Pace theory

[andicap]

Am looking for feedback on the following theory about pace figs.

I now use two sets of formulas for evaluating horses. One is late-pace based, but has an early element in it. Another is an early-pace based fig that has late-speed elements. Both are intended to give a broader view than just late speed or pure early speed. Lately, noticing how many early speed horses with poor late and final figs win at high prices I've introduced a third figure that is more pure early speed.

OK, the question is this: When evaluating Early, Pressing, or Sustained horses, I have begun to find evidence that it is better to compare horses with the same running style's using the formula that best matches that RS.

For Early i'd say anything within 2 lengths of the lead at the first call. (THE PURE EARLY SPEED FIGURE)
For presser. Anything within 2 lengths at the 2nd call that is not early. (THE EARLY TILTING FIGURE WITH A LATE ELEMENT).
For Sustained. All others. (THE LATE FIGURE WITH AN EARLY ELEMENT)

I would compare all the early horses with each other using the Early figure and the same for all the other styles. Any "E" horse who doesn't measure up competively among his early peers gets the boot. I am thinking of Harlan's Holiday in the Derby who liked to run near the front but in my formulas didn't have good figures compared to similar type horses.

This has the advantage of matching up the same running styles.
For horses with two distinct running styles I would use the most sustained pattern. That is, for an E/P horse, I'd use the "P" figure since he doesn't have to run early to win.

Does anyone else do this?

[rrbauer]

There are a lot of pace guru's who hang out here that will give you better answers than I do. Top of my head, after you do your eliminations within RS, you still have to do some rank order of what you have left. How is that done?

Also, I have always felt that there should be a way to modify pace/final time fig calculations to compensate for the way a track plays. Which RS (if any) does better at which tracks/distances/surfaces?

Where a predominant RS is identified then recalculate the individual horses' figs based on the "nudge" factor that ties to that RS.

Right now for the circuits that I play, I only "monkey" with the figs on turf routes, where I give a nudge to LF.

[Dick Schmidt]

Andy,

I'm not a "pace guru," but I used to play one at seminars. Anyway, I've done a lot of work over the years on pace, and combining figs every way you can imagine.

In my opinion, you are hurting yourself by combining early and late numbers. If you want to look at early horses, use early numbers. Using multiple combined numbers is just pissing in the soup. You get the best "average" horse; they don't win much. The whole idea behind pace handicapping is that the various parts of the race are not equally important. In American racing, early speed is completely dominate. You need look no further than the last Derby to see that sustained horses just can't win without help, while an early horse is always dangerous.

Pace handicapping, at least as I understand it, involves position analysis. Which of the early running style horses can get the lead, which of the pressers can keep up well enough to catch him and which sustained horses have the best late kick should the early horses collapse? Too many beginners with pace are impressed by big late numbers, or depend on an "average" number (like Factor W, say) and overlook the positional aspects of pace.

As Jim Bradshaw has said many times: "Only two kinds of horse races. One horse goes out front and the others try to catch him. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't." About as succinct a definition of pace handicapping as you can find.

Dick

[Rick]

I like a versatile horse that can run either early or late depending on the pace demands in a given race. You don't want to find both in the same race though, because it will wind up being an obvious underlay. In dirt races, you should still give more credit to early speed though at most tracks. E/P types are the running style that produces the most overlays for me.

[Tom]

andicap,

I start out assuming the race will be won by an early runner since most races are. I compare all the front runners first and throw out those that don't match up with today's other early runners.
I only look at the early numbes at this point. Once I have have the early conteneders, I compare them on their middle and late ability. At this time, I look at the pressers - can they catch the early horses? Where will everyone be at the second call? From there, what can they do? Now I bring in the late runners and see if they can catch those still in front. I modify there late ratings by today's predicited pace. For an example, using BRIS pace numbers: Say I think the race will go in 96 to the half. A late runner has numbers of 78 - 103. I modify the 103 late number by the number of points his pace is lowere than the prediction. In this case, 96-78=18, so 103-18=85. If a horse can run 96-85, I will take him over the late runner. If the best there is runs 96-82, I go for the closer.
This is pretty simple and in real life, I have to factor in pressers, etc. But the idea is the same.
Now, I arn you, this is the thinking that led me to throw out WE in the derby~G~

Tom

[Rick]

Tom,

I like your way of analyzing a race. I think you're on the right track. The only thing I'd change is maybe to look at the best pace figures instead of those from an individual race. I think if you'd done that you would have selected WE. My reason for this is that many times the pace you predict in advance doesn't materialize and you want your horse to still have a chance anyway. In WE's case, he had run well both early and late in different races, so I feel that he would have still had a chance even without getting the early lead. I think a slower pace with him pressing would have resulted in an even more impressive win. Just my opinion. BTW, since he gained 2 1/2 lengths in the stretch after leading all the way, I think his speed rating in that race may be lower than it would have been if someone were closer. Espinoza didn't have to push him much. My PP comments say "3 wide" and "hand urging". Not really the ideal trip or best effort possible.

[so.cal.fan]

How far back does one go for a pace line?
I usually only use a recent one (past 3 months).
I only use the DRF, and I try to look at the PP's as Tom does,
I prefer a pace line in a better class race.

[freeneasy]

heyyacap

free here, long time buddy, good to be back and see your ( er, were all) still searching ( scouring the universe) ever so dilligently for that seemingly ever elusive ( long, long sought after) holy grail (answers, answers, and more answers), to whose going to win this dawgone race (to bet or not to bet, thats the the big Q dear Yoric), I always liked the kind of horse that displayed the frontrunning style and is in a race where he is the early speed and the closing speed ( flagfall to thats all).
I think you can combine early and late speed cap, but one must have the other and present itself in a format that, today will not be contested and if (ut-oh, now where'd I put that grail) contested, will not be comprimised or effected ( bit o' class). dont be pressed by it all, sometimes its a tough game and sometimes its sweet. well cap nice to talk look ffoward to seeing more of your postings
free

[andicap]

Dick,

You say you can't combine early and late numbers. But isn't that what TPRs do? It's an early plus a late to get sort of an AP.
Anyway, my tinkering and thinking about this led me to believe you might be right that I should be comparing E horses with my E formula, P horses with my P formula, etc.

Richard,
Ranking the horses after I get my contenders is a little tricky. I am trying right now to handicap 200 races to see if my top figure choice wins the most, my 2nd choice wins the 2nd most, etc. In the past my top figure choice was the horse with the top figure over the past 45 days in my one of my formulas that seems to be the most predictive and picks the most longshots.

What I do now is though is look for obvious overlays -- top contenders at say 4-1 or middling contenders at 6-1 and bottom contenders at 12-1 or so. Ain't scientific but since the figure aren't really that precise themselves, I reckon the odds lines you come up are pretty flimsy too (unless your records show your top choice wins consistently 40%, then you might make him 3-2, if that works for you.)

I agree with you that I should modify my calucations based on how a track plays. What I want to do once I'm supremely confident in my formulas is model a track and see if a particular formula is more predictive than another. Or if a race doesn't have much pace I would tilt toward the early-based formulas (which is what Pizzolla does.)




Tom,
Where I have trouble with your formula -- and Dick would be better to answer this one -- is your assumption that there is a one-to-one corrolation between early and late figures. I have always heard that a horse that goes 1 tick faster in the early part of the race uses up so much energy (oxygen, whatever you want to call it) that it costs him 2 or 3 or more ticks in the stretch.

So Cal,
I will go back as far as I have too depending on the horse. If the horse has several recent running lines I won't go back more than 45 days. If I need to get more lines (I don't want to predict a horse's performance based on just one line), I'll go back 90 days. If the horse is lighly-raced recently, I'll go back 6 months, but I'm really careful about these lines because of obvious fitness questions. I'll go back even further if I think the horse is in shape today, the trainer is good at bringing horses back off a layoff and especially if it's a young horse who is still running at the same class as before the layoff.

free, good to see to here. Hope you keep posting.

[Dick Schmidt]

Andy,


"You say you can't combine early and late numbers. But isn't that what TPRs do? It's an early plus a late to get sort of an AP.
Anyway, my tinkering and thinking about this led me to believe you might be right that I should be comparing E horses with my E formula, P horses with my P formula, etc."


You are absolutely correct that TPR is a combined rating. It is also the rating Tom and I used the least. Of course, the horse must run the entire race, but of utmost importance on most tracks is that he be in position to win at the second call; about the top of the stretch at most tracks. I remember tracking Santa Anita for a month and not one winner in a sprint was further back than 2 lengths at second call. That kind of bias needs to be acknowledged and used. Mixing in late pace while you are trying to position your early horses just confuses things.

Dick

[rrbauer]

Which pace line should you use?

The one that the horse is in condition to run....all other things being equal (track condition, etc.).

[so.cal.fan]

The one that the horse is in condition to run....all other things being equal (track condition, etc.).

rb,
Are you saying to throw out any pace line where the horse just stopped or was eased? Or never was in contention?

[Rick]

An old method that I used to play gave credit for being within 3 lengths at the first call, 2 lengths at the second call, and 1 length at the stretch. I think those are pretty good guidlines for which horses have a chance to win. The first call would be the most important in my opinion.

[rrbauer]

so.cal.fan wrote:
Are you saying to throw out any pace line where the horse just stopped or was eased? Or never was in contention?

In the absence of the complete scenario for the race being handicapped it's hard to answer that. If I don't think that a horse is a contender, the only time that I ever consider it is if it has "cheap" speed and figures to be in a fade come eyeball time. Those types can compromise the other speed (assuming there is other speed).

I don't know how you can handicap a race without taking a horse's condition into account. Once you make that condition judgement you can start looking for a pace line(s) that reflect it. My handicapping regimen starts with a horse's last race; and, the question, "What's different today?" If the last race was in the same form cycle (no intervening layoff or barn change, etc.) and it stinks, and today looks like more of the same, then I apply rule 86.

I only play two circuits and I don't play when the track condition is "off". That reduces the variables that I'm dealing with all the way from how the track is playing, to how good trainer A is when bringing horses back from layoffs (fewer trainers that I have to know about). Also, I don't play when I don't have a good "feel" for the "shape" of a race. The exception to that is certain maiden events where performance lines are scarce. Then I look to nuance factors: Works, connections and Mr. Tote Board!

That was pretty long-winded....sorry!

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
Andy,


"You say you can't combine early and late numbers. But isn't that what TPRs do? It's an early plus a late to get sort of an AP.
Anyway, my tinkering and thinking about this led me to believe you might be right that I should be comparing E horses with my E formula, P horses with my P formula, etc."


You are absolutely correct that TPR is a combined rating. It is also the rating Tom and I used the least. Of course, the horse must run the entire race, but of utmost importance on most tracks is that he be in position to win at the second call; about the top of the stretch at most tracks. I remember tracking Santa Anita for a month and not one winner in a sprint was further back than 2 lengths at second call. That kind of bias needs to be acknowledged and used. Mixing in late pace while you are trying to position your early horses just confuses things.

Dick My suggestion would be to let the horses time at that fraction be the only guide instead of assigning a- frontrunner,presser or closer tag to him.Its based on the idea the horse don't know what those terms are,he only knows at what speed he's comfortable with.If he exceeds that pace,it takes more out of him.

[delayjf]

Andicap,
Interesting post. I've wrestled with a simular theory myself and put the question to Ken Massa at HTR. I believe he (and probably Dick Schmidt as well) have dissected and analysis about every conceivable combinations of combined ratings known to man.
Briefly, my theory evolved around my success using the Sartin sustained pace rating on turf. I was amazed at it's ability to predict turf races AND dirt races with a closers bias (Delmar can get that way at times) The reason I believe sustained pace on turf was so successful was that it correctly gave greater weight to the fraction of the race that was dominate on the turf, the final fraction. I feel this is a superior than just using the final fraction alone, as a horse doesn't run the final fraction in a vaccuum so any excess energy spent early will not be available late. Obviously I believe that horses can and do get suckered into pressing or chasing a pace that they are not comfortable with.

From that, I wondered if simular compound ratings that put the same emphasis on the dominate fraction in dirt races could be as successful. For example if speed was winning on dirt, then a simular compound rating might be
(1st fraction velocity + (2nd + 3rd fraction velocity / 2)) / 2
or
(2nd fraction velocity + (1st +3rd fraction velocity / 2)) / 2

I put the question to Ken who said that he'd had no luck with these kinds or simular compound ratings, although I'm not sure he used these formulas or not.
One thing that the HTR gang has been singing for as long as I've been associated with them is the uncanny ability of F1 (the horse with the fastest 1st fraction velocity rating) to pick longshots. For more see their bullitin board (www.homebased2.com) Not sure I've addressed your theory, but for what it was worth.

[grahors]

andicap,

I start out assuming the race will be won by an early runner since most races are. I compare all the front runners first and throw out those that don't match up with today's other early runners.
I only look at the early numbes at this point. Once I have have the early conteneders, I compare them on their middle and late ability. At this time, I look at the pressers - can they catch the early horses? Where will everyone be at the second call? From there, what can they do? Now I bring in the late runners and see if they can catch those still in front. I modify there late ratings by today's predicited pace. For an example, using BRIS pace numbers: Say I think the race will go in 96 to the half. A late runner has numbers of 78 - 103. I modify the 103 late number by the number of points his pace is lowere than the prediction. In this case, 96-78=18, so 103-18=85. If a horse can run 96-85, I will take him over the late runner. If the best there is runs 96-82, I go for the closer.
This is pretty simple and in real life, I have to factor in pressers, etc. But the idea is the same.
Now, I arn you, this is the thinking that led me to throw out WE in the derby~G~

Tom Tolm, Sorry to bring in a blast from the past...Are you still working with pace in this manner? I tend to do this, but once I predict the pace to be run, I compare pressers and closers to it using the "pace of the race" they ran to and then adjust. Just trying to factor in how many lengthds behind pressers and closers like to run.
IE. predicted pace of todays race is 98. presser runs 80-110 in a paceline that has a pace of race of 90. Now, the horse needs to run 8 pts faster(98-90)..his pace would now be 88-102 or if you believe in the 1:2 ratio, 88-94.
Does this make sense?
Cecil
(Just doning some dreary fall Saturday reading....)

[46zilzal]

In American racing, early speed is completely dominate.
Pace handicapping, at least as I understand it, involves position analysis.
I hope MORE and MORE people keep believing that......When I re-read Brohamer I was amazed I missed it the first time: POSITION depends on the field yesterday whereas energy distribution tends to be intrinsic to the horse's exercise physiology

I vote for following the horse, NOT it's position

[46zilzal]

One thing that the HTR gang has been singing for as long as I've been associated with them is the uncanny ability of F1 (the horse with the fastest 1st fraction velocity rating) to pick longshots.
"alone on the lead" (remnant speed without a bit of pace pressure) often goes unchalleged so late into the contest (happened again today at Woodbine in the 2nd 11/12/05) that the closers miscalculate how much ground they have to make up, and its all over. This happens everyday, on dirt, at just about any track in North America.

[46zilzal]

Horse is usually an early to early/presser. Up on the pace all the time. Last out he gets a good long breather up front and gains pedestrian fractions so it relaxes without pace pressure.

POSITIONALLY these look the same. Energy distribtion wise these are VERY different with the style often shifiting to presser.

Use these horse's lines with EQUAL consideration and one is in for a big surprise since that EASY lead is NOT want you want to evaluate next out unless this animal is lucky enough to get that easy lead again.

[46zilzal]

I prefer a pace line in a better class race.
pace pressure (speed from competitors) has no CLASS governor on it...it simply is speed. Horses cannot read the condition book....horse reacts to it within the capablities of its racing style and form..

[46zilzal]

I start out assuming the race will be won by an early runner since most races are. I compare all the front runners first and throw out those that don't match up with today's other early runners.
very logical and accurate given how often the front end is better and more predictable than the off pace movers...

War Emblem was a great example of NO one going after him and the assumed belief "Well he's back up."
to a lesser extent: Funny Cide was the same way as was Smarty Jones

[46zilzal]

Where I have trouble with your formula -- and Dick would be better to answer this one -- is your assumption that there is a one-to-one correlation between early and late figures. I have always heard that a horse that goes 1 tick faster in the early part of the race uses up so much energy (oxygen, whatever you want to call it) that it costs him 2 or 3 or more ticks in the stretch.

have to keep track: many a course goes 1:1 (Belmont and the Fair Grounds) but then many others (Aqueduct inner, Gulfstream and Woodbine) go for long periods with a ratio of 1:4 (takes four units late to make up for one unit lost early)

[46zilzal]

have to keep track: many a course goes 1:1 (Belmont and the Fair Grounds) but then many others (Aqueduct inner, Gulfstream and Woodbine) go for long periods with a ratio of 1:4 (takes four units late to make up for one unit lost early)
great way to calculate how a course is running (in advanced Sartin programs) is to track the early/late balance number to give you an idea what that ratio is WITHIN a race program

[classhandicapper]

This is a observation I have made that perhaps some of you can comment on. If there is some general agreement, perhaps some new applications can be found.

I am starting to think that the very best jockeys around are a lot smarter than many handicappers given them credit for.

For years, I've noticed that when the track seems to be favoring early speed early in the racing card (especially on the sloppy tracks in NY) the jockey's would get much more aggressive later in the card. They would set much faster fractions trying for the lead and it tends to offset the bias.

Now, I'm beginning to think the same thing holds true for racing around the country.

At any given track, the jockeys eventually figure out how a surface plays and adjust their level of aggression to maximize their chances of winning.

I think that's "partly" why you see 43s and 44s at some tracks and 46s and 47s at other tracks. At one time I used to think it was all a matter of the speed of the racing surface and perhaps the runnup to the timer. Those are obviously very big factors, but I think it extends beyond that. If you watch enough races from various circuits, you can see clear differences between how hard the jockey's are urging their horses early.

When people make pace figures they tend to equalize things from a performance perspective. That's fine, but at the same time it may not actually be equalizing horses from an early speed perspective.

Ex:

Going 21 43.4 110 at one track might be equal to going 21.3 44.4 110 at another track (adjusted for track speed) in terms of performance because of the natural bias of the surface, but the the 21 horse could very well be a hell of a lot faster early if they met.

[46zilzal]

horses run races..jockeys just position them...... the ability of the horse is finite and the rider cannot make them any better unless they get off and PULL them

They can make a difference when the animals are CLOSE in their inherent abilities

[RXB]

I hope MORE and MORE people keep believing that......When I re-read Brohamer I was amazed I missed it the first time: POSITION depends on the field yesterday whereas energy distribution tends to be intrinsic to the horse's exercise physiology

I vote for following the horse, NOT it's position

Well, Jim Cramer has done a lot more quantitative study on the matter of early speed and pace than you have, I'm sure of that. And according to his studies, maybe you should have a re-think.

PS, Brohamer incorporated Cramer's methods into his own play.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I claim track dynamics (track speed) and early pace determine the early fractions.
Various tracks have differing cushion depth and the same track can vary in water, wind, and harrowing. I look for a range of track speed in each track and then try to determine where the track currently is at by times, heigth of dirt kicked up, and color of the dirt.
I try to find the handful of jockeys at each track that are best at finding firmness and path bias. Many jockeys ride all week and never realize there is a bias.
Of course the same jockey will use a different pace in the turf; on an off-track; on a wet fast track; but the same jockey may just assume like most bettors that the basic home dirt track is always the same if it is not raining.
In Northern Ca I think Baze, Rollins, Gonzales, and Dave Lopez can figure out the track ok. I like Rollins and Lopez the best for that.

[46zilzal]

Well, Jim Cramer has done a lot more quantitative study on the matter of early speed and pace than you have, I'm sure of that.
I sinerely doubt that but we just might have differing opinions....studying thousands of races a year since the late 60's then onto computer studies with databases beginning a long way back......

[46zilzal]

POSITION is passively attained: the interactions of the relative abilities of the field dictate where a horse winds up in any given contest. Velocity and energy distribution potential are inherent to the contender based upon it's form cycle.

An EARLY horse can be in a race where it was NOT in the top three or four positionally and still run EARLY. Given another pace scenario, the interactions of a paceless field can allow a sustained/presser to be on the lead all the way around...even at similar distances.

[RXB]

POSITION is passively attained: the interactions of the relative abilities of the field dictate where a horse winds up in any given contest. Velocity and energy distribution potential are inherent to the contender based upon it's form cycle.

An EARLY horse can be in a race where it was NOT in the top three or four positionally and still run EARLY. Given another pace scenario, the interactions of a paceless field can allow a sustained/presser to be on the lead all the way around...even at similar distances.

Well, backrunners that wind up on the lead in a paceless race often fail miserably and are passed by horses that are supposedly disadvantaged by the slow early cuts. So it can't just be a function of velocity.

Also, habitual off-pace horses are not infrequently pulled along to high pace ratings when chasing a quick pace. Yet if they run on the front at the same velocity in a normal pace race, again they tend to fail a lot.

Your theories seem to be based on the illusions that:

a) the fractional velocity ratings are precise; and

b) these ratings completely capture the competitive requirements of a horse race.

[46zilzal]

that's why we discuss things: I have what works for me, you have what works for you, but methinks we have grossly different definitions of things

Your theories seem to be based on the illusions that:

a) the fractional velocity ratings are precise; and

b) these ratings completely capture the competitive requirements of a horse race.

those are GROSSLY inadequte assumptions on your part however...I always love folks to tell me how they believe I think

[RXB]

Well, I can only ascertain what you think by what you post. Everything you've said in this thread (and others) is all about the supremacy of velocity ratings and energy distribution, while dissing running positions, class evaluations, etc.

If you have other ideas feel free to post them occasionally...

[46zilzal]

"Well, backrunners that wind up on the lead in a paceless race often fail miserably and are passed by horses that are supposedly disadvantaged by the slow early cuts. So it can't just be a function of velocity."


Many FRONT RUNNERS are sustained pressers...veloctiy is FAR from the only factor considered .......FAR from it


" habitual off-pace horses are not infrequently pulled along to high pace ratings when chasing a quick pace. Yet if they run on the front at the same velocity in a normal pace race, again they tend to fail a lot."

we are not only on different pages, we are in different galaxies...let's leave it that

[RXB]

In different galaxies? I thought you were within and throughout everything, Omniscient One. :D

"Many FRONT RUNNERS are sustained pressers...veloctiy is FAR from the only factor considered ......."

Rather than just speaking in handicapping riddles, why not provide some definitions? Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, that your defs of 'frontrunners' and 'sustained pressers' differ from mine.

Better yet, how about some pre-race evaluations/selections?

[46zilzal]

Not interested in pissing contests...Only bet versus the crowd

Let's say we differ and leave it at that

[RXB]

Ain't no pissing match, Zilzal-- just arguing, nothing personal. I rather enjoy a good argument and can even get around to liking a bad one on occasion. I would like to see some of your pre-race analyses because post-race evaluations can be engineered successfully by anyone.

Andicap:

I've been playing in my head with a particular concept for quite a while now, because the traditional speed/stamina and EP/LP dichotomies are rather unsatisfactory in many ways. However, when I realize the amount of work that would be involved in testing and refining the idea, I go into procrastination mode.

What it really gets down to is: if you really think your idea has merit, roll up your sleeves. (Hopefully I'll follow my own advice.)

[shoelessjoe]

RXB,That's all zilzal likes to do is post race analysis he does it on other boards as well.The one time he did a pre-race analysis it was some odds on favorite that hadnt run in awhile .While the rest of us left this horse out he was saying how we shouldnt and that he was going to run big today.Anyway the horse is still running and when we asked him about it he denied ever saying anything about it. Shoeless

[so.cal.fan]

Classhandicpper writes:
"For years, I've noticed that when the track seems to be favoring early speed early in the racing card (especially on the sloppy tracks in NY) the jockey's would get much more aggressive later in the card. They would set much faster fractions trying for the lead and it tends to offset the bias.

Now, I'm beginning to think the same thing holds true for racing around the country.

At any given track, the jockeys eventually figure out how a surface plays and adjust their level of aggression to maximize their chances of winning"


I agree with you, Classhandicapper.
My husband used to be a jockey and has worked with jockeys in So. Cal. for the past 40+ years.
The good jockeys really do pay more than a little attention to track bias.
One top So. Cal. jockey used to jog the race track in the early afternoon before the races started and would observe the track speed.
If there is a pronounced bias, the jockeys all know about it......real quick.
I've actually seen it so pronounced that it works against them....if they rail is lightning fast, they all try to get to the inside, gunning horses too soon....
which will often set it up for a horse to run slightly off a bias, and WIN.
Chris McCarron used to sit in the jock's room and study the form, plotting the best way to ride his upcoming mounts.....he always considered the factor you mention.
Not all jocks read the form that well, most are bad handicappers....but they do pay attention to this angle.

[DJofSD]

Rather than just speaking in handicapping riddles, why not provide some definitions? Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, that your defs of 'frontrunners' and 'sustained pressers' differ from mine.

Excellent point.

The little secret is this: while one side of the discussion is looking at visual running styles, the other side is looking at energy distribution.

DJofSD

[cj]

I would argue the opposite of what 46 seems to be arguing, though it is hard to tell because he seems to like being cryptic.

I think energy is many times of function of position. Most horses are not adaptable enough to be able to run the same relative energy distribution regardless of position in the field. Maybe this has something to do with the jockeys, maybe not, but the result is the same.

[DJofSD]

Most horses are not adaptable enough to be able to run the same relative energy distribution regardless of position in the field.

I agree. And for me this is an indication of class.

DJofSD

[RXB]

I think energy is many times of function of position. Most horses are not adaptable enough to be able to run the same relative energy distribution regardless of position in the field. Maybe this has something to do with the jockeys, maybe not, but the result is the same.

:ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

I think energy is many times of function of position. Most horses are not adaptable enough to be able to run the same relative energy distribution regardless of position in the field. Maybe this has something to do with the jockeys, maybe not, but the result is the same.

I have a theory on this.

I think can think of at least two potential reasons for why there may be a difference if a closer runs 23.3 47 in the back of the pack vs. 23.3 47 on the lead.

1. In the back of the pack he may be drafting to a small degree. On the lead he is certainly runing with the wind in his face. If bicycle riders and human athletes try to draft to gain an advantage, I don't think it's impossible that it impacts horses once in awhile.

2. In the back of the pack you aren't required to repulse bids from other horses between calls as often. As a closer, you sit back and wait until the 3/8 pole (or similar) and make one move late. On or near the front, you usually have some company and are forced to jockey for the position - often several times from different horses even if the pace isn't that fast.

We all make pace figures based on quarterly times, but we haven't had much opportunity to study the impact of fractions within the quarter miles.

There may be a difference between 11.3 11.3 = 23.1 and 11.1 12 = 23.1. When horses repulse bids, I suspect the 1/16s and 1/8s are less smooth and potentially more energy consuming even if only slightly.

This would be consistent with the observation that some front runners run their best figures when they get loose on the lead. When you are loose, the fractions within the quarters are probably more relaxed and even.

I can even take it further and say I think things like this are consistent wth some of my class theories. Those internal little battles may be a little tougher and faster as you much up the ranks even though the raw fractions and final times look similar.

All theory of course. ;)

[46zilzal]

RXB,That's all zilzal likes to do is post race analysis he does it on other boards as well.The one time he did a pre-race analysis it was some odds on favorite that hadnt run in awhile .While the rest of us left this horse out he was saying how we shouldnt and that he was going to run big today.Anyway the horse is still running and when we asked him about it he denied ever saying anything about it.
this guy is as dumb as a post CONSISTENTLY, has an axe to grind ALL THE TIME and is talking about a case of my discussing the chances of a layoff horse when MY posted readouts from the program pinpointed the winner....Wonderful how you can SEE through rose colored glasses when you have a bias

[46zilzal]

how many time have you gone to the track and 5 guys have the winner from 5 different angles?....SAME here

[Tom]

I still believe postition is an importnat part of the pace match up. Some horses have to have the lead and will whatever it takes to get it. Some horses will not take the lead no matter how superior their first fraction might be. I love to find pressers withthe the best early velocity - they will have plenty left in the tank for the run home.

I like to look at the horse's first call postition and figure out where his comfort zone is. 5,5,4,5,6,4 - this guys like to be in the pack. 2,2,3,2,1,3,2,2,4 this guys runs close, but doesn't bneed to be in front.
I look at races wher the horse ran well - not all races.

The problem I have with energy percentages is that they seem to be more determined by the track than the horse - Keilan will probably take issue wtih me (;) ) but I see way too much variation in %E to make me believe it is inherent to the horse.

Good thread!
Ressurected, but good!

[46zilzal]

cryptic = ambiguous?...maybe to you

"The problem I have with energy percentages is that they seem to be more determined by the track than the horse"

THAT's FINE

I look at races wher the horse ran well - not all races.

That is also great

[classhandicapper]

By the way, I saw a very interesting race the other day. One result doesn't make or prove a theory, but it was still interesting.

In the race, a mid priced horse made a clear lead by about 2-3 lengths. The 4-5 favorite was second along the rail and the 2nd choice was just to his outside. The rest of the field was several lengths back. The pace looked about average. After about 1/4 mile the favorite started to move to try to get away from the 2nd choice who sort of had him pinned in. As soon as he did, the jockey on the 2nd choice asked for more horse to keep him pinned. The favorite then eased up a bit, I guess hoping to come around him instead, but the 2nd choice stayed right with him. In the mean time the leader was going very relaxed and so was the rest of the field behind them. Those two jockied back and forth the same way using their horses in starts and stops - essentially engaging in a race/duel within the race, but off the lead and without running very fast overall fractions . Turning for home, the front runner went on to win and the favorite and 2nd choice both collapsed to last and next to last. These were high quality horses.

[Tom]

So are you saying a horse that typically runs 52.34% early will do so no matter what track it runs over?

[46zilzal]

In the race, a mid priced horse made a clear lead by about 2-3 lengths. The 4-5 favorite was second along the rail and the 2nd choice was just to his outside. The rest of the field was several lengths back. The pace looked about average. After about 1/4 mile the favorite started to move to try to get away from the 2nd choice who sort of had him pinned in. As soon as he did, the jockey on the 2nd choice asked for more horse to keep him pinned. The favorite then eased up a bit, I guess hoping to come around him instead, but the 2nd choice stayed right with him. In the mean time the leader was going very relaxed and so was the rest of the field behind them. Those two jockied back and forth the same way using their horses in starts and stops - essentially engaging in a race/duel within the race, but off the lead and without running very fast overall fractions . Turning for home, the front runner went on to win and the favorite and 2nd choice both collapsed to last and next to last. These were high quality horses.
a speed duel, what is so odd about that??

[classhandicapper]

By the way, this post about jockeys picking up on the most efficient way to ride horses at different circuits extends to the way horses are trained. On speed favoring circuits, the trainers may put more speed into their horses and vice versa. Those 43s and 44s on some circuits may not all be related track speed, contour, and starting gate position. They may be more legit than some people think, but less taxing than slower fractions elsewhere. So the resultant formulas used to determine how well a horse actually ran vs. how fast he actually ran early could need some review.


This is a observation I have made that perhaps some of you can comment on. If there is some general agreement, perhaps some new applications can be found.

I am starting to think that the very best jockeys around are a lot smarter than many handicappers given them credit for.

For years, I've noticed that when the track seems to be favoring early speed early in the racing card (especially on the sloppy tracks in NY) the jockey's would get much more aggressive later in the card. They would set much faster fractions trying for the lead and it tends to offset the bias.

Now, I'm beginning to think the same thing holds true for racing around the country.

At any given track, the jockeys eventually figure out how a surface plays and adjust their level of aggression to maximize their chances of winning.

I think that's "partly" why you see 43s and 44s at some tracks and 46s and 47s at other tracks. At one time I used to think it was all a matter of the speed of the racing surface and perhaps the runnup to the timer. Those are obviously very big factors, but I think it extends beyond that. If you watch enough races from various circuits, you can see clear differences between how hard the jockey's are urging their horses early.

When people make pace figures they tend to equalize things from a performance perspective. That's fine, but at the same time it may not actually be equalizing horses from an early speed perspective.

Ex:

Going 21 43.4 110 at one track might be equal to going 21.3 44.4 110 at another track (adjusted for track speed) in terms of performance because of the natural bias of the surface, but the the 21 horse could very well be a hell of a lot faster early if they met.

[46zilzal]

So are you saying a horse that typically runs 52.34% early will do so no matter what track it runs over?
No I am saying that at many speed favoring ovals (on dirt inner Aqu, GP, Pimlico, Fort Erie, Keeneland, SA for long periods) that one could run substantially higher that that and still get home.

I track the early/late balance through a program, and when the ILLOGICAL ones are winning (horses when % median's around 70 are winning, which is another way, as you know, of what you posted here as % early) You can climb all over them as I did yesterday at both Aqueduct and Woodbine...I call it the cold and bold angle, and when it is really foul, the "clean silks syndrome." They go unchallenged as the King N Rob did yesterday in the 2nd at Woodbine

[Tom]

Oh, I agree with that, But take a presser - I see a lot of variation between Belmont and Aqu in %E - same horse, same distance, both winning races.

[cj]

They go unchallenged as the King N Rob did yesterday in the 2nd at Woodbine

He went unchallenged for one reason, the jocks were afraid of him as he was sporting the top CJ! ;)

[46zilzal]

Oh, I agree with that, But take a presser - I see a lot of variation between Belmont and Aqu in %E - same horse, same distance, both winning races.
Of course, that's why I love N.Y in the WINTER and in August. Folks think that the same horse which do well on the Big Sandy can do just as well at Saratoga and Aqueduct but they have exactly the opposite energy requirements. The first few weeks of each (on the cusp of the meets) is when you see the Belmont winners (at lower classes) exposed

[thoroughbred]

I've discussed the "Friction" concept, here, from time to time. For this thread I need only summarize that the lower the "Friction" value, the better the horse has the ability retain its speed.

So, when I look at the Early Speed Rating, I also look at the "Friction" value to get some understanding about the capability of the horse to maintain speed.

[46zilzal]

I've discussed the "Friction" concept, here, from time to time. For this thread I need only summarize that the lower the "Friction" value, the better the horse has the ability retain its speed.

So, when I look at the Early Speed Rating, I also look at the "Friction" value to get some understanding about the capability of the horse to maintain speed.
isn't that just a different way of expressing deceleration??

[thoroughbred]

isn't that just a different way of expressing deceleration??

46zilzal,

Yes, the "Friction" value is very much akin to deceleration, but differs in an interesting way.

Overall, there are two major factors that contribute to the slowing down of a horse. They are the condition of the track, and the condition of the horse itself.

The "Friction" ranking removes the track condition factor, leaving, for comparison purposes among the horses, just the portion of the slowing down, due to inherent characteristics of the horse.

[46zilzal]

The "Friction" ranking removes the track condition factor, leaving, for comparison purposes among the horses, just the portion of the slowing down, due to inherent characteristics of the horse.
Most horses, in form, have fairly consistent inherent deceleration rates (as velocity goes up their deceleration USUALLY, but not always, goes down)

[46zilzal]

The "Friction" ranking removes the track condition factor, leaving, for comparison purposes among the horses, just the portion of the slowing down, due to inherent characteristics of the horse.
how in the world would ANYTHING eliminate the track surface??

If the horse werre running in water you could do that but as long as horse A touches tracks B C D the run is influenced by surfaces B C and D

[DJofSD]

In my view, there are a number of independent factors that would influence the decleration of the horse: biomechanical, track conditions, weather and the guys wearing the size 3 hats.

Speaking strictly from a mathematical perspective and representing those factors as variable, and using a linear approach, I'd say you will be very hard pressed to afix a numberic value for weather and the influence (bad and good) of the jock. So, throw out weather and jocks for the moment.

Can you separate out the horses inate abilities (acceleration, endurance, etc.) from the track conditions? Aren't what is discussed as decleration just a combination of those two factors?

DJofSD

[46zilzal]

Can you separate out the horses inate abilities (acceleration, endurance, etc.) from the track conditions? Aren't what is discussed as decleration just a combination of those two factors?
DJofSD
no, but the former has a greater influence than the latter MOST DAYS but one of the greatest things is to see a speed horse from a speed favorng track go to one that is more fair i.e. Santa Anita horses going to the LA Derby for example...they usually don't do nearly as well

[classhandicapper]

a speed duel, what is so odd about that??

What is odd is that the "inferior" leader was obviously running faster early by being in front and the "superior" horses who were 2-3 lengths behind him were running slower, yet it was the superior horses that threw in the towel badly.

As described, it appears the uneven nature of the battle behind the leader had more of an impact than the faster fractions of the loose leader. The horses behind the leader were not going fast overall, but they were pestering each other in an uneven fashion as duelers often do.

Point being that the fractions within the fractions might also be important.

[thoroughbred]

how in the world would ANYTHING eliminate the track surface??

If the horse werre running in water you could do that but as long as horse A touches tracks B C D the run is influenced by surfaces B C and D

46zukzal,

The key, from a handicapping standpoint, is to be able to compare, (rank) the horses, and in the case we are talking about, rank them by their "Friction."

Here's the gist of what is meant by eliminating track condition when trying to compare horses by their deceleration. If you use information, such as Track Variants, (a measure of track condition), and Jockey Weight Changes, and factor them into the analysis, so that those parameters are "normalized" for all the horses and their pacelines, the remaining differences among the horses, for COMPARING their deceleration profiles, will be due to the horses themselves.

Again, the key is the RANKING of the horses, by deceleration ("Friction"), after factors like Track Variant change and weight change are accounted for.

[46zilzal]

Jockey WEIGHT??? That has been debunked for YEARS. Quirin found horses with HIGHER weight acutally did BETTER, is that the way these factors are evaluated??

[thoroughbred]

Jockey WEIGHT??? That has been debunked for YEARS. Quirin found horses with HIGHER weight acutally did BETTER, is that the way these factors are evaluated??

46zilzal,

I included weight to be more complete. Clearly weight only becomes more important for the longer routes.

Having said that however, and there have been many threads in this Forum about weight, the weight factor always generates controversy, so let's not get into that again. As a bit of information though, Ainsley, in his "Encyclopedia of Thoroughbred Handicapping", has a whole section about weight. Page 276 gives numerical consideration of how he believes weight affects a race.

Here's a quote from there. "Racing secretaries and other professionals, generally regard four pounds of weight as equivalent to a length at sprint distances. Three pounds are worth the same at a mile. Two pounds are a length at a mile and a furlong, and one pound is a length at a mile and a quarter. Some depart from that ancient formula and do quite well with one or two pounds per length at a mile or longer."

As I said, I only gave the gist of what's behind "Friction." To get a more complete understanding of what I mean, please read "Engineering Analysis of Thoroughbred Racing." You can see it in the documentation link at www.revelationprofits.com The way weight is handled there, I'm fairly sure, will overcome your objections. It turned out that the analyis shown there, independently, arrived at results that agree with Ainsley to a good extent.

I'm also sure you don't believe Quirin is saying, that the more weight you pile on a horse, the better he will perform. That, of course, as I feel sure you know, is not what Quirin meant.

[46zilzal]

, Ainsley, in his "Encyclopedia of Thoroughbred Handicapping", has a whole section about weight. Page 276 gives numerical consideration of how he believes weight affects a race.

that is a very old anecdotal conclusion without anymore that OPINION as the basis

[thoroughbred]

that is a very old anecdotal conclusion without anymore that OPINION as the basis

46zilzal,

It's in Ainsley's encyclopedia. I understand he is well versed, and considered to be an expert in Horse Race Handicapping, and he is quoting other experts. Yet you label that "anecdotal opinion." Why?

I really don't know how to reply to you at this point. Anything I might say, you could end up saying, "it's only opinion."

Isn't it possible, even conceivable to you, that Ainsley just may be right?

Anyway, please find some time to read my paper to see if it overcomes your objections. It is not based on opinion, but on analysis. You can, of course, after reading it, point out your objections to any of the analysis. That's ok; it can bring this discussion to a more useful, informative, and different level.

Thanks.

[DJofSD]

Having said that however, and there have been many threads in this Forum about weight, the weight factor always generates controversy, so let's not get into that again.

And then you continue to go on and on about it.

Why?

DJofSD

[thoroughbred]

[QUOTE=DJofSD][/B]

And then you continue to go on and on about it.

Why?

DJofSD[/QUOTE

DJofSD,

Thanks.
You are ABSOLUTELY right. My apologies. I got caught up in it. For my part, I'm ending this now.
Thanks again.

[classhandicapper]

horses run races..jockeys just position them...... the ability of the horse is finite and the rider cannot make them any better unless they get off and PULL them

They can make a difference when the animals are CLOSE in their inherent abilities

I agree with your last statement, but I've watched enough races to notice when a jockey is pumping for the lead out of the gate and when he's got a good hold. The differece in fractions among horses of similar quality can be huge.

I am suggesting that on some circuits they get way more aggressive because they know it maximizes their chances of winning.

[46zilzal]

It's in Ainsley's encyclopedia. I understand he is well versed, and considered to be an expert in Horse Race Handicapping, and he is quoting other experts. Yet you label that "anecdotal opinion."

Written in the late 60's and updated once, NO WHERE did he offer ANY data to prove weight as a factor, whereas Dr. William Quirin in his book Winning at the Racetrack: found through analysis of hundreds of races that the impact value of winners was HIGHER in horses carrying MORE weight up to a point (low 120's as I recall), so it would appear that below that threshold, the addition of weight DOES not effect the otucome of a race negatively.

One is conjecture and the other based upon data review....Hmmmmm now which one would the majority of people accept?

[sjk]

Hundreds of races? Give us a break.

I've done it using hundreds of thousands of races and there is no question that added weight is a negative.

[46zilzal]

well then you and Dr. Quirin disagree

[schweitz]

What Quirin said: " The weight factor is not what mathematicians would call an independent variable. Rather, it is a function of recent form and class. The better horses that appear to be in shape carry the top weights, and outperform their less-burdened rivals."

[ezpace]

As i have posted before i am a PACE/FORM/SPEED handicapper. I spend a lot of time on RS. I think one has to take a STRONG look at conditions of the race even more so after Delmar and Saratoga is over. I think we somewhat handicap a lot alike from reading your posts Andy.

After reading and studying PP CHARTS for decades I am of the belief that while pace pictures may look the same after the above described time period. They are not IMO. EP is a dominant RS. MANY of the best EP"s have run out of conditions and are either on the shelf or running tn tougher classes. I think this benefits E types even more late in the year(whos's chasing them). I bet mostly LARGE POOL tracks and notice many times that even two confirmed E types can be the exata at this time of the year. . fwiw..

[Tom]

I neve put much faith in weight, unless it was a large shift at a distance of ground. From what we have read on another thread, weight is not even a constant as it turn out.


They make mental adjustment, allow for this and that, come up with a number.
Might be 120, mught be 117, might be 122....who knows?
A horse carrying 120 last time and 118 today might really be picking up three pounds!