Final beaten lenghts does it matter?

[Vegas711]

I have been doing a little research on final beaten lenghts, asking myself is there really a difference if a horse gets beat by 10 lenghts or 25. So far I have came to the conclusion that the answer is no. Once a jockey realizes that he has no chance to collect more than minor rewards he will quit asking the horse and just gallup him to the wire. Looking at the P.P.S look how many times a horse losses by 20 lenghts and comes back in its next race and improves dramatically. Is he really improving or just not quitting .Races where a horse gets beat by double digit lenghts I either don't use this paceline or subsitute 6 beaten lenghts.

Anyone found a better method I would like to know.:)

[46zilzal]

earlier more competetive part of most races is determined LONG before the lane and often the riders do not persist. There should be NO absolute upper limit to betan lengths.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Use beaten lengths at 2nd call but max 6f.
It is all about energy expended and recovery time until ready to race again in top form.
If you know what energy level the horse has in the gate and how much it needs to win capping would be easier.

[Tom]

The worse the finish the better the odds. Ilove it when they are waaaay back but figure today.

[traynor]

Bob Heyburn (?) wrote a book years ago that used the second call as the "predictor," fairly ignoring the stretch run for just that reason (lack of persistence by horse way back). There are any number of handicappers who will argue that anything more than 5 or 6 lengths back is impossible to quantify. Many of Sartin's recommendations involved cutting beaten lengths in half to be more representative.

The problem with such adjustments is that the adjustment becomes a thing-in-itself, not a running line; it is just as easy to put in a condition that uses a third of the beaten lengths if over 6, or uses a half. Without a thousand or so races broken down to see if that technique was more predictive or not, it is flying blind. You can't really extrapolate from a few races that "worked out" to a general principle.

If anyone has done any serious study of this, I would really appreciate your opinions and insights. (I think a lot of others on this forum would, too!)
Thanks

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=traynor Many of Sartin's recommendations involved cutting beaten lengths in half to be more representative.
[/QUOTE]
I have been a CLIENT just about as long as PIRCO has been in business and the ONLY time an adjustment of beaten lenghts was ever suggested was in a TANDEM or when using the KGEN programs to limit beaten lengths to a maximum of NIONE.

[GeTydOn]

Final beaten lengths do not always tell the whole story and can sometimes be very deceiving.

[TravisVOX]

I like, and hope I'm right, to see a horse in contention at that second call, far turn towards the stretch. It shows me they are in form, in shape and could move forward. Especially if their early efforts were tough... more enticing.

[Lasix1]

I think this depends on what kind of running style a horse has. If confirmed early horses are beaten by 25 lengths it doesn't matter nearly as much as if a different running style is beaten by that much. Jim Cramer echos Tom's sentiment that the worse they are beaten the better because it will jack up the odds the next time they run, especially since so many handicappers use final beaten lengths as a way of throwing out horses.

A true E horse, Cramer says, will win if he gets the right pace set-up, but is just as likely to finish last if he doesn't. With pressers you have to figure out what kind of pace he can press and win. If he doesn't get that pace, he probably won't finish last, but rather in the middle of the pack.

If confirmed closers finish up the track I take that to be a relatively bad sign. If they are in form they can usually pick up tiring horses with their one run unless their trainer is so incompetent that he enters them so far over their heads they have no chance. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of long-lived closers, e.g., Best Pal, Chindi, who will wrap it up and take care of themselves if the pace gets away from them or gives them no chance. The thing to know about closers is they need pace help and if they don't get it, they don't win.

I've found that the way to approach this is to ascertain what kind of pace scenario a horse needs to, as Cramer says, "get in the race." Then the handicapper tries to answer the question "will things set up so they get in the race today?"

Beaten lengths merely tell us whether the horse was able to get into that race or not. Every race is different, and if they couldn't get into the race last time out, you have to project whether or not they can today.

It goes without saying that this discussion is complicated by the fact that pace isn't the whole story. The best horses have multiple running styles and can win from anywhere. Secretariat was an EP horse for the most part, but during his career he demonstrated that he could win from anywhere. The pace guys are fond of saying that "class laughs at pace," but even at the highest levels, sometimes it matters. Cigar, one of the classiest animals ever, failed in the Pacific Classic for one reason and one reason only: Siphon cooked him on the front end and set it up for the only true closer in the race, Dare-and-Go. Handicappers who saw that coming collected a cool $87 on the win end.

[Speed Figure]

It goes without saying that this discussion is complicated by the fact that pace isn't the whole story. The best horses have multiple running styles and can win from anywhere. Secretariat was an EP horse for the most part, but during his career he demonstrated that he could win from anywhere. The pace guys are fond of saying that "class laughs at pace," but even at the highest levels, sometimes it matters. Cigar, one of the classiest animals ever, failed in the Pacific Classic for one reason and one reason only: Siphon cooked him on the front end and set it up for the only true closer in the race, Dare-and-Go. Handicappers who saw that coming collected a cool $87 on the win end.They went 45:4 109:1 133:3 159:4. Cigar was one of the horses that I used when bris was giving away 2 free lifetime pp's.

[46zilzal]

Cigar, one of the classiest animals ever, failed in the Pacific Classic for one reason and one reason only: Siphon cooked him on the front end and set it up for the only true closer in the race, Dare-and-Go. Handicappers who saw that coming collected a cool $87 on the win end.

Hooray that someone else saw what I saw. Can recall Bailey complaining that they "set him up." Well of course they did, and HE fell for it hook, line and sinker. Their job was to win, not keep Cigar's record going! If he let Siphon go, that monster was gone, if he did what he did, he would get caught. Maybe he took the lesser of the two evils.

[JPinMaryland]

two points....

1) Some of you above mentioned that closers can get a bad speed fig (or whatever factor you want to call it) due to not having a fast pace and/or just getting too far behind and tanking it. Or "take care of themself" as Lasix said.

But there is another reason that I think happens much more often. Often closers are in the right position to strike, but the horses in the 1-2-3 paths are backing up. Of course this because the pace was hot, which is ideal for our closer horse in one sense but unfortunately he is trying to come in between horses. Very often you see these horses, like the second tier of horses, who are just galloping along in the back of the stretch run w/o any shot but they might have had a real shot had they not hit the first wall of horses.

Good example, the Risen Star that Scipion won. Harlington was about as far back as Scipion, in fact right next to him at the top of the stretch. Har. was right in a good postion to strike but Scip. was to his outside. He made a brief bid, ran right behind a horse and checked up or ducked in depending on how you look at it. Then he gave up. Scip. only a few moments earlier was right alongside him but Scip. was far more outside, and get grinding along, the front wall of horses backed up and there he was...

Scip. and Har. will recieve two entirely different final times, final figs, etc. but in the mid stretch they were neck and neck. They are both the same type of horse (at least in that race) so they couldnt possibly be that much difference between the two in terms of physical ability.

So I just wanted to make that pt. that there are a lot of reasons that closers may get bad numbers not just because the pace wasnt right or being outclassed. There are very real, physical reasons too.

2) You mention Sec's style and I think there is a style of horse that doesnt easily fit into the E, P, S, C types that we normally think of. And Secretariat is probably exhibit A! It's hard to call him a closer or stalker; he's like some sort of exagerrated stalker. He makes his move much earlier than a closer, and he's moving at tremendous speed, it's really quite different.

Now one horse you could probably make an exception for, but I think I am seeing a lot of horses like that. Buckpasser, another super horse, was like that from what I gather not having seen much video. Charismatic I think was sort of like that.

THe one word that seems to be associated with them is "tactical speed." perhaps this is the best description of what is happening.

Silky Sullivan may have been an even more exagerated version of this. He would be way back, 20 lenghts of the pace and then begin a tremendous rally before the far turn. At least the little bits I have seen.

[Lasix1]

Speed Figure,

And Cigar was right with Siphon for the 45:4 109:1 133:3. That is really cooking for a 1 1/4 race. But he wasn't around for Dare-and-Go's 159:4 which is also instructive. Very high speed figures are often recorded by closers who really kick it in when they get a glimpse of Early horses backing up in the final furlong.

At first blush I blamed Jerry Bailey for trying to run with Siphon, but on reflection, I realized that Siphon's presence in that race really put him in a box. Since Siphon was the only real speed in the race, if Bailey had let him get away with softer fractions in an effort to save his horse, Siphon wins. If he presses him, as he did, Dare-and-Go pounces on both of them who looked like two cats drowning in a well in the last 100 yards.

Hope you cashed!

[Lasix1]

Great points, JPin.

I hate betting closers for the exact reason you mention. They not only need pace help, but they are extraordinarily vulnerable to traffic problems, lanes that open or close, etc.

I didn't mention another issue along the same lines which is Jockey/Running Style matchups. Great jockeys like Jerry Bailey or Gary Stephens are like great horses, they can win from anywhere. But a lot of Jocks have running styles just as most horses do.

Great gate jocks like, say, P-Val or Early Fires are deadly on Early horses.
But I am very suspicious when I see Julie Krone on an Early horse. On the other hand, Julie will kill you if she is on a live closer. Because she tends to prefer one-run closers (and sometimes seems to ride every mount as though it is one) it accounts, tragically, for her injury-laden career. Since closers come from behind, when a horse clips heels or breaks down in front of them, there's no place to go. Some of Julie's worst injuries have come under just such circumstances.

[46zilzal]

But I am very suspicious when I see Julie Krone on an Early horse. On the other hand, Julie will kill you if she is on a live closer. Because she tends to prefer one-run closers (and sometimes seems to ride every mount as though it is one) it accounts, tragically, for her injury-laden career. Since closers come from behind, when a horse clips heels or breaks down in front of them, there's no place to go. Some of Julie's worst injuries have come under just such circumstances.

WORST ride I ever saw in over 30 years was Forty Niner's B.C. Classic with Julie Krone when she took that colt BACK...NEVER ran like that his whole career and she had him ON the rail where not a single horse won from all day and only Gulch moved up from there. Horrible ride

[Lasix1]

WORST ride I ever saw in over 30 years was Forty Niner's B.C. Classic with Julie Krone when she took that colt BACK...NEVER ran like that his whole career and she had him ON the rail where not a single horse won from all day and only Gulch moved up from there. Horrible ride
Exactly right, 46zilzal. I remember that race too and if Forty Niner's connections had realized that Julie Krone wants to ride every horse she's on that way, they surely never would have given her the mount. The jockey and the horse fought with each other the whole way---not exactly a winning strategy. And it wasn't the horse's fault!

[JPinMaryland]

I dont know if I would say that "I hate betting closers."

My main goal in handicapping is just finding value. THere can be lots of value in a 20-1 closer, even if he doesnt win much. So it really has little to do with the fact that he might encounter problems and not win much, I just want him to win more than 5% (if he goes off at 20-1).

If you study horses historically it seems that even great closers dont win at the rate one would expect of other types. Carry Back for instance I think won at around 40% lifetime and he was pretty durn good.

Getting back to handicapping, my first tier of analysis is to try to figure out how the race will shape up. I look at pace and I look to see how many horses should be contending either on the front or from back. I think I give more weight to the number of "chalk" horses in the field than to pace alone.

If I see a two horse speed duel developing, then I sure like to find a closer with value. I might look for a longshot closer to place, and I might use him in exactas. So I like closers in that situation.

Another reason to like closers might be if the field is small, less traffic Or if the stretch run is quite long, etc.

The more I think about it this year, the more I would like to do more quantitative analysis of this years 3 year old closers. Perhaps taking a look at how well these horses can run in a straight path, how well they respond to urging, etc. I started a thread like this and I hope to add to it.

For example: Did you notice that Greater Good in his last race (2/19, I think the So. west Stakes) took a good while to change leads in the stretch? It took him until the 1/8 pole to finally get on the correct lead. Not sure what it means, would have to see more tape of him.

Stuff like that.

[Valuist]

First off, depends on how far in front the winner and/or top group is from the horse in question. Most tracks pay down to 5th place, and as an owner, there definitely is a difference between running 5th and getting a check, and finishing 6th and getting nothing.

If you are talking about an early speed type who starts to drop back, I'm sure there's some truth to it. But what about a closer who comes from far back? It would be nice if they gave effort at least some point in the race. Especially if the winner is a horse who got loose and set a soft pace then drew out to win by 10.

[JPinMaryland]

Not really sure what you are trying to say in your second para. Valuist. As a suggestion: can you rewrite it w/ a bit more of an edge? Say for example: "I disagree w/ your belief in...because" or "My thoughts are similar but I think here is a difference..." etc. Your second sentence, second para. leaves many interpretations: do you disagree w/ my post about closers? are you trying to merely more stuff to it? are these types underrrated? overrated? cant tell from what you wrote. thx.