The Courageous Horse?

[Show Me the Wire]

Let me start by saying I believe I am somewhat a duck out of water on this board. I do not try to quantify horses performances through mathematical theories, I do not subscribe to pace handicapping, I do not use computer programs with large data bases and I totally perceive horse racing different than it seems the majority of you. With this handicap in mind I would like to submit a theory of mine.

I have an original theory. I think it is original because I have not heard anyone else ever mention it. Everyone contributes human attributes to animals, especially pets. In horse racing people state a horse is courageous, has heart, etc when it seems any horse refuses to let another horse pass it. I am not a horse so I have no idea what actually the horse is thinking or even if it is thinking while it is involved in the above situation. I believe the stubborn horse may be the least courageous. Why?

Horses have natural enemies and if its natural enemy catches a horse the odds are the horse will be eaten. Horses protect themselves from being eaten by flight. Therefore, I propose the horse with the strongest flight instinct feels the safest place is in front of all the other horses.

How does this apply to racing? Racing is based on the thoroughbreds' natural instinct to run while playing and their natural instinct to flee. The horse are startled by the loud bell at the starting gate, further spurred on by the noise and excitement created while running with the pack, and finally spurred on by punishment of the whip.

Horses that constantly lose may have learned through racing that they will not be eaten if they are separated from the pack and do not need to feel the safety of the pack. All the losers have learned is their bodies will be abused for a short time and they will go back to the stall until the next time someone puts them in line with a bunch of other horse.

Horses that win or consistently attempt to outrun other horses have not learned that they will not be eaten if they fall behind the safety of the pack or they may have too strong of a survival instinct to overcome their experience of not being eaten if other horses leave them behind.

Well that is my original idea. I hope some of you would be interested enough to comment or give feedback, even though it is not about mathematical theories, computer programs and pace handicapping and not easily quantifiable.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[so.cal.fan]

Makes sense to me, SMTW.

Are you a Taoist?

[Show Me the Wire]

so.cal.fan:

Don't know I am not familiar with their philosophy.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Rick]

SMTW,

I don't know if you're correct about why, but I think your theory results in you picking the right horses. I have a different theory, but I won't go into it. I think you and I pick a lot of the same horses anyway, albeit using a different point of view. Hey, whatever works!

[andicap]

SMTW,
I think this board has room for a whole range of different theories. I don't read this board to hear my positions validated. I read it to learn about new theories such as the one you posted.

Michael Pizzolla talks about this a little in "Handicapping Magic," about how horses are herd animals. Some horses like to get out front of the herd where they feel more safe. These are the more aggressive horses. Others feel safe inside the pack while others like to be in the back where they can see everyone else. He applies that to pace handicapping and that is not dissimilar to your ideas.

[GameTheory]

SMTW --

Your ideas are not that strange. You say you don't subscribe to pace handicapping, but what you are saying IS pace handicapping. It the the biological basis of pace handicapping -- matching up the different preferences of where horses like to place themselves in the pack combined with their overall ability, etc. etc.


I don't think the horses (even the stubborn ones) actually think they are in danger of being eaten when they are racing. Horses have a tremendous competitive sense and sense of play, plus they are simply built to run. The REASON they are built that way is possibly to avoid being eaten -- so they have instincts for that, but out of that grows general love for speed. (I think most great racehorses all LOVE being a race.) Wild horses run around like maniacs all the time -- not just when they're being chased.

[Show Me the Wire]

Rick:

I am interested in your theory. If its not proprietary information please you post your theory.

Btw I like the term "handicapping savant". Unfortunately being scholarly does not equate to success, must have something to do with probabilities.

Looking forward to reading your theory.

Andicap:

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I am not looking for validation either, but I did not think too many posters would be interested in this subject. It seems the more popular threads involve dbs, queries, mathematical analysis, pace formulas, and wagering formulas based on statistics.

I enjoy discussing esoteric ideas and sometimes the discussion leads to application.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Rick]

SMTW,

There's no secret to my theory, but it's more of a vague concept for me so I didn't think anyone would be interested. Generally, I think the horse that bolts to the front is doing something similar to what immature people do, expending a lot of energy to get ahead and thinking they're winning even though they haven't reached the finish line. A more mature horse/human realizes that winning or losing depends on where he is at the finish and is able to relax and be more patient about achieving his goal. So the more mature horse/human expends less energy but wins more often. I think you can see this in the youngest horses. A 2YO maiden will just run his heart out and has to be trained to conserve energy better. I think some horses just refuse to learn this and continue in their stubborn ways when they're older. I don't think I need to provide any examples of the human equivalent since you see it every day. Anyway, your theory and mine both result in horses running the same way, so I don't really know it's possible to prove which is correct.

[andicap]

Rick,
how do you account for horses which always run for the lead, but can relax on the lead and pace themselves the way War Emblem did?

[Rick]

andicap,

Good question, I haven't thought about that. As I said its kind of a vague idea rather than a well thought out theory. Maybe that can be learned from experience too. I've heard jockeys say many times that they have to let the horse run how it likes or strangle it. That implies to me that at least some horses can't be rated. I think War Emblem is a pretty unique horse though. Maybe that's what class is about.

I guess my main point is that a horse wouldn't inherently know or care anything about where the finish line is. He might think winning is being in front as long as possible.

[Show Me the Wire]

Rick:

I don't think it is important if anybody can be proven correct. What I believe is learning to apply original ideas to practice. In fact quite a few horse people hold your view. They use the term professional to define a horse they feel has learned to rate and win.

Andicap:

If I were a pace player I would tend to apply my theory to explain the horse on the lead is finally in position where the combination of its natural speed and instinct allow it to settle in a comfortable pace because it is in front of the pack and therefore running fast enough to be the safest.

Additionally, if pace handicapping were my primary selection process, my theory would make me agree with Dick's statements about not mixing first and final pace numbers. I would tend to select E and P types for the win wager. The only S type I would consider wagering on to WIN is the S type that has clearly shown it can run down the lone speed horse in the race and not an S type that wins by default when the speed types collapse. This is in line with my earlier explanation that physics conspire against the closer and my "being eaten" theory.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Rick]

Another theory that I think has merit is that class is defined as the ability to run eyeball-to-eyeball against other horses and prevail. I've always thought that you might be able to generate some sort of class rating using only performances where a horse was within one length ahead or behind at two calls or more. Maybe give more credit for "fighting it out" more often. The trouble is that the same kind of race run very recently might be a negative factor though because it would take a lot out of the horse.

[Show Me the Wire]

Rick:

Is that Quinn's Class of the Race theory? I thought it was a good read, but I do not know how to apply it. But I do look for horses that run well under pressure.

Well guys this is the last post for awile today. Going to get mom for Mother's Day and head to the local racing oval for brunch and a fun filled day of racing and to all you moms happy Mothers Day.

Ragards,
Show Me the Wire

[Rick]

SMTW,

You're right. "Class of the Field" was my motivation for being interested in that approach. Quinn seems to be able to do it subjectively, maybe from replays, but I need a more objective approach that I can test easily. If you have any ideas about what might work, I'd really be interested.

[so.cal.fan]

Class is very hard to define, but I have always thought it to be a horse's ability to carry it's speed over a distance of ground, as nature intended it.

[freeneasy]

hey ya show, whats cooken

well toreally sit down and think about it Idhave to say that all animals are creatures of instinct and coming up thru the ranks they learn where there place in the pack is, and part of that learning would probably come in a number of ways.

As a pack or heard of wild horses migrate from one grazing spot to another they run there way there and during these many many runs they are instinctively learning what their strengths and weaknesses are until they they have developed a sense of themselfs. and more so these runs are probably miles at a time.

the pace of these runs are controled by the leader,Iam sure reallizing there are young , old, weak, strong, horeses that have all gone and going thru their phase of development.

when danger crops up they run, and Iwould have no doubt that thay all run as fast and as hard as they can to evade, some faster, of coarse, and some slower, of coarse. and from a dead stand still Iam sure they run as fast as their ability can carry them.

When a horse has learned that he can run and stay with the leader then instinctiveley he will want to exercise that right and challenge the leader to a test of bravery and battle.

but, and this might be a very interesting thought, only the horses that are able to stay at the front are the only ones who will challenge each other for the leadership, or maybe its just the strongest most enduring horse that backs down the leader to take his place, wheather hes fast, slow or moderate, that when he decides to run they all "instinctively" stay behind him. whatever it is that the rest of the pack realizes about him, they understand that their place is not to lead.

trainers train their horses to develope and maximize their strenghts and minimize their weaknesses, jockys try to govern the qualities of a horse to reach a specified distance at aspacific point in time. tell ya the truth Show, Inever really thought about like that, somewhere in there it stands to make sense

free

[Show Me the Wire]

Rick:

Dusted off my copy of Class of the Field. After rereading the salient points, I confirmed my belief there is no simple way to apply the idea. A substantial part of the theory is based on viewing the race and making subjective judgments on the competitiveness of the horses.

I guess that is pretty much what the HK syndicate does. After reading the article Aussieplayer referred to, I believe one of the pillars of its success is the ability to have skilled full-time race observers analyze the performance of each horse in relation to all the other horses. The ability to watch every performance is a powerful tool. A couple of years ago I watched practically every maiden race at GP. Coupling my visual input with TG speed figures I was able to hit a substantial number of winners, especially relating to class droppers.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Rick]

SMTW,

Yeah, it's probably not possible to apply the theory correctly without watching replays. We only get the four calls in the PPs and the horse could have showed competitivenes several times in between them. But, I've always been interested in whether some more objective method using only the given calls would do well enough to prove the theory. Nothing beats good judgement but I'm not sure I trust mine enough to be consistent over time when viewing replays. I wonder how they combine the opinions of various observers. It seems that you'd have to weight the various opinions differently and provide a lot of feedback as to how well they're doing. Someone at DRF once mentioned to me that the handicappers all tended to think alike after working together and there might be a similar problem with the observers.

[Show Me the Wire]

Rick:

First of all I try to determine the track bias, in order to see if the horse is being helped by the bias. Then, I especially look to see how many challenges a horse can withstand. I want to see a horse shake away from early pressure and then respond to late pressure, even if it is in a losing effort.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Aussieplayer]

SMTW,

Passed the question along for you:

"How do you combine the opinions of the various observers? Are they weighted differently? Also, are they told what to look for & how to allocate points, ie. is it a number approach?"

Answer: for VF we just avge although recently we have weighted our best guy to 60% of subjective t/work and paddock parade. And yes, all comments are converted to #'s"

Question for you: What is the "blueboy" (or something similar) method that I've seen in reference to Quinn's book?

Also, could you expand on the method a little? Do you need internal times? Internal lengths behind? Internal position?

In case you're wondering, I ask questions like that to see how relevant it might be for me.

Cheers
AP

[Show Me the Wire]

Aussieplayer:

My understanding of the "blueboy" method is a mathematical rating of the following factors:

1. Race conditions itself (elgibility conditions)
2. horse's performance at each level
3. class pars to rate speed of the race
4. use Quinn's "Competitive Quality Scale" (view the race)
5. separate sprints from routes
6. purse values

Supposedly these ratings evolved from attempts assess a horse's actual ability at certain class levels and trying to project the animal's future performance at varying race condition levels. I guess it is attempts to take out the subjectivity.
In summary to answer your question yes. Quinn uses beaten lengths and fractional times to assess class pars for speed ratings.

In my opinion it is an illusion because the all-important Competitive Quality Scale is based on viewing the race and making a subjective call on the competitiveness of the race. Quinn tries to avoid the problem by assigning objective numbers to certain race shapes.

Myself, I do not care about fractional times, pars, or beaten lengths. A good example of a class animal, to me, is Booklet. Booklet doesn't want anyone one to go pass him, even if Booklet is dead tired and to me that is what makes him competitive. As you know I really do not know if competitive is the proper attribute, because of my "Being Eaten theory", but I used it for simplicity.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Rick]

SMTW,

I wonder if Quinn is using that method now. He seemed to be into speed & pace for a while. I really have a hard time understanding what he's saying because of his style of writing. His concepts seem vague to me at times but "Class of the Field' cleared up some of it.

AP,

Quinn's ideas might work better for you than us.

[alyingthief]

somehow i doubt all this nonsense about a horse's instincts and the running he does--what's triggering his instinct to fear at the race track? he neither smells nor sees anything dangerous, nothing in his environment at a race track could have "help, i'm about to be eaten!" as their origin; i've never seen anything resembling a fake lion, or bear, or kutamundi there, to add spice to a horse's frightened vinegar, have you? you know, like they do greyhounds with those mechanical rabbits?

my familiarity with horses makes me think them a good deal smarter than we give them credit for, and a good deal dumber than we give them credit for--which, i suppose, is a way of saying horses think like f--cking horses, and not men. i suspect horses know it's a race; in fact, i bet horses know that the fastest horse generally ends up in the breeding shed, though they may not know where the hay is hidden.

[Show Me the Wire]

alyingthief:

Great nick are you a trainer? I bet those geldings run real fast because of the breeding shed. Oh, maybe they don't know they are gelded.

Regards,
Show me the Wire

The talented person who is also wise, retains humility, and so does not create rivalry.

[Rick]

My guess is that a large crowd would scare them more than anything else, judging by what's happened at some Kentucky Derbys. But I don't think like a horse either.

[ranchwest]

Carroll says that the herding instinct causes horses to recognize dominant horses and that is sometimes what causes horses to, for instance, spit the bit when they get eyeball to eyeball.