Correlating race-flow, winner's running style, and winner's odds with speed-figs

[mountainman]

It stands to reason that races won by chalk would result in higher beyers ( sheets-figs..etc). And shouldn't races in which a loose lead is established early- whether wired, or not-also trend toward bigger numbers (when allowing for class-level, of course) ?? And do front-running winners, on avg, post higher numbers than victorious closers or stalkers??

I'm wondering if any poster has explored such presumed correlations.

[NorCalGreg]

It stands to reason that races won by chalk would result in higher beyers ( sheets-figs..etc). And shouldn't races in which a loose lead is established early- whether wired, or not-also trend toward bigger numbers (when allowing for class-level, of course) ?? And do front-running winners, on avg, post higher numbers than victorious closers or stalkers??

I'm wondering if any poster has explored such presumed correlations.

Since speed ratings are a function of pace--and not the other way around...I don't see any value there. Pace figs would be more telling, IMO.

Food for thought, though.

[classhandicapper]

mountain,

I have the data to do some studies like that, but I'm kind of swamped right now doing other things. I'll put it on my "to do" list.

Based on observation, I think you are correct. Most really big figures involve some speed horse blowing out a field while loose on the lead or on a track carrying speed well. Closers are more dependent on what's happening in front of them and even then their move is timed to the other horses and not necessarily to the pace in a way that maximizes their final time.

I create my own automated class and race flow ratings at the race level. I include odds in my thinking.

[mountainman]

Since speed ratings are a function of pace--and not the other way around...I don't see any value there. Pace figs would be more telling, IMO.

Food for thought, though.

Speed figs are also a function of race-flow-as relates to running style. Without complicating things by introducing fractions, I'm simply wondering if it can be factually verified through final time that winning chalks indeed proved more formidable adversaries than winning longshots, and if a stalker losing by ,say, 5 lengths to a winner exploiting a lone f trip performed better than another stalker finishing the same margin behind a late-running winner.

I know you're a good handicapper and I agree that pace can influence time, but that's not quite the direction of my thesis. And I do think, btw, that cause and effect can sometimes be confused in these instances. Some fields (and horses) run fast early because they are sharp and destined to run a big speed-fig, while in other instances, taxing splits indeed deplete the pace brigade.

I must concede, for sure, that you're probably better versed in pace-figs and their utility than I am. I focus strictly on running style and race-flow, and would characterize myself as more of a position handicapper.

My only exploration of fractions-and I'm sure this sounds primitive on a forum called "pace advantage"- is to compare splits posted at the same distance on the same card (while occasionally employing a self-styled "conversion formula" derived from unscientific experience, or from Dave's Horsestreet pars)

My time is instead spent assessing how the race unfolded and pulling up pp's on the leaders so I can gauge how much speed they possessed beforehand. In other words, it's more the quality than the adjusted measurement of fractional times that interests me.

But again, my handicapping is quirky and I'm sure more limited than your own.

TX very much for the response, sir.

[Cratos]

Since speed ratings are a function of pace--and not the other way around...I don't see any value there. Pace figs would be more telling, IMO.

Food for thought, though.
You are correct, it is pace (rate of motion). The old saying of: “It is not how fast a horse runs; it is how it run fast” supports this assertion.

The difference between closers and front-runners is the inherent metabolic distribution of energy. Shorter races favor the front-runner because of its conversion of fuel to energy to run occurs earlier in the race and longer races favor closers because the conversion is later; this is not an exact science and the energy conversion doesn’t always happen at the same distance of the race for every front-runner or for every closer.

[mountainman]

mountain,

I have the data to do some studies like that, but I'm kind of swamped right now doing other things. I'll put it on my "to do" list.

Based on observation, I think you are correct. Most really big figures involve some speed horse blowing out a field while loose on the lead or on a track carrying speed well. Closers are more dependent on what's happening in front of them and even then their move is timed to the other horses and not necessarily to the pace in a way that maximizes their final time.

I create my own automated class and race flow ratings at the race level. I include odds in my thinking.

Tx, Wayne. Great post.

Any chance formulator creates the option to install notes visible for THAT day's card? As opposed to when those horses run back??

[mountainman]

You are correct, it is pace (rate of motion). The old saying of: “It is not how fast a horse runs; it is how it run fast” supports this assertion.

The difference between closers and front-runners is the inherent metabolic distribution of energy. Shorter races favor the front-runner because of its conversion of fuel to energy to run occurs earlier in the race and longer races favor closers because the conversion is later; this is not an exact science and the energy conversion doesn’t always happen at the same distance of the race for every front-runner or for every closer.

You're above my plane of thought, sir. I feel like I'm talking to one of those big-cranium aliens that tortured poor Cpt Pike in that rarely seen, pre-Kirk Star Trek Pilot.

Whatever you just said, I concede!!!!

[Cratos]

You're above my plane of thought, sir. I feel like I'm talking to one of those big-cranium aliens that tortured poor Cpt Pike in that rarely seen, pre-Kirk Star Trek Pilot.

Whatever you just said, I concede!!!!

I not attempting to be above your "plane of thought" nor am I giving you some intellectual bedazzlement.

I am just stating the reason why I agreed with the poster "NorCalGreg."

However, I am puzzled why you went off on a tangent inferring that you were being insulted when that didn't happen.

[mountainman]

I not attempting to be above your "plane of thought" nor am I giving you some intellectual bedazzlement.

I am just stating the reason why I agreed with the poster "NorCalGreg."

However, I am puzzled why you went off on a tangent inferring that you were being insulted when that didn't happen.

No. Please don't be offended. I respect your knowledge and was making a joke. And I well realize nobody insulted me.

[EMD4ME]

You're above my plane of thought, sir. I feel like I'm talking to one of those big-cranium aliens that tortured poor Cpt Pike in that rarely seen, pre-Kirk Star Trek Pilot.

Whatever you just said, I concede!!!!

u4OoIlQOjrc

[mountainman]

u4OoIlQOjrc

Love that pilot!! Creepy and poignant.

[Jeff P]

You are correct, it is pace (rate of motion). The old saying of: “It is not how fast a horse runs; it is how it run fast” supports this assertion.

The difference between closers and front-runners is the inherent metabolic distribution of energy. Shorter races favor the front-runner because of its conversion of fuel to energy to run occurs earlier in the race and longer races favor closers because the conversion is later; this is not an exact science and the energy conversion doesn’t always happen at the same distance of the race for every front-runner or for every closer.--and:You're above my plane of thought, sir. I feel like I'm talking to one of those big-cranium aliens that tortured poor Cpt Pike in that rarely seen, pre-Kirk Star Trek Pilot.

Whatever you just said, I concede!!!!


Ok. Here's a real life example that just happened a few minutes ago on the AQU inner during the running of R7:

The favorite, #3 MANIPULATED, a horse I see as mostly a closer, and who I thought would distribute max enegery in the latter stages of the race - ended up pressing the pacesetter from the outset - and in so doing - distributed his energy early - and even though he was the best horse in the race (my opinion) -- had become softened up about the time they hit the sixteenth pole.

On the other hand, #4 DO SHARE, a horse I see as much more of an early runner, and who I thought would distribute max energy during the early stages of the race - sat chilly while covered up behind dueling leaders.

And when his rider caught a break because a hole opened up in front of him during the stretch run when the now softened up #3 MANIPULATED momentarily drifted in -- that's when Mike Luzzi said "distribute your energy NOW!"...

And DO SHARE responded by doing what racehorses are supposed to do: He gave his all, surged forward, and ran down a tired favorite.

Both riders changed up the run styles of their respective mounts -- and both horses distributed their energy in a way that was the opposite of what I would have predicted.

EDIT: Taking things a step further within the context of the question being asked in post #1 at the top of this thread:

When MANIPULATED comes back to race again: As a bettor I think I might do well to refer back to my notes about his AQU R7 01-15-2017 running line because his speed and pace figs from that line aren't likely to paint a true picture of his ability or form.


-jp

.

[EMD4ME]

--and:


Ok. Here's a real life example that just happened a few minutes ago on the AQU inner during the running of R7:

The favorite, #3 MANIPULATED, a horse I see as mostly a closer, and who I thought would distribute max enegery in the latter stages of the race - ended up pressing the pacesetter from the outset - and in so doing - distributed his energy early - and even though he was the best horse in the race (my opinion) -- had become softened up about the time they hit the sixteenth pole.

On the other hand, #4 DO SHARE, a horse I see as much more of an early runner, and who I thought would distribute max energy during the early stages of the race - sat chilly while covered up behind dueling leaders.

And when his rider caught a break because a hole opened up in front of him during the stretch run when the now softened up #3 MANIPULATED momentarily drifted in -- that's when Mike Luzzi said "distribute your energy NOW!"...

And DO SHARE responded by doing what racehorses are supposed to do: He gave his all, surged forward, and ran down a tired favorite.

Both riders changed up the run styles of their respective mounts -- and both horses distributed their energy in a way that was the opposite of what I would have predicted.


-jp

.


Sharp post and I think that could've been predicted after the scratches. In fact, I will venture that TLG picked the 4 because of that. You could almost see the connections of the 3 saying: the 1 will be loose, do not let him get away. Who's got pp 3? The 4 horse. Intelligent ride by Luzzi after the gate break. The rest were closers with no real opportunity to get a gold rail trip.

Fun game this is.... :ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

Tx, Wayne. Great post.

Any chance formulator creates the option to install notes visible for THAT day's card? As opposed to when those horses run back??

If you describe what you are looking for in a more detailed way and send me a private note, I can take it to the product manager and make sure it is at least discussed. Now is a good time to try to get some enhancements on the priority list. ;)

[Cratos]

--and:


Ok. Here's a real life example that just happened a few minutes ago on the AQU inner during the running of R7:

The favorite, #3 MANIPULATED, a horse I see as mostly a closer, and who I thought would distribute max enegery in the latter stages of the race - ended up pressing the pacesetter from the outset - and in so doing - distributed his energy early - and even though he was the best horse in the race (my opinion) -- had become softened up about the time they hit the sixteenth pole.

On the other hand, #4 DO SHARE, a horse I see as much more of an early runner, and who I thought would distribute max energy during the early stages of the race - sat chilly while covered up behind dueling leaders.

And when his rider caught a break because a hole opened up in front of him during the stretch run when the now softened up #3 MANIPULATED momentarily drifted in -- that's when Mike Luzzi said "distribute your energy NOW!"...

And DO SHARE responded by doing what racehorses are supposed to do: He gave his all, surged forward, and ran down a tired favorite.

Both riders changed up the run styles of their respective mounts -- and both horses distributed their energy in a way that was the opposite of what I would have predicted.

EDIT: Taking things a step further within the context of the question being asked in post #1 at the top of this thread:

When MANIPULATED comes back to race again: As a bettor I think I might do well to refer back to my notes about his AQU R7 01-15-2017 running line because his speed and pace figs from that line aren't likely to paint a true picture of his ability or form.


-jp

.
Thanks Jeff for that post and that is why it should be understood that although the principles of science readily apply to the handicapping of racehorses; horses are not machines.

[AndyC]

Since speed ratings are a function of pace--and not the other way around...I don't see any value there. Pace figs would be more telling, IMO.

Food for thought, though.

So does a fast pace make a deep closer run faster?

[cj]

So does a fast pace make a deep closer run faster?

I would say indirectly, yes.

[sjk]

It stands to reason that races won by chalk would result in higher beyers ( sheets-figs..etc). And shouldn't races in which a loose lead is established early- whether wired, or not-also trend toward bigger numbers (when allowing for class-level, of course) ?? And do front-running winners, on avg, post higher numbers than victorious closers or stalkers??

I'm wondering if any poster has explored such presumed correlations.

Mark,

I looked at your thought about odds being related to winning speed without really expecting to see anything but its there.

Odds-on horses run around 1 1/2 points better than average and double digit odds horses run 2 or more points slower than average with the more increasing at higher odds ranges.

[mountainman]

--and:


Ok. Here's a real life example that just happened a few minutes ago on the AQU inner during the running of R7:

The favorite, #3 MANIPULATED, a horse I see as mostly a closer, and who I thought would distribute max enegery in the latter stages of the race - ended up pressing the pacesetter from the outset - and in so doing - distributed his energy early - and even though he was the best horse in the race (my opinion) -- had become softened up about the time they hit the sixteenth pole.

On the other hand, #4 DO SHARE, a horse I see as much more of an early runner, and who I thought would distribute max energy during the early stages of the race - sat chilly while covered up behind dueling leaders.

And when his rider caught a break because a hole opened up in front of him during the stretch run when the now softened up #3 MANIPULATED momentarily drifted in -- that's when Mike Luzzi said "distribute your energy NOW!"...

And DO SHARE responded by doing what racehorses are supposed to do: He gave his all, surged forward, and ran down a tired favorite.

Both riders changed up the run styles of their respective mounts -- and both horses distributed their energy in a way that was the opposite of what I would have predicted.

EDIT: Taking things a step further within the context of the question being asked in post #1 at the top of this thread:

When MANIPULATED comes back to race again: As a bettor I think I might do well to refer back to my notes about his AQU R7 01-15-2017 running line because his speed and pace figs from that line aren't likely to paint a true picture of his ability or form.


-jp

.

Much of that could be attributable to temperament and running style, rather than early velocity. Lots of races are won by apparent speeds that adapt to a contested pace or speed-laden race by displaying an unforseen ability to sit and pass horses. And many of those winners have buried history of stalking or even closing with some success.

In a similar vein, lots of closers fold up after prompting sluggish fractions. And lots of THOSE horses aren't moving any faster than they do before launching successful rallies. Again, the difference isn't velocity OR energydistribution. It's temperament, training, and running style.

Tx very much for weighing in, Jeff. Your posts are always thoughtful and illuminating.

[sjk]

The other one is true too. Winners who were clear at the first call ran about 3 points better than average, other leaders 1 point better and the closers a couple of points below average.

[mountainman]

Mark,

I looked at your thought about odds being related to winning speed without really expecting to see anything but its there.

Odds-on horses run around 1 1/2 points better than average and double digit odds horses run 2 or more points slower than average with the more increasing at higher odds ranges.

Bingo. As I suspected. And you ARE, by the way, always the answer man.

[mountainman]

The other one is true too. Winners who were clear at the first call ran about 3 points better than average, other leaders 1 point better and the closers a couple of points below average.

Tx again. It's all as I suspected. And I'm sure some other posters would have assumed as much, also.

But it's gratifying to see my assumptions confirmed.

[mountainman]

So does a fast pace make a deep closer run faster?

Post #20 in this thread would imply otherwise.

But my gut says yes. Horses are mentally fragile creatures that thrive on confidence and function best as BULLIES. So, when fast splits begin to take a toll and rivals begin coming back to them, (sharp)closers (who are destined to fire) are emboldened and really kick it in.

[NorCalGreg]

So does a fast pace make a deep closer run faster?

I would say no...a closer isn't part of the pace--so he either will benefit from--or lose due to what happens ahead of him.

The one-run deep closer is still going to run his race... as with the one-dimensional speedball, who's dependent on what happens behind him.

Interesting as it may be--where's the predictive value in knowing a horse with a clear lead @ 1st call will probably run to a faster final time?

Odds-on favorites run fast. And double-digit longshots run slower. The toteboard has already predicted that for us.

[mountainman]

Interesting as it may be--where's the predictive value in knowing a horse with a clear lead @ 1st call will probably run to a faster final time?

Odds-on favorites run fast. And double-digit longshots run slower. The toteboard has already predicted that for us.

My agenda is pretty simple: to verify alternative ways of determining how formidable a task vanquished opponents were faced with. Easy ways that a bit of homework-looking up charts on invading horses, for instance -might pay off for weekend players.

And I don't think it's ever pointless to challenge things we hold true but have never objectively verified-however evident they seem.

Nor were all the findings completely expected. Would you have anticipated that frontrunning winners post speed-figs THAT much higher than horses that score from off-pace?? Or that favorites aside, winning beyers correlate that precisely with such a wide spectrum of winning odds??

Plus, I do suspect that , obvious or not, these now-verified tendencies can be tweaked, incorporated, and played with.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I think Mark hit on one example of where I think that in some cases a closer will run 'better' if there are horses to run past. Those that seem to pick up interest, momentum, and confidence as they advance through the field. I think that there's an element of parsing what is meant by how they are 'helped' and of course their best races are those where the pace is collapsing and they are passing horses by default. But imaging the scenario of the race where a pacesetter in a short field has spurted clear into the turn and opened up nine on them just as the closer is rallying into second past the others at the head of the lane - as I think Mark is alluding to, that closer is just going to run faster if there are six horses between him and that pacesetter to pass on the way there and give him a constant achievable target to run at. When those six horses don't exist and there's just that nine length gap to look at, some horses just won't be as aggressive running through the lane with a lonely target in the horizon. The fact that maybe Mark and I kind of see something alike her may in part be reflective of just how much time we spend in the midst of cheap claimers.

In my opinion, of course.

[mountainman]

I think Mark hit on one example of where I think that in some cases a closer will run 'better' if there are horses to run past. Those that seem to pick up interest, momentum, and confidence as they advance through the field. I think that there's an element of parsing what is meant by how they are 'helped' and of course their best races are those where the pace is collapsing and they are passing horses by default. But imaging the scenario of the race where a pacesetter in a short field has spurted clear into the turn and opened up nine on them just as the closer is rallying into second past the others at the head of the lane - as I think Mark is alluding to, that closer is just going to run faster if there are six horses between him and that pacesetter to pass on the way there and give him a constant achievable target to run at. When those six horses don't exist and there's just that nine length gap to look at, some horses just won't be as aggressive running through the lane with a lonely target in the horizon. The fact that maybe Mark and I kind of see something alike her may in part be reflective of just how much time we spend in the midst of cheap claimers.

In my opinion, of course.
Sharp post. You stated my opinion much better than I did.

The overlooked factor, I think, is that speedballs don't hold a monopoly on mental fragility. Closers also are weak-willed bullies, and perform best when horses they pick off put up little resistance. They then smell blood, and that makes them run faster.

[NorCalGreg]

And I don't think it's ever pointless to challenge things we hold true but have never objectively verified-however evident they seem.




Didn't mean to imply anything here was pointless, Mark. I could have been more clear.

Was posting while watching football :cool:

[mountainman]

Didn't mean to imply anything here was pointless, Mark. I could have been more clear.

Was posting while watching football :cool:

Me, too. Extreme Steeler fan. Soooo ominous that they couldn't score a single td. Not even with Superman in the lineup. He wears a Lev Bell mask.

[AndyC]

Sharp post. You stated my opinion much better than I did.

The overlooked factor, I think, is that speedballs don't hold a monopoly on mental fragility. Closers also are weak-willed bullies, and perform best when horses they pick off put up little resistance. They then smell blood, and that makes them run faster.

Based on your belief, wouldn't the final fraction of a closer be faster in races where the speed backed up?

[Cratos]

I would say no...a closer isn't part of the pace--so he either will benefit from--or lose due to what happens ahead of him.

The one-run deep closer is still going to run his race... as with the one-dimensional speedball, who's dependent on what happens behind him.

Interesting as it may be--where's the predictive value in knowing a horse with a clear lead @ 1st call will probably run to a faster final time?

Odds-on favorites run fast. And double-digit longshots run slower. The toteboard has already predicted that for us.
Given that a horserace is not run in a continuous straight path because of the racetrack turns, the problem for the closer is more complicated because as it accelerates toward the lead it might have to go around tiring horses causing the loss of ground.

Also, depending on the length of the race the closer could further be disadvantaged by the turns. For instance, at Belmont the turn length is about 52% of the 6F distance; at Churchill Downs for the same distance, the turn length is about 33%.

[mountainman]

Based on your belief, wouldn't the final fraction of a closer be faster in races where the speed backed up?

In my opinion, not necessarily. It would depend on the closer's proximity to the faster-than-par pace and how early the closer began busting a move.

I take it you disagree?

Whatever the case, good discussion about the sort of arcane subtlety that numbers geeks consider their private domain, and that normally bores me to tears.

Would like to see your opinion on this. Not as debate fodder, but to soak in and consider.

[mountainman]

Also, depending on the length of the race the closer could further be disadvantaged by the turns. For instance, at Belmont the turn length is about 52% of the 6F distance; at Churchill Downs for the same distance, the turn length is about 33%.

If this is true, more closers would win going 6 fur at CD than at Bel. I wonder if that's really the case.

[BCOURTNEY]

If this is true, more closers would win going 6 fur at CD than at Bel. I wonder if that's really the case.
Compare routine: (CDX) -> (BEL) : Impact - WinPct

CDX

Running Style
EP +
P +
PS ++
S -
SS ++
U -
ESP Race Shape
E-EP +
EP-P +
S +

BEL

Running Style
EP -
P -
PS --
S +
SS --
U +
ESP Race Shape
E-EP -
EP-P -

[Cratos]

If this is true, more closers would win going 6 fur at CD than at Bel. I wonder if that's really the case.
I posted a logical construct based on the geometry of two racetracks which are different in size and if I interpreted your extrapolation correctly of my post, you are implying if what I have construed in my post is true, closers should win more races at Churchill Downs than closers would win at Belmont.

You very well could be correct, but you will need more evidence than conjecture and my post wasn’t intended to provide a bona fide fact, but an inference based on math and science; and not validation from collected data.

However, I have attached scaled layouts to this post of both Churchill Downs and Belmont as a visual reference for you to see that the run to the turn for 6F (absent run-up) at Churchill Downs is 1,433.5 feet whereas at Belmont without run-up it is 843 feet which is nearly a furlong shorter; this was the essence of my argument.

I would appreciate your comments.

[classhandicapper]

There is another component to this that is unrelated to fractions.

When there are a lot of speed horses in a race, some of them will naturally not be able to get their preferred spot on or near the pace. Some of those horses will run sub par because of it and others will pick them up late without necessarily being as good as they look. Even more significant is that sometimes the fractions of those races aren't even all that fast. Sometimes one horse will outrun the others quickly and the rest more or less just settle in behind.

So knowing how many speeds were actually in the race can give you clues about the race development that are not always revealed by the fractions.

In addition, when you evaluate running styles going forward, if you see a horse coming out of race with a lot of speed (or vice versa) it gives you a clearer picture of their running style.

This kind of thing was one of the goals of race flow symbols in the DRF. It's automated, but it doesn't have to be if you are doing it on a personal level or using the symbols as a flag and doing a personal analysis after the fact.