BOLD the alpha-numeric designation to draw attention to this key piece of racing information.

[mountainman]

I'm wondering if the running styles that eventually won or finished high on the ticket influence drf's new summary of race-flow?

In other words, what if a race is completely devoid of early speed and the pace is not contested, yet closers still sweep the ticket? Will the designation nonetheless indicate speed-friendly?????

[VigorsTheGrey]

I'm wondering if the running styles that eventually won or finished high on the ticket influence drf's new summary of race-flow?

In other words, what if a race is completely devoid of early speed and the pace is not contested, yet closers still sweep the ticket? Will the designation nonetheless indicate speed-friendly?????
Yes, and then there is the whole race shape area of pace Pressers.

Pressers make up a significant portion of winners. How is shape or flow that is favorable to Pressers shown?

[Tom]

The symbols are off to the side, so they don't bother me at all. I see no value in them myself, but if someone else does, MPTT.

What really bothers me is how DRF has destroyed the running lines by inserting the claimed from notes in between lines. The visual value of having all the lines in rows wa s that your eye could gist up and down, looking at each pace line and comparing them in your mind. Now, you get these stupid road blocks that disrupt the process. DRF used to be the best PPS out there.

[therussmeister]

The symbols are off to the side, so they don't bother me at all. I see no value in them myself, but if someone else does, MPTT.

What really bothers me is how DRF has destroyed the running lines by inserting the claimed from notes in between lines. The visual value of having all the lines in rows wa s that your eye could gist up and down, looking at each pace line and comparing them in your mind. Now, you get these stupid road blocks that disrupt the process. DRF used to be the best PPS out there.
They used to be the only ones out there.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The Florida derby shows pace extremely favors closers, Nyquist wires the field.
The Bluegrass stakes shows pace extremely favors closers, Brody's Cause rallies from far back to win....
...what this shows me is that the Nyquist win was far superior to Brody's since Nyquist went against the pace grain...Do you agree?

But since there is no quantitative data on the difference between normal pace, pace favored closers, and pace extremely favored closers, it is difficult to translate this into lengths favoring.

[Racey]

As I said earlier in this thread.......my plays are always against the flow....seems horses up close in a C race that hold on to win or stay close for a long time do well when the next time out the pace is less demanding.

Think Palace Malice in the derby pace And Oxbow...... Oxbow wires the Preakness ....Palace the Belmont.....Oh yea load up when pletchers Gettysburg runs again he held well after a brisk pace.

[VigorsTheGrey]

As I said earlier in this thread.......my plays are always against the flow....seems horses up close in a C race that hold on to win or stay close for a long time do well when the next time out the pace is less demanding.

Think Palace Malice in the derby pace And Oxbow...... Oxbow wires the Preakness ....Palace the Belmont.....Oh yea load up when pletchers Gettysburg runs again he held well after a brisk pace.

So your play in this case, if all other factors are excluded, is Nyquist?

[VigorsTheGrey]

As I said earlier in this thread.......my plays are always against the flow....seems horses up close in a C race that hold on to win or stay close for a long time do well when the next time out the pace is less demanding.

Think Palace Malice in the derby pace And Oxbow...... Oxbow wires the Preakness ....Palace the Belmont.....Oh yea load up when pletchers Gettysburg runs again he held well after a brisk pace.

And conversely, horses that close well in an S race are plays next time out, excluding all other factors?

[Racey]

closing into a S race is also viable move but strike rate is less than holding speed up close in a C race.

[VigorsTheGrey]

closing into a S race is also viable move but strike rate is less than holding speed up close in a C race.

I get it now....thank you.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I guess that is why I think it important to know what the DRF parameters are for each of the 4 pace types. I'm attempting to predict today's race pace. Will it be a nominal pace? Will it be a S or C? Or will it be a Super S, or a Super C? If I think today's race will be a nominal, then I should keep an eye out for horses that did well in a race that had any pace icon associated with it, right?

[Kash$]

TimeformUS color coded bias is similiar.

[cj]

TimeformUS color coded bias is similiar.

No, it doesn't. The fractions are fair and there is no bias notation for Florida Derby day.

[Kash$]

No, it doesn't. The fractions are fair and there is no bias notation for Florida Derby day.

I was referring to how he was using it as a tool..When reading tfus pps i also wager on horses who ran against the flow(bias) its made me alot of money..


The Bluegrass stakes shows pace extremely favors closers, Brody's Cause rallies from far back to win.... ...what this shows me is that the Nyquist win was far superior to Brody's since Nyquist went against the pace grain...Do you agree?

[cj]

I was referring to how he was using it as a tool..When reading tfus pps i also wager on horses who ran against the flow(bias) its made me alot of money..


The Bluegrass stakes shows pace extremely favors closers, Brody's Cause rallies from far back to win.... ...what this shows me is that the Nyquist win was far superior to Brody's since Nyquist went against the pace grain...Do you agree?

I don't agree with far superior, no. But better, yes.

[classhandicapper]

This is a small general comment applicable to pace no matter how you analyze it.

Sometimes, one pace horse is very superior to the rest of the pace horses. In a situation like that, the superior horse may not have to work exceptionally hard to get the lead, put away the other speeds, and go on to win. In a race like that, the chasers are typically used up badly chasing the dominant speed and run worse than they would have in more neutral circumstances. But the winner's fractions and/or effort, while probably very good, may not have been huge in putting them away. So I think part of the analysis (if you want to really dig), it to look at the quality of the speeds the main speed put away relative to him.

[Robert Fischer]

The Bluegrass stakes shows pace extremely favors closers, Brody's Cause rallies from far back to win.... ...what this shows me is that the Nyquist win was far superior to Brody's since Nyquist went against the pace grain...Do you agree?

Neither of those races told us anything about either horse.

Nyquist was racing against a Grade1 horse, and a couple Grade2 horses. The Grade1 horse ran a nightmare trip, and the 2 Grade2 horses sucked up on the rail and ran in the stretch. All Nyquist had to do was be himself, and he only had to do that for about a mile. (I don't even remember the also-rans(worse than 3rd) in that race, maybe someone was half-decent, doesn't matter)

Brody's Cause just had to ride the flow in the Bluegrass. His race offers even less clues than Nyquist's race, because there is more chaos involved in closing with a group of closers, than in setting the pace against chumps.
Very little to go by with Brody's Cause all year. His Futurity was a great trip, his Juvenile was a great trip, his Tampa Bay was tough trip and his Bluegrass was a great trip. He could be anything, and he's a horse who a lot of fans like. Maybe he has a nose for the wire and can be the first horse to capitalize on a closer's opportunity in the Derby, or maybe he's a Grade2 horse who has had dream trips.

[VigorsTheGrey]

No, it doesn't. The fractions are fair and there is no bias notation for Florida Derby day.

And this is an example of why I would like to know what DRF's pace parameters are. You say the fractions were fair and I tend to agree with you, so how does DRF arrive at "pace extremely favored closers?" How does one horse wiring the field suggest the race pace extremely favored closers?

I guess the answer must be is what class handicapper said above right?

So the race extremely favored closers with the exception of the winner.

[aaron]

Neither of those races told us anything about either horse.

Nyquist was racing against a Grade1 horse, and a couple Grade2 horses. The Grade1 horse ran a nightmare trip, and the 2 Grade2 horses sucked up on the rail and ran in the stretch. All Nyquist had to do was be himself, and he only had to do that for about a mile. (I don't even remember the also-rans(worse than 3rd) in that race, maybe someone was half-decent, doesn't matter)

Brody's Cause just had to ride the flow in the Bluegrass. His race offers even less clues than Nyquist's race, because there is more chaos involved in closing with a group of closers, than in setting the pace against chumps.
Very little to go by with Brody's Cause all year. His Futurity was a great trip, his Juvenile was a great trip, his Tampa Bay was tough trip and his Bluegrass was a great trip. He could be anything, and he's a horse who a lot of fans like. Maybe he has a nose for the wire and can be the first horse to capitalize on a closer's opportunity in the Derby, or maybe he's a Grade2 horse who has had dream trips.
Astute post. Just because a horse was with or against the bias,does not automatically mean he /she will go forward or regress because of the bias. Sometimes you just have to have a feel that a horse is either good or bad despite the bias. I am sure horses have run with biases and have come back to run well in their next start. Sometimes you just have to know the horse. It is not an easy determination to make,but the players who can make these determinations will have an edge over those that cannot

[VigorsTheGrey]

This is a small general comment applicable to pace no matter how you analyze it.

Sometimes, one pace horse is very superior to the rest of the pace horses. In a situation like that, the superior horse may not have to work exceptionally hard to get the lead, put away the other speeds, and go on to win. In a race like that, the chasers are typically used up badly chasing the dominant speed and run worse than they would have in more neutral circumstances. But the winner's fractions and/or effort, while probably very good, may not have been huge in putting them away. So I think part of the analysis (if you want to really dig), it to look at the quality of the speeds the main speed put away relative to him.

Classhandicapper,
Is there any way you could nudge the boys down at information retrieval to run a query that indicates the percentage of all races involved that had one of each of the new pace icons? What remains would be the percentage of races with a fair pace, right?

If I think today's race will be fair, then I should keep an eye out for horses that did well in a race that had any pace icon associated with it, right?

Just speculation, but I tend to think the percentages over time may be:

S 18%
SS 8%

C 11%
CC 8%

Fair pace 55%

Anybody else care to speculate prior to, hopefully, finding out the answer?

[Robert Fischer]

If I think today's race will be fair, then I should keep an eye out for horses that did well in a race that had any pace icon associated with it, right??

as far as a bias thing - you'd technically want the horse's who have done well in races that had no icon ('fairly run' races).

However, it seems like common sense that in a fairly run race, you'd actually look to simply take the 'best' horse available rather than obsess too much over bias.

[VigorsTheGrey]

as far as a bias thing - you'd technically want the horse's who have done well in races that had no icon ('fairly run' races).

However, it seems like common sense that in a fairly run race, you'd actually look to simply take the 'best' horse available rather than obsess too much over bias.

How about a both/and solution where we look for yours and we look for mine?

[classhandicapper]

Classhandicapper,
Is there any way you could nudge the boys down at information retrieval to run a query that indicates the percentage of all races involved that had one of each of the new pace icons? What remains would be the percentage of races with a fair pace, right?

If I think today's race will be fair, then I should keep an eye out for horses that did well in a race that had any pace icon associated with it, right?

Just speculation, but I tend to think the percentages over time may be:

S 18%
SS 8%

C 11%
CC 8%

Fair pace 55%

Anybody else care to speculate prior to, hopefully, finding out the answer?

It was studied in depth long before implementation, but I don't have the numbers handy. If I can find them, I'll let you know. I'm pretty sure it's lower than your estimates across the board (maybe about 25% in total are rated).

There is also a tendency to get more C and CC races as you go up in class because there are more speed horses that are currently sharp. At the lower class levels, there are sometimes very few horses that qualify that way.

When a race is not rated, it does not necessarily mean it was "fair" (though in most cases that would be accurate). What it means is that there wasn't enough evidence from both the pre race analysis and chart analysis to to meet the existing standards for getting rated.

Upgrading and downgrading horses gets a little tricky sometimes because some trips are borderline. In studies, the best cases (based on value) were when a horse was clearly moving from an unfavorable setup to a favorable setup and fit well in the field otherwise (and betting against short prices horses that were doing the opposite).

[VigorsTheGrey]

It was studied in depth long before implementation, but I don't have the numbers handy. If I can find them, I'll let you know. I'm pretty sure it's lower than your estimates across the board (maybe about 25% in total are rated).

There is also a tendency to get more C and CC races as you go up in class because there are more speed horses that are currently sharp. At the lower class levels, there are sometimes very few horses that qualify that way.

When a race is not rated, it does not necessarily mean it was "fair" (though in most cases that would be accurate). What it means is that there wasn't enough evidence from both the pre race analysis and chart analysis to to meet the existing standards for getting rated.

Upgrading and downgrading horses gets a little tricky sometimes because some trips are borderline. In studies, the best cases (based on value) were when a horse was clearly moving from an unfavorable setup to a favorable setup and fit well in the field otherwise (and betting against short prices horses that were doing the opposite).

Thank you, this is definitely one of the kernals of gold I am hunting for while finding ways to use the pace flow icons in the Daily Racing Form. I think the new pace indicators are a great lead in to handicapping the race...

One of the first things I noticed was that I needed to establish the running style of each runner in today's race...I can use Bris formula for that of Early, Early/Presser, Presser, and Sustained... for this.

Once I label the running style on the racing form, I can place a mark next to this label to indicate whether the horse did well against the flow...my next task is to determine whether I believe today's race will end up being an F (for fair pace), an S or SS (for favoring speed or extemely favoring speed) or C or CC (for favoring closers or extremely favoring closers).

That is part of the reason why I am interested in knowing what the DRF's criteria or parameters are for establishing a pace rating for today's race which you say is partly done prior to the running of the race.

It is as though I would like the Daily Racing Form to publish the expected pace contribution to today's race pace next to each horse...ie, is this horse expected to contribute today to a fair pace, a pace favorable to speed, or a pace favorable to closers?

This is immensely important to know. If we are successful in determining an expected pace rating contribution before hand, we can better determine how any given runner may adjust to today's expected pace scheme.

I guess it just would not work due to scratches and late scratches....so I guess I could just assume the Pace scheme will be fair...since you indicated that about 75% of the races will eventually have no pace rating anyway....

[o_crunk]

Thank you, this is definitely one of the kernals of gold I am hunting for while finding ways to use the pace flow icons in the Daily Racing Form. I think the new pace indicators are a great lead in to handicapping the race...

One of the first things I noticed was that I needed to establish the running style of each runner in today's race...I can use Bris formula for that of Early, Early/Presser, Presser, and Sustained... for this.

Once I label the running style on the racing form, I can place a mark next to this label to indicate whether the horse did well against the flow...my next task is to determine whether I believe today's race will end up being an F (for fair pace), an S or SS (for favoring speed or extemely favoring speed) or C or CC (for favoring closers or extremely favoring closers).

That is part of the reason why I am interested in knowing what the DRF's criteria or parameters are for establishing a pace rating for today's race which you say is done prior to the running of the race.

It is as though I would like the Daily Racing Form to publish the expected pace contribution to today's race pace next to each horse...ie, is this horse expected to contribute today to a fair pace, a pace favorable to speed, or a pace favorable to closers?

This is immensely important to know. If we are successful in determining an expected pace rating before hand, we can better determine how any given runner may adjust to today's expected pace scheme.

I guess it just would not work due to scratches and late scratches....so I guess I could just assume the Pace scheme will be fair...since you indicated that about 75% of the races will eventually have no pace rating anyway....


Jeez. Not to toot our own horn because I work for TFUS but might as well switch because you get the pre-race projected pace flag (updated with scratches in real time) and you get running style labels with numerical early and late numbers for each entry. Mix in the bias indicators and you've got pretty much what you're doing all in one box.

I don't think these DRF "pace" indicators are measuring the same thing though.

Anyway, I still have an open question about how a race could be labeled C or S when the race had 80% first time starters? No idea how to project pace for a race where the majority of runners haven't stepped foot on the track.

Either way, I question the idea that these symbols are created with a "no subjectivity" algorithm. Whoever is touting that just doesn't understand how algorithms work, so I was surprised to see DRF say as much.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Jeez. Not to toot our own horn because I work for TFUS but might as well switch because you get the pre-race projected pace flag (updated with scratches in real time) and you get running style labels with numerical early and late numbers for each entry. Mix in the bias indicators and you've got pretty much what you're doing all in one box.

I don't think these DRF "pace" indicators are measuring the same thing though.

Anyway, I still have an open question about how a race could be labeled C or S when the race had 80% first time starters? No idea how to project pace for a race where the majority of runners haven't stepped foot on the track.

Either way, I question the idea that these symbols are created with a "no subjectivity" algorithm. Whoever is touting that just doesn't understand how algorithms work, so I was surprised to see DRF say as much.

Too bad TimeFormUS does not have a hard copy version of their product with a distribution network in place...it is just too tough to get grasp of the race viewing one runner at a time on a computer screen...major downside. Tough to mark up e-version too and make notes....

[o_crunk]

I hear you. But you want up to the minute info with late changes and scratches, you certainly will not be getting it through a PDF.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I hear you. But you want up to the minute info with late changes and scratches, you certainly will not be getting it through a PDF.

I hear you. Critical that ratings are updated in real time...so I guess we need both...I don't see how any horse player can handicap without the form....I'm he of those both /and guys not the either/or type. The convenience of the form is largely unsurpassed in real life...scratches and late changes are important but is often just a small part of the process.

[cj]

Too bad TimeFormUS does not have a hard copy version of their product with a distribution network in place...it is just too tough to get grasp of the race viewing one runner at a time on a computer screen...major downside. Tough to mark up e-version too and make notes....

You can definitely print a hard copy if you want one.

[the little guy]

Either way, I question the idea that these symbols are created with a "no subjectivity" algorithm. Whoever is touting that just doesn't understand how algorithms work, so I was surprised to see DRF say as much.



Sure makes you wonder who is calling the shots with these.

[VigorsTheGrey]

You can definitely print a hard copy if you want one.

Most of the information is the same stuff for all publications...names, dates, generic stuff that simply identifies but does not distinguish, apples to apples, what I'd like to see is a matrix set up for all the publications that shows what is different from the rest and that explains why that difference may be important... Maybe DeltaLover is right that one simply must build one's own DB with customized effects of interest to the individual. That would be a big step for me but I hear it is not that tough to do, just requires that I push through the door into my own brave new world of learning and growth.

I suppose you just don't find many copies of the form laying around your office? Do you every cheat?

[the little guy]

Another major problem with the Pace Ace is the third, unsaid, label.....nothing. For the people who use this, they will likely make the very reasonable assumption that no designation means a fair race, when in fact this is not always the case ( forgetting about the races, like the San Felipe, that are mislabeled ).

The sooner this is erased from the pps the better for the players.

[cj]

Most of the information is the same stuff for all publications...names, dates, generic stuff that simply identifies but does not distinguish, apples to apples, what I'd like to see is a matrix set up for all the publications that shows what is different from the rest and that explains why that difference may be important... Maybe DeltaLover is right that one simply must build one's own DB with customized effects of interest to the individual. That would be a big step for me but I hear it is not that tough to do, just requires that I push through the door into my own brave new world of learning and growth.

I suppose you just don't find many copies of the form laying around your office? Do you every cheat?

I haven't looked at a Form in years and years, going back even before TimeformUS. I wrote my own stuff.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Another major problem with the Pace Ace is the third, unsaid, label.....nothing. For the people who use this, they will likely make the very reasonable assumption that no designation means a fair race, when in fact this is not always the case ( forgetting about the races, like the San Felipe, that are mislabeled ).

The sooner this is erased from the pps the better for the players.

If they would publish their criteria for the ratings there would be more acceptance because one could better see if there are misapplications. I like them and want to use them. It is human nature to want to know more about something you like...do they really think that if they tell us someone will just copy it or do it on their own? The ratings are very helpful, I love them!

[VigorsTheGrey]

I haven't looked at a Form in years and years, going back even before TimeformUS. I wrote my own stuff.
I know. I was just being silly. I kind of figured that out. I was just wondering what would happen if anyone in the office was caught with a Daily Racing Form in tow?

[classhandicapper]

I can understand why some people might consider the San Felipe mislabeled, but the algorithm did exactly what it should have done there and exactly what Kenny wants it to do.

The race itself had plenty of speed in it. That's important information on it's own. Danzig Candy set a fast pace (based on Moss pace and just a casual glance at the fractions), outran and put away the other speeds, wired, and the closers picked up the pieces behind him.

There will be times when a dominant speed outruns and puts away inferior speeds and wins. You have to allow for that. The speed horses that are behind a horse like that are generally badly compromised. That's important information. That's why the race was rated. It let's you know that the reason some of those other horses didn't make the lead was because they were outrun by an even faster speed (not that they were dull or off form) and lets you know why they tired. They would be expected to show more speed and their typical form in a more neutral race next time. It also lets you know that the winner was probably an especially fast horse (as the subsequent race demonstrated).

The handicapping is then on you if you if you'd like to take it to the next level and watch the replay, look at the PPs of the specific speed horses etc.. That's the way handicapping information always is whether it's speed figures, pace figures or anything else. They need to be interpreted correctly. You can always take it to the next level and look at trips, field quality, compare them to other sources when they disagree etc....

[VigorsTheGrey]

I can understand why some people might consider the San Felipe mislabeled, but the algorithm did exactly what it should have done there and exactly what Kenny wants it to do.

The race itself had plenty of speed in it. That's important information on it's own. Danzig Candy set a fast pace (based on Moss pace and just a casual glance at the fractions), outran and put away the other speeds, wired, and the closers picked up the pieces behind him.

There will be times when a dominant speed outruns and puts away inferior speeds and wins. You have to allow for that. The speed horses that are behind a horse like that are generally badly compromised. That's important information. That's why the race was rated. It let's you know that the reason some of those other horses didn't make the lead was because they were outrun by an even faster speed (not that they were dull or off form) and lets you know why they tired. They would be expected to show more speed and their typical form in a more neutral race next time. It also lets you know that the winner was probably an especially fast horse (as the subsequent race demonstrated).

The handicapping is then on you if you if you'd like to take it to the next level and watch the replay, look at the PPs of the specific speed horses etc.. That's the way handicapping information always is whether it's speed figures, pace figures or anything else. They need to be interpreted correctly. You can always take it to the next level and look at trips, field quality, compare them to other sources when they disagree etc....

You see, this is the reason why this conversation needs to happen, because this insight is not immediately apparent...Now I see what you mean and I thank you for pointing it out...

So on one hand the rating for the San Felipe calcs out as one extremely favoring closers (CC for short), but on the other hand a strong dominant early horse wired? I understand this. But the immediate question that comes to mind is: If it was a CC race, then how come a closer did not win?

You say the other early types ran good races and look for them to do better in a more neutral race next time, so how do you go from that to the race becoming a CC? Seems like it favored early types. Early types went to the front, and one of them pulled away...The pace never broke down so how could the race favor closers?

Because the final win position is not the sole criteria for determining the rating in the algorithm?

[cj]

I know. I was just being silly. I kind of figured that out. I was just wondering what would happen if anyone in the office was caught with a Daily Racing Form in tow?

I'm sure some people look, would be silly not to keep abreast of what your competition is doing. Where do you think this "Pace Ace" idea came from at DRF?

[classhandicapper]

In some ways pace analysis is a lot like using speed figures. If you just look at speed figures and bet fast horses, that will only take you so far , not too far. If you want to get to the next level, you need to watch replays, know and understand the trips, understand the pace, know if there were any biases, know the quality of the field, know how reliable that figure was etc... That speed figures are often not anywhere near a complete picture does not mean we shouldn't look at them. We want to know if the race was probably fast or slow anyway because they are an important tool and piece of the puzzle. Pace figures and race flow are a tool in a similar way. They tell you something important about the race, but they are not a blind dctation of what happened. That requires a more detailed subjective analysis to take it to the next level.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I'm sure some people look, would be silly not to keep abreast of what your competition is doing. Where do you think this "Pace Ace" idea came from at DRF?

That would mean there's good chance of a "mole" in somebody's organization judging by the secrecy surrounding said proprietary methods... :)

[classhandicapper]

Vigors,

The other speeds did NOT hold. What we know is that they ran better than it looks in terms of how much speed they showed and how well they held.

Here's a very extreme example to illustrate the point.

Dr Fager wires a 25k claimer loaded with speed and kills them all off. The fact that he wired doesn't mean the race was not a C race. It sure as hell was a CCCC race for the chasers.

When a speed horse wires a C race, the winner may have and often has run a huge race. But sometimes he was just dominant and ran well. what we are learning in those cases is more about the other speeds that chased him. They are better than they look. These are the applications you learn with time the same way you learn how to use speed figures and take it to the next level. Listen to Kennys podcasts etc.

[classhandicapper]

The idea for Pace Ace came from Kenny Peck. He's been a pace/race flow oriented handicapper for DRF for decades. What Pace Ace is doing is mimicking what Kenny has been doing privately and manually for a very long time for his personal use. It is now automated and scaled up to cover many tracks. Kenny could only do a few for himself manually. I've seen his notebooks. 😀

[VigorsTheGrey]

The idea for Pace Ace came from Kenny Peck. He's been a pace/race flow oriented handicapper for DRF for decades. What Pace Ace is doing is mimicking what Kenny has been doing privately and manually for a very long time for his personal use. It is now automated and scaled up to cover many tracks. Kenny could only do a few for himself manually. I've seen his notebooks. 😀

Will do. I'll search the internet now for Kennys podcasts..

Like I say, I really like the ratings because they provide, IMO, the right starting point to begin to look into the past performances...which horses are coming out of which pace scenarios....

These pace ratings provide an opportunity for greater success without having to crunch out pace figures on my own, by identifying races where something different was happening, and gives you some clues...for the hunt!

Thanks.

[classhandicapper]

Will do. I'll search the internet now for Kennys podcasts..

Like I say, I really like the ratings because they provide, IMO, the right starting point to begin to look into the past performances...which horses are coming out of which pace scenarios....

These pace ratings provide an opportunity for greater success without having to crunch out pace figures on my own, by identifying races where something different was happening, and gives you some clues...for the hunt!

Thanks.

No problem.

He did a webcast last week and I'm sure he'll be writing more articles
and doing webcasts and podcasts from time to time.

[Racey]

These symbols continue to be helpful in many ways and I hope even little Andy who is no fan of Kenny Peck can see the light. perhaps he can put his dislike aside and give an objective opinion

[pandy]

These symbols continue to be helpful in many ways and I hope even little Andy who is no fan of Kenny Peck can see the light. perhaps he can put his dislike aside and give an objective opinion

I wholeheartedly agree with you. If you know how to use them, they are not only helpful when picking winners, but very good for picking winning longshots.

[classhandicapper]

For me, they are indispensable as a supplement to pace figures.

There are way too many races with fast/slow fractions that do not develop the way "theory" suggests because of the field makeup, action within the race, track bias, and other complications to measuring pace well. The race flow symbols give you another view into what happened in the race based on how much speed was actually entered in the race and how the chart looks.

One of my favorite uses is for running style analysis.

If you see a horse that typically goes for the lead, but last time he was 4th or 5th early and the race got a C+, it's very likely the race was loaded with speed types and he was outrun by horses that were quicker out of the gate, faster, or the jock decided not to battle the others. No matter what, he was out of position because it. You can't always see that in the fractions.

The same thing happens in reverse. Sometimes there's no speed in a race and some horse that usually sits off the pace gets the lead. Even if the pace figures look average or mildly quick, if the race got an S+ symbol, it's telling you that horse probably just drew into a race without any other real speed types and inherited the lead. In a more normal field he'd get outrun early and sit again.

No automated system for figures, race flow, bias or anything else is ever going to be as good as analyzing fields, watching replays, looking at charts manually etc... but that doesn't mean they aren't useful.

I also take a quick glance at the Timeform Bias (red or blue) all the time also.

Do I agree with every bias or race flow note?

No.

But both are terrific ways of getting your attention. They are telling you that something about that race or day was significant enough to set off the algorithm. So I go back and take a look.

Beyer and TimeformUS figures have evolved over the years (decades when it comes to Beyer) and keep getting better and better. The same can be true of the Face Flow symbols if there is demand for them to be refined. There is already a list of things that can be done to improve the accuracy of the notes and provide supplemental information that was put together after the 5 years of testing was done.

[classhandicapper]

Just for the record (in case someone doesn't already know from the conversation throughout the thread), I work at DRF, Kenny is my friend, and I helped him on this project. So I guess there should be some kind of disclaimer, but I'm calling it as I see it.

[Racey]

Like I said throughout the thread and Pandy agreed IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THEM..... Guys like Little Andy come off smug and dismiss Peck and his insight.

[Racey]

Ever did was remove Peck and Thomas from Happy Hour and leave us with Bernier.:rant:

[GMB@BP]

Ok, it only took me reading 16 pages and two articles and I think I got it, and I will watch the webinar tomorrow to understand more.

I think this tool can be userfull as I manually make a note of the expected pace (using Timeform's pace projector) and the actually pace. This way I get two pieces of information.

1. for whatever reason the race not run as expected which makes me look a little closer at the why on the replays.

2. It will tell me how the race shape was before the race.

I want to know why was my speed horse not on the lead last time, was it a projected fast pace with many other speed horses which immediately compromised their chances, which is often not dependent on what the pace figures were.

I wish it gave the pre race and post race designations rather then only showing something if it was confirmed.

Now how good is their pre race judge of what the pace was supposed to be? If its dependent on the Moss pace figures I am going to say not very accurate.

[GMB@BP]

Yea, totally getting this now as I have race shapes before and after the race in every race run in NY for the past 3 months and looking through my formulator files I see what they are doing and how it makes sense. Its no different than my manual work really in noting how the race shape was predicted and how it was run, and it does seem rather consistent with my notes.

Again, still feels like useful information to know the algorithm of race shape PRIOR to ever race, not just the ones that lined up. Plenty of times a race set up for speed that ended up becoming a crazy pace and then falling apart, doesnt mean the algorithm was wrong just that the race dynamics may have dictated it to fall apart.

Also, reading a few posts in this thread, as long as it gets explained well somewhere I dont see how having more information is a bad thing, the person doing the handicapping can use the info that they want to use. I use the DRF forms but dont use the Beyere figures.

[betovernetcapper]

Anyone have a clue when these will be added to Formulator?

[GMB@BP]

Anyone have a clue when these will be added to Formulator?

They are in there on my forumulator

[classhandicapper]

Yea, totally getting this now as I have race shapes before and after the race in every race run in NY for the past 3 months and looking through my formulator files I see what they are doing and how it makes sense. Its no different than my manual work really in noting how the race shape was predicted and how it was run, and it does seem rather consistent with my notes.

Again, still feels like useful information to know the algorithm of race shape PRIOR to ever race, not just the ones that lined up. Plenty of times a race set up for speed that ended up becoming a crazy pace and then falling apart, doesnt mean the algorithm was wrong just that the race dynamics may have dictated it to fall apart.

Also, reading a few posts in this thread, as long as it gets explained well somewhere I dont see how having more information is a bad thing, the person doing the handicapping can use the info that they want to use. I use the DRF forms but dont use the Beyere figures.


It's looking at both the pre race field makeup and the chart, but a race will never get either a C or S unless it meets the pre race standard for speed types. There are different standards for turf/dirt, sprint/route, and C/S vs C+ and S+.

One reason I find the inclusion of the pre race info useful that hasn't been discussed is that if for example a race is loaded with speed, but several of the riders grab because they don't want to get involved, the fractions may not be that fast. But if a bunch of horses that like the lead are choked back, they are probably out of position and not running the way they like anyway. So the race might still fall apart on some level. If it does, the race flow symbol will probably catch it as an unusual situation even though the pace figures will not.

The other scenario I like is the speed of speed scenario.

Sometimes a race is loaded with speed, but one of them shakes loose and dominates on the front end. To most people a race like that does not look very interesting from a chart perspective because it went wire to wire. But a LOT of live underrated horses will often come out of a race like that. Even though the race goes wire to wire, the chasers often quit badly and are much sharper than they will look next time out. It also says something about that W2W winner. Even though he was loose, you know he outran other fast horses to get to the lead. So he's probably a VERY fast horse.

[thaskalos]

At what point of call are these pace-flow indicators determined...at the first quarter, or at the half?

[CincyHorseplayer]

There have been so many ways to deal with pace invented that it's almost unreal that these things exist. They are stuck in yesteryear!

[classhandicapper]

At what point of call are these pace-flow indicators determined...at the first quarter, or at the half?

It's looking at multiple calls to evaluate both pre race and the chart. The standards are a little different between sprints and routes.

[mountainman]

Admirable undertaking, but many of the pace designations assigned Mnr races leave me scratching my head. The only one that seems reliable is the hard "C"-when meltdown is expected and does transpire.

I realize these symbols sprung from sharp minds, and I'd love to discover all the c's and s's are simply more nuanced than it appears (and merit closer scrutiny), but when it comes to races I'm well-familiar with and closely assess on my own, I'm just not feeling that.

[classhandicapper]

Admirable undertaking, but many of the pace designations assigned Mnr races leave me scratching my head. The only one that seems reliable is the hard "C"-when meltdown is expected and does transpire.

I realize these symbols sprung from sharp minds, and I'd love to discover all the c's and s's are simply more nuanced than it appears (and merit closer scrutiny), but when it comes to races I'm well-familiar with and closely assess on my own, I'm just not feeling that.

I'll try to help a little.

Remember, it's not trying to tell you whether the fractions were fast or slow. That would be the job of pace figures. There's a lot of overlap between fractions and race flow, but sometimes races fall apart with slow fractions (and vice versa) and there are accuracy issues with fractions and pace figures that are hard to deal with also.

So instead, it's trying to tell you whether the makeup of the field favored front runners or closers and then it's looking at the chart for validating evidence that the race favored the projected style.

1. One thing some people don't understand is the occasional C or even C+ race that went wire to wire (especially with a loose lead). That's understandable, but there's a reason for that designation. Perhaps the race did not fall apart in the way people typically think of it, but what it's saying is that the leader was fast enough to outrun other speed horses and those secondary speeds were probably torched. They are eligible to jump up next time in a softer pace scenario.

Imagine Seattle Slew in an allowance race with a lot of speed horses. He'd jump out to clear lead and wire easily. The race might get a C or even a C+ depending on what happened behind him in the chart. That's telling you that those other speed horses chasing him were probably badly compromised.

2. Sometimes a races has a lot of speed but everyone grabs and rates. The fractions might be slow, but several of those speed horses might run poorly anyway because they were taken out of their game (a common complaint around here). Another might win by closing. A race like that might still get a C even though the fractions were slow and it didn't develop as expected if the chart suggests it should anyway.

3. Even though field size is part of the algorithm, it's more difficult to evaluate the chart in small fields because there is way less movement no matter what happens.

I would suggest that if you see a smallish field and a soft S or C don't put as much weight on it as other races. Think of it more like a speed figure for a race where the track was clearly changing speeds all day or there were heavy winds etc... The figure might be right, but the confidence level is lower.

Hope that helps a little.

Like I said earlier, speed and pace figures have been evolving and improving for decades. There are areas of refinement possible here that have already been identified if people want them.

[mountainman]

I'll try to help a little.

Remember, it's not trying to tell you whether the fractions were fast or slow. That would be the job of pace figures. There's a lot of overlap between fractions and race flow, but sometimes races fall apart with slow fractions (and vice versa) and there are accuracy issues with fractions and pace figures that are hard to deal with also.

So instead, it's trying to tell you whether the makeup of the field favored front runners or closers and then it's looking at the chart for validating evidence that the race favored the projected style.

1. One thing some people don't understand is the occasional C or even C+ race that went wire to wire (especially with a loose lead). That's understandable, but there's a reason for that designation. Perhaps the race did not fall apart in the way people typically think of it, but what it's saying is that the leader was fast enough to outrun other speed horses and those secondary speeds were probably torched. They are eligible to jump up next time in a softer pace scenario.

Imagine Seattle Slew in an allowance race with a lot of speed horses. He'd jump out to clear lead and wire easily. The race might get a C or even a C+ depending on what happened behind him in the chart. That's telling you that those other speed horses chasing him were probably badly compromised.

2. Sometimes a races has a lot of speed but everyone grabs and rates. The fractions might be slow, but several of those speed horses might run poorly anyway because they were taken out of their game (a common complaint around here). Another might win by closing. A race like that might still get a C even though the fractions were slow and it didn't develop as expected if the chart suggests it should anyway.

3. Even though field size is part of the algorithm, it's more difficult to evaluate the chart in small fields because there is way less movement no matter what happens.

I would suggest that if you see a smallish field and a soft S or C don't put as much weight on it as other races. Think of it more like a speed figure for a race where the track was clearly changing speeds all day or there were heavy winds etc... The figure might be right, but the confidence level is lower.

Hope that helps a little.

Like I said earlier, speed and pace figures have been evolving and improving for decades. There are areas of refinement possible here that have already been identified if people want them.

With all respect, Wayne, pace complexion, field make-up, and assessing flow after the fact are some of my specialties. And I wasn't posing a question. Merely making a comment. Be well, pal.

[classhandicapper]

With all respect, Wayne, pace complexion, field make-up, and assessing flow after the fact are some of my specialties. And I wasn't posing a question. Merely making a comment. Be well, pal.

I wasn't even remotely suggesting that you don't understand race flow. I was giving examples of why symbols sometimes appear for races that don't necessarily fit the definitions that individual handicappers might use for themselves to describe the race flow.

The w2w winner is the best example.

I've heard multiple very experienced handicappers question how a race with a loose leader that went wire to wire could possibly get a C or C+ rating. That's a good question.

The explanation can be found in the horses he outsprinted to get the lead and what happened to them.

If he outsprinted other speeds and they fell apart behind him it might get a C.

If there weren't any other speeds and the race didn't fall apart behind him, it might get an S.

If it looked more within the "average" range it would get nothing.

I'm sure you personally understand all that as a handicapper, but it's not always clear what the symbol is saying and why.

[cj]

I wasn't even remotely suggesting that you don't understand race flow. I was giving examples of why symbols sometimes appear for races that don't necessarily fit the definitions that individual handicappers might use for themselves to describe the race flow.

The w2w winner is the best example.

I've heard multiple very experienced handicappers question how a race with a loose leader that went wire to wire could possibly get a C or C+ rating. That's a good question.

The explanation can be found in the horses he outsprinted to get the lead and what happened to them.

If he outsprinted other speeds and they fell apart behind him it might get a C.

If there weren't any other speeds and the race didn't fall apart behind him, it might get an S.

If it looked more within the "average" range it would get nothing.

I'm sure you personally understand all that as a handicapper, but it's not always clear what the symbol is saying and why.

How did you guys handle the Del Mar Derby? I found this a tricky one. The fractions were slow, yet the pace setters finished in the last three positions. They were all longshots that few probably considered contenders. So, the race has a late flow look that probably isn't true. The slow pace would make it seem like you'd want to upgrade the closers, but that would be mistake in this case IMO.

[classhandicapper]

How did you guys handle the Del Mar Derby? I found this a tricky one. The fractions were slow, yet the pace setters finished in the last three positions. They were all longshots that few probably considered contenders. So, the race has a late flow look that probably isn't true. The slow pace would make it seem like you'd want to upgrade the closers, but that would be mistake in this case IMO.

That race did not qualify for a symbol based on the pre race analysis even though the chart looks like the race fell apart.

The algorithm uses different standards for sprints, routes, turf, and dirt.

The pre race standards for turf are a lot tougher than for dirt because the research indicated it had to be more extreme to have enough of a measurable impact on the result to note it as a possible race flow situation.

You set me up perfectly for something I've been thinking about lately that's somewhat contrary.

If all the pace setters are terrible horses, isn't that in some way still favorable for the closers like you said? (that's a question)

If a bunch of high quality speeds duel, they will exhaust themselves and the closers get to run by a lot of dead tired horses.

If they are all terrible speeds and die on their own, that's still a pretty good position to be in if you are a closer.

The difference would be if you should upgrade the speeds. If they were good horses that went at it hard, they should be upgraded next time. If they stink, they stink.

[betovernetcapper]

They are in there on my forumulator

I must have missed them. I was at the Webinar where they said they would eventually put them in Formulator. They've done it faster then I thought. thanks for the heads up.

[GMB@BP]

How did you guys handle the Del Mar Derby? I found this a tricky one. The fractions were slow, yet the pace setters finished in the last three positions. They were all longshots that few probably considered contenders. So, the race has a late flow look that probably isn't true. The slow pace would make it seem like you'd want to upgrade the closers, but that would be mistake in this case IMO.

I do agree.

There are a number of anomalies at Del Mar this meet, where races with flat pace profiles that fell completely apart, or fall apart pace profiles that were pace running 1-2-3.

[GMB@BP]

That race did not qualify for a symbol based on the pre race analysis even though the chart looks like the race fell apart.

The algorithm uses different standards for sprints, routes, turf, and dirt.

The pre race standards for turf are a lot tougher than for dirt because the research indicated it had to be more extreme to have enough of a measurable impact on the result to note it as a possible race flow situation.

You set me up perfectly for something I've been thinking about lately that's somewhat contrary.

If all the pace setters are terrible horses, isn't that in some way still favorable for the closers like you said? (that's a question)

If a bunch of high quality speeds duel, they will exhaust themselves and the closers get to run by a lot of dead tired horses.

If they are all terrible speeds and die on their own, that's still a pretty good position to be in if you are a closer.

The difference would be if you should upgrade the speeds. If they were good horses that went at it hard, they should be upgraded next time. If they stink, they stink.

This is why I note the quality of the front runners in my pre race analysis.

In fact most of the trip notes i make are related to pace in some way.

[cj]

That race did not qualify for a symbol based on the pre race analysis even though the chart looks like the race fell apart.

The algorithm uses different standards for sprints, routes, turf, and dirt.

The pre race standards for turf are a lot tougher than for dirt because the research indicated it had to be more extreme to have enough of a measurable impact on the result to note it as a possible race flow situation.

You set me up perfectly for something I've been thinking about lately that's somewhat contrary.

If all the pace setters are terrible horses, isn't that in some way still favorable for the closers like you said? (that's a question)

If a bunch of high quality speeds duel, they will exhaust themselves and the closers get to run by a lot of dead tired horses.

If they are all terrible speeds and die on their own, that's still a pretty good position to be in if you are a closer.

The difference would be if you should upgrade the speeds. If they were good horses that went at it hard, they should be upgraded next time. If they stink, they stink.

I was just curious because in this particular situation I'm not really happy with how TimeformUS shows the race. But, on the other hand, that is why we have click through to the chart. You can see exactly what happened. We didn't have the race noted as anything special pace-wise before the race either.

[classhandicapper]

I was just curious because in this particular situation I'm not really happy with how TimeformUS shows the race. But, on the other hand, that is why we have click through to the chart. You can see exactly what happened. We didn't have the race noted as anything special pace-wise before the race either.

Sometimes it requires a little extra digging. That's all the race flow symbols are trying to do. They are simply saying the pre race and chart parameters are both outside the range of normal. So it might be a good idea to take a better look at the chart, replay, and the horses in that race to see what happened.

[classhandicapper]

This is why I note the quality of the front runners in my pre race analysis.

In fact most of the trip notes i make are related to pace in some way.

I like to do that also.

I played Vertical Oak in the Prioress coming out of the Test. The Test was rated a C+ race. I immediately took a look at who was in that race, who she was battling with, how she did relative to those horses, and how some of those horses would look in the Prioress.

That's one thing not in the algorithm.

We can't get that specific about the quality of the horses. However, we try to compensate a bit by insisting the horse show fairly consistent speed and hold it for long enough in his races to assume he's probably in decent form and can have an impact. Most horses are spotted around their correct level anyway. There aren't too many horses spotted way outside the range where they can have some impact on the pace if they typically show speed.

I'm not going to pretend any algorithm can do as good a job as someone taking good notes like you, but there are time limitations on note taking. In those cases the symbols can potentially steer you to a live horse that's better or worse than it looks.

[citygoat]

Can they please print the horse that is going to win with Capital letters

[Racey]

Amazing a board so rich in knowledge can struggle so with these flow designations...... people overthink the process instead of cashing in on races that set up off the close to the pace hard C races or closing off the bold S . These flow designations are fantastic pure and simple.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Amazing a board so rich in knowledge can struggle so with these flow designations...... people overthink the process instead of cashing in on races that set up off the close to the pace hard C races or closing off the bold S . These flow designations are fantastic pure and simple.

Yes, exactly, and well put, I waited some time now for something I can wrap my mind around and USE...Lets talk about this a little more...

Cashing in on horses that...

A. Stayed forward despite the Hard Close Symbol:
Look for horses that ran near the lead and finished well in races that have a C or Bold C symbol, indicating that they ran well despite a race flow that favored closers.


B. Closed despite the Hard Speed Symbol:
Look for horses that rated or lagged behind the leaders but were still able to make up ground and finish well in races that have a S or Bold S symbol indicating that they ran well despite a race flow that favored early or early/ pressers.

Did I get it right here...?

[FakeNameChanged]

Can they please print the horse that is going to win with Capital letters
Easy, just don't play the horses marked with an (L) = loser.

[classhandicapper]

The trick of course is learning to upgrade or downgrade the right horses and then looking for them in more favorable circumstances next time where their best race has a chance win or fill out an exotic. Some trips are clear, but some are not.

If a horse was sitting 2nd or 3rd in an S+ race is he an upgrade or downgrade?

IMO, it sort of depends.

If he was the big favorite and got wired by an inferior horse he's probably better than he looks. He may have won with a more honest pace.

If he was some cheap speed longshot that wound up hanging around better than expected then maybe he should be downgraded next time in a more neutral spot.

The most obvious ones are the horses that dueled or got outrun in C+ races.

Another great angle is the horse that got hung out wide 1st turn in a 2 turn race that was rated as a C+ race. Those horses often get absolutely killed and then come right back to their best form next time.

There were a few of those among the Triple Crown horses this year. Not all won, but it explained the in/out performances really well.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The trick of course is learning to upgrade or downgrade the right horses and then looking for them in more favorable circumstances next time where their best race has a chance win or fill out an exotic. Some trips are clear, but some are not.

If a horse was sitting 2nd or 3rd in an S+ race is he an upgrade or downgrade?

IMO, it sort of depends.

If he was the big favorite and got wired by an inferior horse he's probably better than he looks. He may have won with a more honest pace.

If he was some cheap speed longshot that wound up hanging around better than expected then maybe he should be downgraded next time in a more neutral spot.

The most obvious ones are the horses that dueled or got outrun in C+ races.

Another great angle is the horse that got hung out wide 1st turn in a 2 turn race that was rated as a C+ race. Those horses often get absolutely killed and then come right back to their best form next time.

There were a few of those among the Triple Crown horses this year. Not all won, but it explained the in/out performances really well.

Example #1:
KentuckyDowns
Tomorrow, 9Sep. 1st race
Horse #12 Starving Artist
Ran 18Aug EIP 1 mile turf
Sustained runner improved into S Flow....Upgrade here...?

[classhandicapper]

Example #1:
KentuckyDowns
Tomorrow, 9Sep. 1st race
Horse #12 Starving Artist
Ran 18Aug EIP 1 mile turf
Sustained runner improved into S Flow....Upgrade here...?

Sorry, I didn't see this until just now.

That was probably a decent "upgrade", but it was a tough field to have a strong opinion on given all the first time starters and first time turf horses. The horse did run OK at close to 8-1.

I am careful about upgrading deeper closers because some of them are just suck up types that do a little running at the end but really can't win unless the race totally falls apart. I also prefer playing horses out of the S+ and C+ races when they are going to get the opposite scenario next time.

[thaskalos]

Let's say that a race figures to be hotly-contested early, but the speed duel never materializes...because all but one of the pace-setters elect to take back during the early portion of the race. Do these new pace-flow indicators give 'extra credit" to the lone front-runner...for taking the lead in a supposedly speed-ladened race?

[Maximillion]

I still think the early positions of the 1-2-3 finishers would be more useful and
would require no program or any kind of subjective decision.