86% of winners change lead

[karlskorner]

www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/sports/horse_racing/2855595.htm

[GR1@HTR]

Maybe that would be a good angle if they did not change leads in last race...But the question is what percentage of horses who did not change leads in last race will change leads in the next race?

[Derek2U]

Don't you think that because its 2002 & NOT 1980, the data
we use to handicap should get up2Date? I saw the topic of
changing leads ... and that led to my brain working: For starters,
why why why do we still rely on beaten lengths when EVERY
HORSE's own Fractional & Final Times can be measured with
electronic precision? And .... how about trainers being forced
to explain why their horse was OUT from racing over let's say
4 months or more?

Should'nt all races show the SAME fractional calls & times?

I'm sure there's more that could be done to give us cappers
accurate info. It's just that I wonder whose in charge of keeping
us so much in the dark? Considering the MISS-INFORMATION
and LACK-OF-INFO, it's incredible that even a few of us can
manage to stay solvent.

Is there any other revenue-generating sport whose fans/watchdogs would tolerate such weak/missing data?

[anotherdave]

Also I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of ALL horses change leads. That would give me an idea how powerful the statistic is.

AD

[FortuneHunter]

DerekU2 writes:

".... why why why do we still rely on beaten lengths when EVERY
HORSE's own Fractional & Final Times can be measured with
electronic precision?"

How do you propose this be done?

FH

[BillW]

More accurate data is only good if only I have it. If all you guys have it too, we are back to break-even. I'm not willing to pay for that "improvement". And believe me, the customers will be the ones to pay for any improvement like that.

Bill W.

[ranchwest]

One of the problems with radical change in data gathering is that you have to gather the data for years before it is usable because that is the only way that you can provide a presentation that is apples to apples. In today's instant gratification world, I'm not anticipating that Equibase or DRF are going to maintain 2 sets of data for 5 years when they have no serious competition.

As for changing leads, I'm not an expert by any means, but I've long thought that lead changes explain a lot of things. For instance, many people think that if a horse closes well at 6f then the horse is looking for more ground and will run great at a mile. I suspect that many such horses don't run well until they change leads at the top of the stretch and will close from 9th to 4th at almost any distance. The only way some such horses win is when facing quitting pigs and then their win spawns a whole new set of handicapping theories that are baseless.

[Lefty]

Sometimes these race statistics can lead you astray. Used to be a stat that something like 80 some-odd pct of winners raced within 30 days but at that time it was meaningless cause almost 90% of horses ran back with 30 days. Something like that.
How about this one?: 100% of winners have jockeys.

[Observer]

karlskorner,

Thanks for the link! What an interesting article. I do believe for a horse to reach his best, he needs to switch leads, for the very reason Prado said. But I can also understand how a horse could be in such a concentration mode that he just doesn't make the change. Ultimately, though, failing to willingly change leads in the heat of battle is a detriment, particularly on a horse who shows the ability to make those changes on cue in the mornings.

And on a general race-by-race basis, I do like to try to keep notes in my trip notes of horses that failed to change leads. Some horses you see routinely failing to change, while others will fail turning in a sub-par effort or hinting at a future sub-par effort.