Sprints vs Routes?

[Tor Ekman]

Please indulge me if this is a dumb question, but if there are a 100 ways that the horse you think is the right play can nonetheless not win the race, wouldn't the variables be fewer the shorter the distance? I am just wondering whether for a beginner like me there is a logic to limiting my handicapping attempts to sprints. All thoughts appreciated. Thanks.

[cj]

I would say no. Yes, the shorter the race, the less things that can happen. But, when something does happen, it likely has a greater impact in a short race. JMHO.

[twindouble]

It's a good idea to handicap both. That alone gives you a better feel for racing, esp when it comes to pace. I do agree with cj, just a small miss step in a sprint can cost you, whereas in route races depening on the pace there's room to make up ground to over come a bad trip. I tend to do better in route races for that reason.

[JPinMaryland]

I would have to say yes. There is less time for a horse to take a misstep, get hurt etc. Also there is less time for decision making.

I dont understand CJ's pt. that each problem might have greater ramifications. So assume that it does....that doesnt make it more variables to factor. Say for instance there is a drag race, very short distance, less variables to consider. One mistake the car is off the track, or crashes. etc. I.e. any mistake in drag racing can be catastrophic. That doesnt make it more variables to consider does it?

[hurrikane]

The majority of races are sprints. so just the numbers alone would suggest play sprints.

as for sprints only, I don't know. Depends on how well you play routes.

Handicap them anyway, just for the experience.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Less things can usually happen on a turn! And going into ore coming out of a turn is where a lot of things happen in positioning!

[JPinMaryland]

agree w/ kenw on that. At least it seems to be my observation.

[RXB]

If you're a sharpie, bet the sprints and stay out of the route races.

If you're a newbie or a dummy or a compulsive type, wade into the route pool!

Warmest regards,

The Route Guy

[cj]

JP,

It is just like your drag racing analogy. The slightest thing can go wrong, and you lose. In NASCAR, there is a much greater chance for something to wrong in a 500 mile race. There is also a much greater chance to recover. Same in horse racing, just not on such an extreme scale.

[JPinMaryland]

JP,

It is just like your drag racing analogy. The slightest thing can go wrong, and you lose. .


So what does that have to do with having more or less variables? You seem to be confusing a catastrophic outcome w/ the idea that it means there are more variables to consider. How do you reach that result?

Imagine a minefield. You only have to calculate one variable the distribution of mines. The soldier lands on one it is catastrophic. It doesnt mean there are more variables to consider.

Im still puzzled by your logic.


In NASCAR, there is a much greater chance for something to wrong in a 500 mile race. There is also a much greater chance to recover. Same in horse racing, just not on such an extreme scale

Again. If there is a chance to recover from a bad outcome isntthat one more variable you have to account for? Both the original bad outcome and the ability to recover. YOu are making the same mistake in logic, just because there are recoveries does not mean there are less variables to consider. THe reasoning is very odd here.

[cj]

OK, how about this. More things can go wrong in a minute and a half than can go wrong in a minute. There are more turns in a route, added possibility of trouble. A turn comes up faster, again more chance of something going wrong.

This is what I was saying. More things can go wrong in a route, but they may be less costly than something going wrong in a sprint. I don't know how else to explain it.

[Overlay]

I think if you view race results in terms of probabilities of outcomes, rather than looking at them strictly as a win/lose proposition, you can handicap effectively playing either sprints or routes, dirt or turf. If you start from the assumption that every horse in any given race has some chance to win, you don't have to agonize so much about all the possible ways a horse can lose, and you can concentrate instead on which key variables to apply, and to what degree, in each particular situation, and then on whether the horse's odds will compensate you for your risk.

[cnollfan]

Great post, Overlay.

[DJofSD]

I would not assume that taking a subset of races would flatten the learning curve. Besides, how do you know, when you're a beginner, if you can handicap that subset of races better than the rest? Perhaps you have a special heretofore unknown talent to conquer turf routes. If you just tackle dirt sprints, you will never know.

Play on paper first. Do them all. Keep track. I'd suggest extrapolaiting the idea of using a 20 race cycle to get a win percentage by keeping records of 20 race cycles of dirt-sprints, dirt-routes, turf-sprint, turf-routes then let the numbers tell you where are the strengths and weaknesses. Then do it for 2 more cycles of all four "partitions". Then start pushing money through the window.

DJofSD

[keilan]

Sprints vs Routes?

Play what you're good at, if you haven't figured that out yet you could be in for a long day :kiss:

[DJofSD]

As to the assertion that spirits have fewer variables and/or opportunities to not win then I think it would logically follow that on a normallized basis, sprints would have shorter prices for winners compared to routes or a higher winning percentage of favorites.

Any of you data base heavies care to research that and post the results?

DJofSD

[twindouble]

I would not assume that taking a subset of races would flatten the learning curve. Besides, how do you know, when you're a beginner, if you can handicap that subset of races better than the rest? Perhaps you have a special heretofore unknown talent to conquer turf routes. If you just tackle dirt sprints, you will never know.

Play on paper first. Do them all. Keep track. I'd suggest extrapolaiting the idea of using a 20 race cycle to get a win percentage by keeping records of 20 race cycles of dirt-sprints, dirt-routes, turf-sprint, turf-routes then let the numbers tell you where are the strengths and weaknesses. Then do it for 2 more cycles of all four "partitions". Then start pushing money through the window.

DJofSD

Most of what being said here has merit but I think for beginners it's important to handicap all distances. Overall you get a better feel for what's going on when it comes to pace, not only that 2yo horses don't come out of the gate running mile 1/2, it's an opertunity to see horses mature, improve and it's opens the door to understanding how trainers operate. Speaking of that Ritchey may start a new trend.

[JPinMaryland]

As to the assertion that spirits have fewer variables and/or opportunities to not win then I think it would logically follow that on a normallized basis, sprints would have shorter prices for winners compared to routes or a higher winning percentage of favorites.

Any of you data base heavies care to research that and post the results?

DJofSD

but that would only be true both sets of data had equally matched fields. It's possible that sprints might have fields of horses that are more equally matched than in routes, so the winners of sprits might not shorter prices.

It's an interesting idea though.

[twindouble]

but that would only be true both sets of data had equally matched fields. It's possible that sprints might have fields of horses that are more equally matched than in routes, so the winners of sprits might not shorter prices.

It's an interesting idea though.

Every race sets up different, sprint or route. I doubt very much anyone can come up with a model you could count on. Just to many variables involved.

[hurrikane]

DJ,

that is not what I have found. the percent of lonshots seems to have more to do with field size than distance.

[DJofSD]

percent of lon[g]shots seems to have more to do with field size than distance

I would agree with that. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why when I look at a card one of the very first things I look at is the size of the field (number of betting interests).

DJofSD

[joeyspicks]

I played almost only sprints for a long time. Let me focus my concentration in one area and automatically limited my play( a good thing). To this day I try to construct my day with at least 60% sprints.

IMHO a beginner should focus on one type of race. It will focus your concentration and limit your "action". Get good at one thing and expand!

[twindouble]

I played almost only sprints for a long time. Let me focus my concentration in one area and automatically limited my play( a good thing). To this day I try to construct my day with at least 60% sprints.

IMHO a beginner should focus on one type of race. It will focus your concentration and limit your "action". Get good at one thing and expand!

Hi Joey, I can also agree with you, they have to start somewhere. Limited action is also a good idea, so is just on paper. I like the idea of any begginer sitting out races or expierenced for that matter, a little disipline can go a long way in this game.

[Valuist]

I think if you wanted to choose one or the other, I'd take routes. Seems that router's form is more steady and less susceptible to bounces, especially grass races.