Magic Two Furlongs

[paulc]

Anyone here recall a handicapping factor called the Magic Two Furlongs... or something similar? As I recall, on a 6f it was the 4th and 5th... and similar non-standard calls for races at other distances.

Somewhere along the line, I read about it, but (a) don't remember where (or who devised it)... and (b) don't know where to go to read more about it.

[toetoe]

Very cerebral Paulc.

[Show Me the Wire]

Paulc:

You may be thinking about Lehane's Golden eight. The last eight of a mile in a 6f sprint, 7f sprint, or mile route. Also, I believe he posted on this board awhile back that he personally di not believe the factor to be as significant as he originally thought.

But if there is a magic two furlongs it probably would be based on the final two as come home time is important as described in Mike P's work "Handicapping Magic" the projected power frraction.

Yes come home time is important in relation to the rest of the race just read "Modern Pace Handicapping".

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[hurrikane]

perhaps show but

more important would be the first 2 fur..esp in routes.

imo

[paulc]

<<< But if there is a magic two furlongs it probably would be based on the final two as come home time is important as described in Mike P's work "Handicapping Magic" the projected power frraction. >>>

No, it's not final two... as I recall (God, it's tough getting old!), the writer was trying to make it a measure of the end of the turn/top of the stretch... but I don't remember exactly. And I don't remember if it was a simple two-furlong measure of time or if it was a ratio of that time vs. another.

Worse, I don't remember if I saw it in a book, saw it in an online essay, or even saw it as part of some chain of messages.

Just remember seeing it about two years ago (may have been old then, though) and was going to try and follow up with the author/designer and see if he felt it was still credible... and why.

Oh, well.

[Show Me the Wire]

Paulc:

Sounds like you are talking about turn time. In theory turn time does measure the two furlongs ending at or near the top of the stretch.

I have never heard it called the magic two lengths. Turn time is the hidden fraction measuring in theory the 2 furlongs run around the turn. It is addressed in Modern Pace Handicapping and why you would want to use it.

To calculate the hidden fraction simply subtract the 1/2 mile call from the 1/4 mile call: eg. 1/4 call 46 and 1/2 mile call 22 equals a turn time of 24 seconds.

However, I believe the author Mr. Brohamer has revised his position and does not feel this fraction is as significant as first thought.

[toetoe]

Paulc,
I myself think you dreamt it. Wait, did I just think something? I th.. INK so ....

[paulc]

Show Me:

Nope... turn time is 3rd and 4th in a 6f... and this "Magic 2" was the 4th and 5th.

As I noted in another post, what I don't remember is how this guy the developed it used it... dunno if it was a ratio like Brohamer's Energy Distribution or just an absolute measure... dunno if it was a straight time or some weighted measure of the two separate furlongs... hmmm, sounds like I dunno much!

Oh well, I must have dreamed it!!!

FWIW, I agree with Brohamer on turn time... I don't find it too useful either. But thinking about some of the days that every winner at a track seems to be the horse taking the lead at the top of the stretch got me thinking...

[Show Me the Wire]

Paulc:

Please tell me your definiton of the top of the stretch by identifying it with the furlong marker (pole) associated with it.

I do not mind telling you, that I am totally confused by your use of top of the stretch.

And not to get into a long winded post at this time but there are only 4 published timed calls in a six furlong sprint and you can't produce an accurate time for odd furlong calls without actually physically timing a race.

[paulc]

Show Me:

Sounds like you're getting pretty uptight!

Look, it was a simple question... and clearly you haven't heard of the Magic Two Furlongs... and hopefully it's just as clear that I neither remember the exact calculation nor endorse the fig. I just asked if anyone knew what the fig was, not if someone thought I was confused about turn time, early pace, the closing two, or anything else.

I keep getting the feeling that you think I'm just a dodo-head... now you're asking me to "define top of the stretch"... and yes, I do understand that's at a different distance from the finish line at different tracks. Duh!!!

So, now we move to your observation that anything other than the standard four calls would not be an accurate calculation. Two points back at you: (1) I'd start with the suggestion that I already question the accuracy of the four calls in many cases at many tracks... but I suppose that's another story. Then (2) I'd move on to the suggestion that pace handicappers are frequently faced with calculating (estimating) projections for today's race (for instance) at 6.5 using PP's at 6 and 7. In those cases, you have to make assumptions and interpolations, typically using pars or other race shaping calculations.

In other words, of course a non-standard estimate would not be totally accurate, but many other figs are not exact either.

And to think all of this came from a simple question: Anyone here recall a handicapping factor called the Magic Two Furlongs?

[Show Me the Wire]

Paulc:

As they say no good deed, goes unpunished.

Tried to help you with your question, "of you think, possibly dreamt it, but you do not know? I kept giving you different examples to help jog your memory. Apparently your memory is jogged as you are now sure it is the 4th and 5th furlong and you can make an interpolation that is just as accurate as some other pace numbers.

BTW it is not an observation, it is a fact about where the timed calls are. Also, I agree with you that the internal times and fractional times are not always accurate. In fact, I hand time many races which can lead to good bets, because I have different info than most others.

My question was simple about your use to the top of the stretch, you had me totally confused about what marker you talking about. I was assuming the 1/4 pole, but I was not sure.

Additionally, since I hand time 1,000s of races, I had the opportunity to accurately hand time races from the 3/8 pole to the 1/8 pole to see if I could find any usefull insights. I personally found it to be a waste of time.

However, your recall allows you to understand where you can interpolate internal fractions and it works for you, I am happy for you.

One last thing apparently no of the other posters on this board seemed to have heard of the magic two furlongs, as evidenced by the lack of responses. The lack of responses is unusual, because there are very informed posters here and someone is usually familiar with a viable method or even fraudulent one.

As Toetoe said, I think you dreamt it.

It would also be coincidental and convenient if some new poster appeared now with knowledge of the magic two furlongs.

As you can tell, now I am uptight because of your insulting post.

[paulc]

Show Me:

Sorry you're insulted... after all, it wasn't me trying to hand out a primer for newbies on pace figs and what's in the race timing. Good luck!

[Show Me the Wire]

Pauls:

Giving you a primer was the furthest thing from my mind. You were the one who said you could not remember the name of the theory but it had to do with magic two furlongs.

Please review my initial post about Handicapping Magic and the importance of two furlongs, the last two being called the power fraction.
Has the magic words Magic and two furlongs, but of course the association would have escaped you.

Now I suspect you had some other motive for your original post.

I wish you luck in trying to pass off your inerpolation idea.

[gurulj]

Paul I don't think there is any magic two furlongs. Who ran the fastest race:
The horse that was on the lead from the 1st call to the wire or
The horse that was 6 lengths back at the first call and 6 lengths back
at the finish?

The clocker would tell you the winner ran the fastest and he would be
technically right. But a horse that ran even from the first call to the finish is
a much better bet to be in condition and win it's next out at a good price,
providing it is properly placed as it will not be facing the winner of the last
race (usually) and ran just as fast as the winner in the last whatever part
of the race, be it a sprint or a route. The final furlong can be the most
important part of a race to the trainer a lot of times, telling him a lot about
his horse and its condition. Think about that and why I say that... It may
get you some nice priced horses. Good luck...

Jerry

[keilan]

Paul I don't think there is any magic two furlongs. Who ran the fastest race:
The horse that was on the lead from the 1st call to the wire or
The horse that was 6 lengths back at the first call and 6 lengths back
at the finish?

The clocker would tell you the winner ran the fastest and he would be
technically right. But a horse that ran even from the first call to the finish is
a much better bet to be in condition and win it's next out at a good price,
providing it is properly placed as it will not be facing the winner of the last
race (usually) and ran just as fast as the winner in the last whatever part
of the race, be it a sprint or a route. The final furlong can be the most
important part of a race to the trainer a lot of times, telling him a lot about
his horse and its condition. Think about that and why I say that... It may
get you some nice priced horses. Good luck...





Jerry


Excellent advice, and often overlooked ;)

[toetoe]

I'll think about that, Gurulj, but must I think about WHY you say it? Makes my head ache.

[paulc]

gurulj:

Me either... I never did think there was any real "magic 2"... just that someone had come up with a measure that he called that. Kinda like Brohamer calls it "turn time"... doesn't mean it always happens on the turn... just a term.

This started with a simple "anyone heard of" question... and has now escalated to poor old Show Me deciding that I must have an ulterior motive that somehow relates to interpolation. Sheesh... and me not even a pace handicapper... I wonder if he can spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-a.

Actually, I couldn't agree more with your example... where I come from we call that trip handicapping.

[Show Me the Wire]

gurulj

In your example the winner was not technically faster he was actually faster as you said your self the horse six furlongs back can be a better bet if

providing it is properly placed as it will not be facing the winner of the last
race (usually) Jerry

BTW, I purchased your ebook a few years back and enjoyed the read.

[Qwikpace]

Show Me the Wire wrote:

"You may be thinking about Lehane's Golden eight. The last eight of a mile in a 6f sprint, 7f sprint, or mile route."

In the interest of accuracy, I must correct you. The last eighth of a mile in a race is not the "Golden Eighth." It's the furlong between the, for example, 4 furlong point and 5 furlong point in a 6 furlong race, that Jim Lehane has dubbed as such. This is an easy mistake to make as I did the same.

Qwikpace ;)

[Qwikpace]

Jerry,

Hello. I'm a student of yours. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Glad to see you post here. I used to post on your messageboard--before it went haywire and quit working. Please disregard any rude remarks. I know, easier said than done. I respect your point of view and am always eager to hear what you have to say. I'm sure others feel the same way. So for us, don't pay attention to the unproductive remarks and continue to post.

Talk to ya later, pardner!

Qwikpace :)

[keenang]

I THINK SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD ARE NOT HERE FOR THE HORSERACING INFO, BUT RATHER TO NIT PICK ON WHAT SOME FELLOW SAYS.
:confused:
GENE

[Show Me the Wire]

Qwikpace;

Thanks for the catch.

[Show Me the Wire]

"I THINK SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD ARE NOT HERE FOR THE HORSERACING INFO, BUT RATHER TO NIT PICK ON WHAT SOME FELLOW SAYS.

GENE"

I believe this post may have been directed to my comment regarding Jerry's comments. The winner is not technically faster, he is actually faster.

Jerry using the word technically suggests that the horse 6 lengths behind is actually better than that and he goes on to tell how good of a value he might be in his next race.

That is not true, he will not be any better the next race if he is running against the same horse that beat him by 6 lengths last time, as long as the winner did not suffer a serious physical setback.

The 6 lengths is relative to the company a horse keeps. If he races against the same company over and over again he will be no better value in any future race, unless the faster horses suffer physical problems, while the erstwhile loser avoids physical problems or there is a surface switch or a significant change in distance run.

If I was nit picking I would have jumped on the statement the loser ran just as fast as the winner the last part of the race. The loser kept pace, he did not as fast, faster or slower, that is nit picking.

Everyone makes errors, such as the statement, the loser ran as fast and I am no exception. I misspoke about LeHane's golden Eight while I was typing.

There is a difference between nit picking and clarification.

[Blackgold]

In the mid-ninties, my magic two furlongs were from the entrance at Santa Anita to the bar at the Derby restaurant

[gurulj]

I'll think about that, Gurulj, but must I think about WHY you say it? Makes my head ache.

Somea tings you gotta figure out for youself LOL!!!

Jerry

[gurulj]

"I THINK SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD ARE NOT HERE FOR THE HORSERACING INFO, BUT RATHER TO NIT PICK ON WHAT SOME FELLOW SAYS.

GENE"

I believe this post may have been directed to my comment regarding Jerry's comments. The winner is not technically faster, he is actually faster.

Jerry using the word technically suggests that the horse 6 lengths behind is actually better than that and he goes on to tell how good of a value he might be in his next race.

That is not true, he will not be any better the next race if he is running against the same horse that beat him by 6 lengths last time, as long as the winner did not suffer a serious physical setback.

The 6 lengths is relative to the company a horse keeps. If he races against the same company over and over again he will be no better value in any future race, unless the faster horses suffer physical problems, while the erstwhile loser avoids physical problems or there is a surface switch or a significant change in distance run.

If I was nit picking I would have jumped on the statement the loser ran just as fast as the winner the last part of the race. The loser kept pace, he did not as fast, faster or slower, that is nit picking.

Everyone makes errors, such as the statement, the loser ran as fast and I am no exception. I misspoke about LeHane's golden Eight while I was typing.

There is a difference between nit picking and clarification.

Keep telling yourself that compadre and we'll thank you every time "a horse that didn't figure your way" bombs the board and we collect and walk away smiling.

Jerry

[gurulj]

Jerry,

Hello. I'm a student of yours. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Glad to see you post here. I used to post on your messageboard--before it went haywire and quit working. Please disregard any rude remarks. I know, easier said than done. I respect your point of view and am always eager to hear what you have to say. I'm sure others feel the same way. So for us, don't pay attention to the unproductive remarks and continue to post.

Talk to ya later, pardner!

Qwikpace :)

I'll keep preaching and teaching as long as the man upstairs allows. It's funny
how when you try to give someone good avdvice they just frown or worse.
I guess some folks just can't pour pee from a boot with directions on the heel.
I have no idea of quitting just because of some detractors compadre. I just
came back to this board from a 3 year hiaitus but it's still the same old tune.
Tear down what you have no comprehension of, or what you're too damn lazy
to learn. Not my loss for sure ;) . Later compadre,

Jerry

[Show Me the Wire]

Jerry:

I don't want to get in a p****** match with you, but you said in your own quote as long as the winner is not in the same race. Do you want to take that statement back and amend it to say the 6 length loser is a good bet against the winning horse the very next race on the same surface and at the same distance.

You used alot of qualifiers in making your statement about the 6 length loser might be a good bet next time out. If you truly believe I am wrong in what I stated, why did you use all those qualifiers?

If you, still feel I am wrong, please encourage your students to place their wagers in the pools I wager in ie. FG, Oaklawn,Tup and CD. Thanks in advance.

Like I said Jerry I read your book and thought it was a good read, I did not personally attack you nor did I attack your book or your theories.

My response you qouted was written as a response to someone saying I nit picked. My reponse was an example of nit picking and not as personal attack on you.

Chill out.

[JustMissed]

STRETCH–Final straight portion of the racetrack to the finish.

STRETCH CALL–Position of horses at the eighth pole, usually about halfway down the stretch.

Actually, the top of the stretch is about at the 3/16 pole which is half way between the Quarter Pole and the Eight Pole, which is where the stretch call is made and is 1 Furlong or 1/8 mile from the finish wire.


JM

[Qwikpace]

"In the mid-ninties, my magic two furlongs were from the entrance at Santa Anita to the bar at the Derby restaurant"

Cheers!

Qwikpace

p.s. Lighten-up guys.

[keilan]

Okay am I the only guy here who doesn’t know who Jerry (gurulj) is? Someone please clue me in. :confused: :o :)

[Show Me the Wire]

keilan:

The developer, vendor of A1handicapping program and an author of a handicapping ebook. Take a look at the sw part of the board the Calibration v A1.

LeHane and Jerry have a friendship and some common theories. Also, believe Jerry goes by the monicker Lil Joe too.

Hope that helps

[keilan]

Thanks Pal :)

[Show Me the Wire]

STRETCH–Final straight portion of the racetrack to the finish.

STRETCH CALL–Position of horses at the eighth pole, usually about halfway down the stretch.

Actually, the top of the stretch is about at the 3/16 pole which is half way between the Quarter Pole and the Eight Pole, which is where the stretch call is made and is 1 Furlong or 1/8 mile from the finish wire.


JM

JustMissed:

Your point is why I asked for his definition of top of the stretch by furlong maker, as he kept on stating two furlongs and the top of the stretch.

Had me totally confused, while I was trying to assist him. I guess I could have been a little clearer in the beginning and said I really did not understand his use of the top of the stretch in relation to the magic two furlongs.

And

keilan:

You are most welcome.

[JustMissed]

I thought maybe he was confused about where the 2nd call was.

Some people think the 2nd call is at the quarter pole which is only true for the 6F and the mile.

JM

[Show Me the Wire]

JustMissed:

Happy to see someone else was confused too. My confusion led me to state the timed calls in a 6 panel to clarify call positions (your point) and to my surprise he rips me for giving him a primer in pace handicapping. And me not even a true pace guy.

Betwixt us some jocks do not the poles, hard to believe, but true. So your point is well taken about some handicappers thinking the second call at all distances is the 1/4 pole.

Thanks for your input I feel my paranoia leaving, now I need to get rid of that obsessive compulsive thing.

[keenang]

SHOW ME THE WIRE:
MY COMMENT WAS NOT DIRECTED TO YOU,BUT IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT. I WILL RELATE TO YOU WHAT TWO MUCH BETTER HANDICAPPERS THEN I ONCE TOLD ME.
1. THAT CLAIMING HORSES REPEAT A WIN ABOUT 8% OF THE TIME. (TOM B.)

2. NO 2 RACES ARE EVER,EVER. RUN EXACTLY THE SAME.( J. BRADSHAW)
GOOD LUCK
GENE :)

[Show Me the Wire]

keenang;

Just coincidence your post appeared right after mine and mine was the only critical post. Wow what randomness.

However, the shoe does not fit as I demonstrated in my earlier post so I will not wear it.

As far as your points, I could give you many examples of repeating claiming winners, but I am not here to give anyone pace or handicapping lessons.

I admit I am not altruistic as others on this board about sharing knowledge with my competitiors.

However, I do enjoy discussing theories.

Good luck to you.

[BIG RED]

In the mid-ninties, my magic two furlongs were from the entrance at Santa Anita to the bar at the Derby restaurant

Aaahhh, my goal in life. ( Haven't been to SA yet )

[paulc]

Show Me:

Since you have to keep referring back to it (your confusion about my reference to the top of the stretch), let's see if we can clear it up once and for all.

Since the length of the stretch is typically somewhere in the range of 950-1100 feet (okay, usually longer on 7/8ths tracks where they need the entire straightaway to run a one-mile race), I was merely musing on the fact if (note I'm saying "if") the writer was talking about the 4th and 5th furlongs of a 6 furlong race, then it included the top of the stretch... which is typically somewhere near the middle of the 5th furlong.

There was nothing more complex to it, nothing more sinister, no sudden advocacy of interpolation. Heck, I was even nice enough to not point out your confusion on Lehane's Golden 8th until someone else did.

[Show Me the Wire]

paulc:

it would have been nice if you answered the question when I asked it and I clearly stated, at the time I asked, I was confused by what you meant.

All the other stuff came up due to the non-responsive respons of yours. Also, I would not have minded you pointing out my error. I know what the golden 1/8 is I just typed wrong, I know enough to admit when I make a mistake and leave it at that and to admit when I do not understand what is trying to be conveyed.

In our discussion, I simply asked what you meant by top of the stretch and to identify it by furlong marker, in order to, understand the thought being conveyed. As I said above, your current answer would have been appreciated at the time I originally asked the question.

To clarify further, I agree with JustMissed about the 3/16 pole, 1 1/2 furlongs away from the finish line as the top of the stretch. I was confused by your usage, while relating the two furlongs and the top of the stretch.

However, you got your answer, as everyone posting on this thread, agrees no one heard of the magic two furlongs and Jerry stated he did not think there is one. So you got your answer in an effiecient manner, but you still got your answer.

Since your original question has neen answered, I consider this thread to be resolved and I hope everyone else does too.

Good luck to you.

[paulc]

Show Me:

Allow me to stop laughing before I type... I was just picturing you patting yourself on the back. You may have thought I was non-responsive, but the flip side was you telling me I was confusing it with (first) the closing two and/or Lahane... then (later) that I must mean turn time and/or ought to define top of the stretch.

And now the latest... since no one here has heard of it, Jerry thinks it probably does not exist and maybe no one here thinks it exists and let's closes the thread.

Of course it exists. Doesn't mean it's worth a hill of beans. Obviously I didn't think twice about it when I first heard or read about it... and maybe I should have left it there (out of my thoughts). But even though I'm really not a pace handicapper (I find pace figs so prevalent and pervasive that they're generally overbet anyway), that doesn't mean I close my mind to going back and analyzing theorems I've not studied before... we have the computers, we have the data, why not analyze?

And *that* was the reason for the original question, not your suggestion that this all had to do with some method or theory of interpolation I wanted to advance.

To be honest and candid, the suggestion here that "I/we haven't heard of it, therefore it probably does not exist and let's close the thread" is as silly as if I said that "you people haven't heard of it, therefore you probably don't know much about horse racing".