The logical closer

[GameTheory]

In another thread, someone mentioned they were looking for how to identify "the logical closer". I'd like to discuss this.

I'm not a pace handicapper, and for many years didn't even look into the subject AT ALL. It simply seemed too complex with feet-per-second and all that and didn't interest me. At this point I sometimes do a Pizzolla-like pace analysis mainly to get a feeling for how the race will unfold in general, even if I can't identify who's going to do what.

It took me a long time to grasp how early speed works in a race, even though it is surely quite obvious to many of you. Probably the most common thing you read in handicapping material is that early speed has an advantage, and that lone early speed is the best bet around. It SOUNDS logical because if a horse can get ahead early -- well, he'll be ahead of everyone, won't he? He goes fast.

But what about closers? They like to hang back and put all their run in at the end. It seems like a closer might also do well against a lone speed horse if the early speed horse overextends himself.

What it took me a long time to realize is that lone speed horses win by GOING SLOW (early) -- slower than they normally do. Closers have basically NO CHANCE in that scenario because the speed horse isn't burning up his energy and is going to have plenty of late run.

Which is where the all-important speed duel comes in. I didn't really "believe" in speed duels for a while, since one of the duelists usually shakes off the other one and goes on to win. But that's probably in the absence of a strong closer.

As such, if you've identified a horse that is a die-hard closer, I think you can only evaluate his ability on races that had a fast, or faster-than-average pace. Closers can only perform well against a fast pace, and are useless against a slow one. With that in mind, finding the logical closer (if any) should be possible.

Does this sound right?

[BIG HIT]

Hi used the profiler in equisim if the spd index as how it rated the race for yesterday spt race 2 was rated normal and the winner came from 5th at have and sec place horse came from 6th at half.race3 rated slow winner 4th at half sec horse 5th at half.Race4 rated normal winner 6th at half.Race7 fast horse sec 5th at half.Race8 rate normal sec 5th at half.Race9 rated slow won 6th at the half.Don't know if this help's.But is interesting my self wish i could measure how fast they stop.?

[socalsportsbook]

Game theory

You are "right-on"!! Dead closers can not win on their own. They must have a pace to run at in order to be effextive. A wonderful example was the 3rd race at Santa Anits on Saturday. Look up the chart. Monster speed duel in a sprint and McCordnskuba caught them and paid $59.

That being said: I believe early-speed is more effective in sprints but again you battle the lack of value.

Lone F (lone speed) is so widely known that you will very seldom find any value in this play. The public is very aware of speed (Beyer) and you will find most post time favs tend to be early speed types. Find a closer who has a shot and you've found a value play.

Early speed in a route where the horse goes slow early and has enough gas to hold one for the win--is a jockey play as much as anything. Some jocks (McCarron...) have a clock in their head. This is a hard play to predict.

[GR1@HTR]

Under that logic, does it mean a closer can only earn a fast speed figure if there is an early pace?....So they only know how to run fast when the others run fast early? And they run slow when the front runners run slow? IMHO, I don't think so...just another horseracing myth...

[GameTheory]

Actually, yes, I think that might be the case, but I'd like to hear opinions. In other words, they are going to hang back early NO MATTER WHAT, and they will still make their late run, but they aren't going to come close to catching the leaders because the leaders have plenty left (if the pace was slow). So if you are looking at the recent form of a closer, and it looks terrible, but those races were run at a slow early pace and today's figures to be fast, you may have yourself an attractive play...

[cj]

Originally posted by GR1
Under that logic, does it mean a closer can only earn a fast speed figure if there is an early pace?....So they only know how to run fast when the others run fast early? And they run slow when the front runners run slow? IMHO, I don't think so...just another horseracing myth...

GR1,

I disagree with you on this point. Closers speed figures are largely dependent on the early pace. The faster the early pace, the faster the speed figure. Frontrunner types are just the opposite. The problem with both types of horses is that they don't run well if taken out of there style. That is why closers need a fast pace, while frontrunners need a slow pace. It is also why I usually prefer horses who can lead if need be, but also rate a few lengths off the pace.

Turf Races are often glaring examples of this situation. Even though the races usually set up for closers, higher speed figures are recorded when the pace is fast. Also, when was the last time a turf horse got a 120 Beyer on the lawn? It doesn't happen, because the pace is too slow.

CJ

[socalsportsbook]

Originally posted by GR1
Under that logic, does it mean a closer can only earn a fast speed figure if there is an early pace?....So they only know how to run fast when the others run fast early? And they run slow when the front runners run slow? IMHO, I don't think so...just another horseracing myth...

IMO
The last thing I care about is a closers speed figure.
How to run fast...It has nothing to do with them running fast. It's about them running late and the speed coming back.

They run slow...Yes!

Just another mith...No. It's a fact.

[Lindsay]

I'm with GR1 on this, for the most part. What is it about a slow pace that will slow down a closer's final time? You can argue that a slow pace will speed up the frontrunners' final time, thus making the closer less likely to win, but that is a different issue.

You can also argue that a slow pace leads to a bunched up field, which causes closers to go wide. This will affect the closers' Beyers, but not their Sheets or Thoro-Graph figures, as they take ground loss into consideration.

In theory, if the pace is three fifths slower than usual, closers need only stay about three lengths closer to that pace than usual in order to run the same fractions they usually do, and, all else equal, similar fractions should lead to a similar final time.

Many closers are actually running faster early in the race than they are late. Their fast finish is an illusion. Thus, if a race has slower-than-usual fractions, closers who insist on staying as far off the pace as usual are actually running a MORE evenly paced race than usual. One could argue that the slow pace will help their final time. (Grass races are a different story entirely.)

I also have to disagree on the reason why classy horses get slower figures on turf than dirt. Beyers are based on the projection method. The slow pace typical of grass races will not affect the projections. Here's an example: Only turf race of the day: Stakes race: One mile: 26 26 26 23. Final time: 141.00. Very slow pace that hurt the final time of all the horses. Using the projection method, the final time of the race is irrelevant to the figures the horses will get. All that matters is the figures they had going in, and the lengths between them in today's race.

I believe that the reason the best grass horses get slower figures than the best dirt horses is that because of the way they're run, grass races are in effect SHORTER than the given distance. Hence, the horses don't spread out the way they would on dirt. I know Beyer tried to address this by using his 6.5 furlong beaten lengths chart for grass routes, but I'm not sure the change was sufficient to eliminate the problem.

[Tom]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Actually, yes, I think that might be the case, but I'd like to hear opinions. In other words, they are going to hang back early NO MATTER WHAT, and they will still make their late run, but they aren't going to come close to catching the leaders because the leaders have plenty left (if the pace was slow). So if you are looking at the recent form of a closer, and it looks terrible, but those races were run at a slow early pace and today's figures to be fast, you may have yourself an attractive play...

This is exactly the "magic" of Pizzolla's fulcrum ideas - if a race was run significantly slower than today's fulcrum then it is an excuse for the closer. If run faster, it is an excuse for the early types. I like to always pick pace lies that are close to today's predicted pace, even if I have to skip over good races to get to them.

[Aussieplayer]

Hey guys,

What I don't get: US racing is supposed to be much more "early speed" than Aussie & European racing, apparently due to dirt vs turf racing - although no one has actually been able to REALLY explain that to me (after all, horses still have 4 legs & a tail on either surface). Anyway, back to the point:

Now, if that's true (that US racing has greater early speed on average) - then you guys should actually have a closers bias according to what you're saying here, not a frontrunners bias!!!

Just to make matters more confusing: you'd think that even though you guys have a frontrunning bias that we would have a closer's bias. Not so. Some Aussie handicappers would think so, but stats show early speed to be prevalent here too.

Early speed must truly be the "universal bias!"

Cheers
AP

[cj]

Originally posted by Lindsay

In theory, if the pace is three fifths slower than usual, closers need only stay about three lengths closer to that pace than usual in order to run the same fractions they usually do, and, all else equal, similar fractions should lead to a similar final time.


In theory, this may be true, but in reality, it just doesn't pan out. Horses are not machines. They run where they are comfortable. Some like the front, some like the back, some like to run in the middle, etc. If they are taken out of there style, they don't run as well. So if you force a closer to be three lengths closer to the front, or a mid pack horse to the lead, they fight the rider and don't run as well.

CJ

[andicap]

CJ hit it right on the head. The reason so many pace handicappers have trouble is that they don't take a horse's usual running style into account. This goes for early and late horses.
I like to see how many lengths off the pace and in what position a horse feels comfortable. Horses that are multi-dimensional -- those who will go to the lead if the pace is slow or can relax if its fast are huge threats.

Same goes for closers that can either relax at the back if the pace is very fast or can run mid-pack if its slow ("S/P" types that BRIS ignores in its running style designations to its discredit.)
I find S/P horses to be very strong -- as opposed to "S" horses who rarely win ( I think HTR calls them "R" horses for "Rear.")

But the question of how a fast pace affects closers IS a vexing one that I've always wondered about. I don't think there's a clear answer -- both sides are right and wrong.

A closer who has the flexibility to run mid-pack, but still have energy in reserve because he's running a 46 half when the front runners are tiring themselves out at a 45, will decelerate less than the tiring early horses. That happens especially if the closer doesn't have to run 6 wide and maybe has some cover down the backstretch (isn't racing directly into the wind.)

OK, this closer might come home in 25 for a 111 final while the front-runners tire and do a 26 and change or even a 27 (Pace dynamics: the faster you run early, the more you will tire late. The relationship between your first fraction and your final fraction is NOT 1:1. Those that say it is EXACTLY 1:2 or 1:3 are talking out of their ass, they don't really know, there's no hard research on the matter. But it is true that if you go 1 second faster in the first 1/4 you will slow down much more than 1 second in the final fraction. The closer wins the race.

If the front-runners, however, do a 46 half-mile, the closer will not be comfortable in front and might still be 5 lengths back doing a 47.

Question: Will the closer be able to make up the 1 second (app. 5 lengths) and run the same 1:11 he ran in the faster race? Probably not IMHO. It's very difficult for a horse to run 1 second faster in the last 1/4 mile. The closer will have to run a 24 last fraction to hit that same 1:11 -- very difficult to do unless he is a very good horse.

On the turf, horses run faster late than they do early because they are really crawling early. Not just a 49 half and 113 3/4, but a 51 to the half before they start to pick it up.

So my answer is that the horses who give better speed figures with faster paces are the more talented horses who can run mid-pack in a fast pace and still have a punch to come home without decelerating too much. The closers that give fast speed figs are freaks who can run sub 24-second final quarters to run down early pace horses even when the speed doesn't collapse, just wilts a bit.

[Lindsay]

cjmilkowski,

Sticking with the pace-three-fifths-slow example of mine that you highlighted:

I don't doubt that a few horses will run poorly if they're taken out of their usual style, but what do we really mean by that?

In my example, the pace is three fifths slower than usual, and the closer is, say, seven lengths off the pace instead of 10. You think this might well cause him to run poorly, correct? What if we get a situation where the pace is three fifths faster than normal? The closer, whom we would expect to relish the situation, has two obvious choices: 1: Be 13 lengths back early instead of 10, which he, as a creature of habit, may resent, as you said. 2: Run three fifths faster early than he usually does, which he, as a creature of habit, may resent.

In other words, if a faster-than-average pace helps closers to run faster times, it is BECAUSE the fast pace takes the closer out of his normal style, either by tricking him into being farther from the pace than normal, or by tricking him into running faster early fractions than normal.

[ranchwest]

I think you're right, but there's another part of the equation. Someone pointed out that horses are not machines. True. But the big factor is that the guy perched on their back is not a machine, either. The jockey knows where the horse is supposed to be in the pack and puts the horse there, no matter what.

I believe that explains why some jockeys are so much better than others. If the clock is in the jockey's head instead of in the head of the jockey on the lead, then the horse has a better chance. That's why guys like Pat "Wait All" Day are so good.

Running style has a lot to do with expenditure of oxygen. The pace at which an individual horse best utilizes oxygen is not going to change unless the running surface changes. That's why I think you're right that a horse should be able to run his race no matter what the pace is. Unfortunately, that isn't usually the case, so the only thing to which I can attribute the difference is the jockey.

I guess if the jockeys all somehow suddenly learn to better pace their horse, then pace handicappers will be in trouble.

Originally posted by GR1
Under that logic, does it mean a closer can only earn a fast speed figure if there is an early pace?....So they only know how to run fast when the others run fast early? And they run slow when the front runners run slow? IMHO, I don't think so...just another horseracing myth...

[GR1@HTR]

This is a good discussion. Now let me begin by saying that closers on a dirt surface are generally very poor bets…. I to have read in many books that closers can only win when facing a fast pace where the front-runners “burn” themselves out. Think we all have read that and believe that to be true. Under that scenario, the only time a closer can run fast is if the early speed fails. Well, now let’s truly think about that… IMHO, a closer runs fast under the following conditions:
1) The horse is in condition
2) The horse feels like running hard that day
3) To some extent, track bias.
4) The horse gets a good trip
5) The jockey knows when to pull the trigger.
6) The 3 T’s (Timing, Timing, Timing), **The horse firing at the correct time to make maximum use of his energy….

Here are some stats based upon a pace scenarios
Key as follows…
nQp3=Quirin Top 3 Point Sum (for example: nQp3>=18 could be the top 3 Quirin point horses are 6, 6 and 7 [19 total], nQp3<=10 could be the top 3 are 4 , 2 and 3 [9 total].

Dirt Sprints, Non Maiden Dirt Routes, Non Maiden

nQp3 RS Hits Win% ROI nQp3 RS Hits Win% ROI
>=18 S 3734 8.52% -35.22 >=18 S 2752 9.63% -35.40
<=10 S 2219 10.50% -24.97 <=10 S 622 12.22% -30.88

**The above data is from Jan 01, 2002 to yesterday from every track/every race run in North America.

As we can see above that the ROI for a closer/S running style horse in a sprint is much better in a pace less race. The public is very good at observing that there will be a potential pace duel and will over bet the closer. Now the Win% is better for a closer in a paceless race but that is due to the fact that there are more closers in a paceless race so therefore the Win% will be higher. But the ROI tells the truth to the matter. Comments anybody?

[ranchwest]

GR1,

That's an interesting study. I'd be interested to know the IV on those races.

[GR1@HTR]

Good question RW, unfortunately my dB isn't set up for I.V.s. My guess based upon the Win% is that there wouldn't be much of a difference.

[rrbauer]

Impact Value is a pretty simple calculation.
If you can arrive at the following numbers with a db query:

What percentage of the starters had a certain characteristic?

What percentage of the winners had that same characteristic?

Divide the %starters into the %winners. Result is IV.

Of course you could have a positive IV and still not have a positive ROI.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by rrbauer
Impact Value is a pretty simple calculation.
If you can arrive at the following numbers with a db query:

What percentage of the starters had a certain characteristic?

What percentage of the winners had that same characteristic?

Divide the %starters into the %winners. Result is IV.

Of course you could have a positive IV and still not have a positive ROI.

You are right, but the ROI is based on the public's tendancies. I'd first like to know about the basic premise, the horses' tendancies, which the IV would tell us. Then, the ROI would tell us the rest of the story.

[Show Me the Wire]

I do not believe there is such a phenomena as a logical closer. Yes, horses do close but there are too many variables in play to make it a logical choice to win, i.e. field size, running styles, jockeys, pace, track texture, track bias, trip, track configuration, horses not being machines, etc.

I believe the main reason why closers are at a disadvantage is because their running style gives the early speed type a head start. Let 's put aside abstract pace theories and resulting final times. What I believe really happens is the closer gives its opponent a head start and plays catch-up. Wait a minute you say it really shouldn't matter, because both animals can run the same distance in equal time. And I say in theory yes, but not in an actual race.

Assuming everything being equal (big false assumption) in a two horse race the early speed horse will win the race. Both horses can cover 6 furlongs in a 1: 09 4/5, but the closer will lose by a nostril or more because of ground loss incurred while trying to overcome the disadvantage of giving its opponent a head start. No matter what in any race around a turn the closer will suffer enough ground loss to lose by a nose.

In a race around at least one turn the closer must physically run around the obstacle in front of it to win. Since the closer cannot occupy the same physical path as the horse in front of it, the closer must alter its path in its attempt to pass the front animal. This altering of the path physically prevents the closer from covering the same distance, 6 furlongs, in equal time. The alteration causes the closer to cover more ground. The closer is left with an impossible task because the closer needs to run a greater distance, 6 furlongs and 1 yard; in the same time its opponent runs 6 furlongs. This physically impossible task is exacerbated by all the variables I listed above and plus, leading observers to conclude closers run their best races or times when speed duels take place.

In summation, based on this observation, I believe it is illogical for a closer to win if the early speed horse and the closer can theoretically cover the same distance in exact time.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Lindsay]

Show Me the Wire,

1: If the advantage that frontrunners have is due to saving ground, as you seem to be saying, doesn't it follow that a frontrunner who races outside one or more rivals around a turn is at the same disadvantage as a closer? Don't many riders prefer to be on the outside of a two-horse duel?

2: Let's say we are using figures (Beyers?) that don't incorporate ground loss. Since a closer's ground loss in previous races will be reflected in his figures, what difference does it make if he happens to be a closer going up against a frontrunner? The advantage the frontrunner has is already in the figures. Isn't it double counting to give the frontrunner extra credit?

[cj]

Lindsay,

Although several have attempted to explain why closers don't run the same figure regardless of pace, they are all just theories. However, sometimes it doesn't really matter why, just that it is so, and I think most here would agree it is definitely the case.

CJ

[Show Me the Wire]

Lindsay:

My example is a two horse race which illustrates in a situation in which everything is equal, including energy distribution a closer cannot overcome the disadvantage of letting its opponent have a head start. The closer must cover more ground in some part of the race to physically pass the horse in front.

1. Yes, some jockeys prefer to be on the outside in a speed duel for a variety of reasons. A very important reason is most horses prefer to run on the outside of another horse and not to the inside. Therefore, if one of the lead horses is in the two path that means the closer must go wider and lose more ground.

2. If I read your second scenario correctly you are saying ground loss is not important if the closer is able to cover more ground in faster time than the front running animal. If my understanding of your example is correct I agree with you. However, my example specifically stated both horses are in equal in ability and have the speed and stamina to cover the same amount of ground in the same exact time.

I really don't see anything I said to be in conflict with your examples.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Lindsay]

cjmilkowski,

Please let me begin by congratulating you on Maryland's great victory. I've felt sorry for Maryland ever since Lefty let Moses Malone slip away.

I'd like to add my own theory on why closers may run faster figures if the pace is fast. Few people doubt that a fast pace will lead to frontrunners running slower figures. Thus, in such races, closers will find themselves passing tired horses and in contention for a win. This may inspire the closer to run harder, and it may inspire the rider to push harder. This combination may lead to faster figures for some closers.

I want to add that I find it interesting that two of the biggest skeptics about the effect of pace on final figures, Len Ragozin of The Sheets and Jerry Brown of Thoro-Graph, make figures that incorporate ground loss. A friend of mine has been studying sheet-related questions for some time, and he believes that early speed is the "universal track bias" because of ground loss. I believe this view deserves a day in court.

[cj]

Lindsay,

ROFL...Moses Malone, I think I was like 5 back then! My earliest memories are of Brad Davis and John Lucas playing, don't think I followed recruiting then though.

I think your theory certainly has some merit, but like the others, it is hard to actually test. I've never really tinkered much with adjusting figures for ground loss, but I think it hurts speed types more than closers. My guess is because closers almost always lose ground.

All this being said, every race I handicap from now until the end of my days will begin with an evaluation of the speed horses first, that is what works for me. Only when they are not true contenders do I drift back to the closers.

CJ

[Lindsay]

Show Me the Wire,

Yes. If all things are equal, the horse who gets to run a shorter distance will win the race. I was imputing to you my reliance on speed figures. In other words, I was assuming that "all things equal" meant that the frontrunner and closer had the same speed figures. My mistake. We have no argument on this matter.

cjmilkowski,

The Moses Malone fiasco was before my time, too. I read about it in David Halberstam's underrated book "The Breaks of the Game." Your mention of John Lucas brings back memories. What an athlete! Team tennis, even! What a shame! He seems to have righted the ship, thank God.

Figures that incorporate ground loss will cheat frontrunners or closers to the extent that our projections of today's ground loss are inaccurate.

[Show Me the Wire]

Lindsay:

Oh! I do not emphasize commercial speed figures in my approach. I was a Rags and TG user, but I feel they both lost their edge for a couple of reasons. Too many people with the same information makes the information pretty useless and it seems training methods have improved translating into less bouncing horses.

Additionally, I believe there is a basic flaw in both products related to the mechanical figure making based on ground loss around turns. Please do not ask me to divulge this weakness as I exploit it in my selection and wagering process, when I know sheet players are playing certain fig horses.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[andicap]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Lindsay:

Oh! I do not emphasize commercial speed figures in my approach. I was a Rags and TG user, but I feel they both lost their edge for a couple of reasons. Too many people with the same information makes the information pretty useless and it seems training methods have improved translating into less bouncing horses.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire \


Improved training methods or drugs? I vote for the latter.

[mudnturf]

Getting back to the question posed by "Game Theory" in the original post, I'd like to offer a handicapping angle that has provided me with some high priced winners over the years.

If the race in question is 6f, 6.5f, or even 7f,
AND it looks like there will be a speed duel for the early lead,
AND if it appears that more than two appear to be "need to lead" type sprinters, or very close to it,
AND there is a CLOSING TYPE SPRINTER coming off a route of 8f or more,
AND that horse was on or near the lead early on in that route,
I like his or her chances in today's scenario.

[Tom]

Mark Hopkins, Andy Beyer's partner, used to write for the Form
and he was a guest speaker/handicapper at Finger Lakes twice. Both times he emphasized trips, or ground loss as the key to picking his horses. He used the Beyers in terms of where the horse was on the track. He was very forgiving of a horse who was wide and would go back many races on a horse whoefigure to be inside today. As a maker of the Beyers, it was interesting that how he used them in terms of other factors, not stand alones.

[thoroughbred]

Game Theory.

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Almost no room for discussion.