Beyer Figures & Pace

[DrugSalvastore]

Before I left about a week ago, I was in that thread about the figure for Discreet Cat's race coming back faster than Lost In The Fog's.

Beyer (or Hopkins, or whoever did that day) correctly gave Discreet Cat the higher figure for the day. But a point that I didn't get to make on that, there is certainly precedent of Beyer cutting loose a figure, and adding points to it because of the pace scenerio in a race. It is something that I find really stupid, and never seem to agree with. A prominent example of this..

August 3rd 2001 at Saratoga.

The Grade 2 Amsterdam is run at six furlongs, the heavy 1-to-2 favorite is City Zip. City Zip, who is from the same mother as Ghostzapper, had swept all three Graded Stake races for 2-year-olds at the 2000 Saratoga meet, he no doubt adored the track, and looked like a lock in that spot. The 2nd choice in the betting was 5-to-1 shot Speightstown. He's the future winner of the 2004 Breeders Cup Sprint and 2004 Eclipse Award Sprinter.

Jerry Bailey knew his only real chance of victory aboard Speightstown was to hook City Zip early and hope to totally burn him out. The two of them went head-to-head through a destructive opening quarter in 21.69 seconds. They continued head-to-head through a strenuous half mile in 44.86, and neither one of them able to defeat the other by this point. After one of the most savage pace battles by two good horses you will ever see--finally City Zip gradually got away from Speightstown inside the 1/8th pole to win by a length. Speightstown held second by a length. The final quarter of the race was run in a comically slow 26.20 seconds.

City Zip's final time in victory was 1:11.03 seconds. In the very next race, a NY Bred maiden race, Le Bourget won by 7.5 lengths in 1:10.95

The Beyer figure maker decided to add four points to the figures of City Zip's race because "the pace in City Zip's race was too fast." Steve Crist even bothered to write about it---and he kind of praised the descion to make the Amsterdam faster than the maiden race.

BUT---by making the Amsterdam a faster race---you are inflating the figures of all the mediocre horses who sat off the destructive pace battle, and still couldn't pass the top two finishers, who were staggering late.

THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN AN INSTANCE LIKE THIS--is to simply give the race the figure it earned. City Zip and Speightstown have to both get lousy Beyers because the final time was plain, old fashioned, SLOW! Any person with a brain knows that those low figures would not be an accurate reflection of how well those two horses performed. Remember, if you inflate the figures that the top two horses get, you also have to inflate the figures of every horse in that race.

[DrugSalvastore]

Four more things.

* The horse who pressed Lost In The Fog, was a NY Bred with two lifetime starts to his credit--and the fractions were nearly identical to the fractions in the Hopeful Stakes. I must point that out because I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking that Lost In The Fog won a heroic pace battle through wild early fractions in the King's Bishop--like City Zip did in the '01 Amsterdam.

* A lot of people said stuff like "Baze wrapped up on Lost in the Fog, and he could have run faster at the end." That stuff is REALLY stupid!! I think a few people might nead eye exams--Baze had him in a drive and was still using the whip inside the 1/8th pole. Discreet Cat, on the other hand, won under far more moderate urging than LITF did. I'm one who feels that stuff is highly overrated anyway. One of my favorite examples is with Officer. Officer won ALL SIX of his lifetime races under full nelson death grips. Many people felt that if Officer had only been whipped or hand ridden he would have "gone faster." Well, the three times Officer lost, he was put to a drive and "asked to run." The truth is, Officer, like a lot of horses, will run just as fast as he can under no urging at all.

* I saw someone say that Andy Beyer and the Beyer figuers discriminate against West Coast horses. That is REALLY REALLY funny! All Winter and Spring long, Jerry "King of the Lawsuit" Brown was going on about how horses on the West Coast were getting inflated (too high) Beyers. Brown is the kingpin of the Thoro-Graph sheets. On his figures, horses from the West are markedly slower than they are on the Beyer figures, according to him.

* As for Discreet Cat---I hope people realize that the stars were absolutely aligned for him first time out. Yes, he did run a VERY brilliant and fast race for a 2yo first-time-starter...BUT, he was bred to absolutely ADORE the Saratoga main track...and he WILL NOT make his next start over that track. He also enjoyed a real nice trip...he just basically got a comfortable lead, through moderate fractions, over a track he had to love, and when it came time to actually prove himself, off the far-turn, he excellerated and finished with cyclonic energy, on a day when a lot of horses finished slowly and tired.

I'm VERY interested in betting Discreet Cat at the 2006 Saratoga meet, until than, he's really not for me. Two 2-year-olds who are for me, one is the Zito trained Superfly who ran 2nd to Discreet Cat last time. God is he a nice looker with big upside. This son of Fu Peg is only a maiden, but I have a hunch he will be a prime Derby contender for Zito down the line. The other one that is for me, the 2-year-old by Thunder Gulch out of Beautiful Pleasure that won a very fast maiden race in dazzling fashion. That is one SERIOUS race horse.

[PaceAdvantage]

Pace adjusted speed figures are killer, when done correctly....nuff said.

[DrugSalvastore]

Pace adjusted speed figures are killer, when done correctly....nuff said.

"pace adjusted"? Out of curiousity, Are we talking Quirin style figures? Sartin figures? Figures from the gentleman that posts here at pacefigures.com? or do you use another style?

[PaceAdvantage]

I wouldn't want to be accused of any bias, so I'll leave it to the reader's imagination to figure out what figs I may or may not be using....

[andicap]

Well, I'm biased.
CJ's pace-adjusted figs.
Having endorsed his pace-adjusted final figs I must say I'm not sure it's a good idea for Beyer to engage in the practice. CJ does it as a matter of course -- its part of what he does everyday.
The Beyers only occasionally adjust for pace and that's a bad idea. Since they do it so rarely I doubt the Beyer figure makers have much proficiancy at it and at best they are guessing.

[cj]

DrugS,

I agree with what you say, and this is the exact reason I took the path I did with my figure making. At first I tried to just use the Beyer and make a pace figure from that, but I found too many races cut loose that caused totally crazy pace numbers. If you think dirt races are bad, the turf races are 10 times worse.

I would estimate that about 3-5% of the dirt races are cut loose, which seems small, but can cause big problems if you try to make pace figures based on the Beyer. As for turf, the number is probably closer to 35-40% of the races are cut loose. I have caught some absolute bombs on the lawn this year, all of which have resulted from having decent figures in extreme paced races.

[DrugSalvastore]

DrugS,

I agree with what you say, and this is the exact reason I took the path I did with my figure making. At first I tried to just use the Beyer and make a pace figure from that, but I found too many races cut loose that caused totally crazy pace numbers. If you think dirt races are bad, the turf races are 10 times worse.

I would estimate that about 3-5% of the dirt races are cut loose, which seems small, but can cause big problems if you try to make pace figures based on the Beyer. As for turf, the number is probably closer to 35-40% of the races are cut loose. I have caught some absolute bombs on the lawn this year, all of which have resulted from having decent figures in extreme paced races.

I'm aware of what you say regarding the very high percentage of grass races that are cut loose.

I just don't take speed figures seriously, that are earned in dirt races at rarely run distances, or in any turf races. I experimented with making Beyer style figures a long while back, I rarely was happy or confident with figures I would get in those type of races. The final times from turf races are strongly influenced by a lot of different factors. It would be one thing if a track carded four turfs races in one day, all at the same distance, and over the same turf course--if that was the case--I would have plenty of confidence in the Beyer figures earned on the Turf that day.

I congratulate you for having success with grass racing, while using any style of figure. Trip and pedigree are two of my specialities, and I rely on them much more when I'm handicapping turf races.

Of the people who have a basic understanding of final time speed figures, it seems like a lot of them either love them or hate them. I have a different outlook though, generally, in dirt races run between the distances of six furlongs-to-nine furlongs--I love them as a handicapping tool. In all other types of races, I have little use for them.

[DrugSalvastore]

I'm a little curious how CJ, or other makers of pace figures, handle them in turf races.

Here is how I judge pace in turf racing. Wait until you see how dazzlingly scientific my method is.

I simply watch the race, than look at the chart, and than make a subjective judgement on how I felt the pace was---and write it down in my handy notebook where I store all my trip notes for each race.

I'll use the 6th race at Saratoga on August 22 for an example. This is kind of an extreme example. (if anyone actually reads my posts--they should know by now that I love using extreme examples of things to make my point)

The 6th race at Saratoga on Aug 22 is a 5.5 furlong turf race. The horses racing 10th (last) and 9th (2nd-to-last) after a quarter mile, close to finish 1st and 2nd respectively. They produce a $1,212.00 exacta. The horse who set the pace after a quarter mile finished 8th as the 8-to-5 favorite. The horse who pressed the pace in 2nd after a quarter mile finished 10th (and last) as the 5-to-1 third choice in the betting.

In my trip notes I mention all that--and come to the conclusion that the pace was absurdly fast. It's that simple for me. Obviously, some turf races give me fits, when I try to judge the pace of them. They all aren't easy like that one. But, personally, I'm just as confident with my opinion, as a pace-figure maker would be with his number.

[cj]

As for making figures, I agree, there are other ways to do it. My way is faster as instead of making notes in a notebook, I record the variants in a file. Then, the answers are there in the printout next time the horses run. No different then writing words in a notebook, both accomplish the same thing.

How about that 5.5 race the other day, 20.4 for the 1/4? No real need for figures to tell me that was absurdly fast!

[garyoz]

"pace adjusted"? Out of curiousity, Are we talking Quirin style figures? Sartin figures? Figures from the gentleman that posts here at pacefigures.com? or do you use another style?


If you read Carey Fotias book "Blinkers Off," he provides a good analysis of pace adjusted performance figs compared to Beyer/Ragozin/Tgraph speed figs. I am no expert on making figures (I just use them), but I think the 3 above all use a "projection" method for making their figs. If that is the case, they may "bake" some adjustments for pace into their final figures. Or, I could be wrong and not understand their projection methods

The three pace adjusted figures that I know of are CJ's at pacefigures, Fotias at equiform, and On-Target available at Trackmaster.

[Valuist]

DrugS-

While I use pace figures for dirt races, I believe in grass racing trip notes trumps pace data. That isn't to say there aren't any pace plays. But, IMO, in dirt racing you'll get pace-related plays on horses prompting a fast pace. In grass racing, I find the best pace plays are horses who are compromised by trying to close in a race where the pace was slow or very slow early/fast late.

[classhandicapper]

The major problem with making turf speed figures is race development. The pace is often so slow it clearly impacts the final time. If figure makers gave out the "earned figure" all the time, they would be publishing speed figures that had little or no relationship to the ability of the horses. They are also coping with the rails being changed and the impact that has on the pace/distance/time relationships, only a few turf races each day from which to make a variant (often on different tracks or around different turns) etc...

I think the correct way to deal with turf races is actually comparative handicapping (who beats who, by how much, and how how consistently), trip, and closing times. I think pace is an important component of trip, but I think it's actually perferable to evaluate the pace from a visual and horse style perspective - using the fractions just to more or less verify the visual impression. Despite best efforts, I can't see how anyone can produce accurate turf ratings. It just so happens that even reasonable figures will produce lost of winners (25% or so), but so will will any method that is at least accurate enough to get you on contenders most of the time and standouts almost all of the time. I think more often than not turf figures are not very representative of the true ability of the horses.

[nobeyerspls]

I have mixed feelings when I read threads about figures, adjusted or otherwise. I lament the attempt to digitize thoroughbred performance. It's useless. Sort of like treating them like motorcycles instead of bone, blood and muscle. A gaskin is not a gasket.
Then, on the other side, their continuing popularity provides bigger returns for me because they lead my wagering opponents astray. The 5/2 favorite is now even money because of the relative strength of numbers arbitrarily assigned in a subjective manner. The addition of the beyer speed figure column is the best thing ever to happen for those of us who don't care about time. It's nice to catch a horse like Birdstone in last year's Belmont. For those who forgot, Dave Litvin pegged him as the "low fig horse". Those that dole out numbers didn't give him a respectable one until he won his second Grade I.
Of course it's even nicer when the zero beyer horse comes in paying boxcars.
My best bet today at my local track is an entrant whose beyers are in the bottom quartile. I'm looking for 20-1 and expect the horse to win like an 8/5. When it does, the nice people who compute numbers will assign a nice one.

[The Judge]

I think Beyer et. al are adjusting for class. If a low class horse runs a fast pace and a slow final time that horse won't be upgraded but if it happens in a so called "classy race " it may happen. It doen't have to be a fast pace scenario. I have just notice over the years that horses that run on the same day in almost the same conditions receive different numbers even though the lower class horse seemed to have run a better race. I haven't keep track of this it's just something that I've notice.

[speculus]

When the world's most brilliant minds are debating about speed, pace, numbers and figures etc.,

on the world's best horse racing forum,

should I allow them to waste their time

or just disclose my formula to "de-mystify" speed and pace?:confused:;)

[cj]

...I lament the attempt to digitize thoroughbred performance. It's useless.

I would hardly call figures useless. If you don't use them, fine, but it doesn't make them useless by any stretch of the imagination. At the very least, you should at least understand them so you know why your competition is betting certain horses and not others.

[twindouble]

I have mixed feelings when I read threads about figures, adjusted or otherwise. I lament the attempt to digitize thoroughbred performance. It's useless. Sort of like treating them like motorcycles instead of bone, blood and muscle. A gaskin is not a gasket.
Then, on the other side, their continuing popularity provides bigger returns for me because they lead my wagering opponents astray. The 5/2 favorite is now even money because of the relative strength of numbers arbitrarily assigned in a subjective manner. The addition of the beyer speed figure column is the best thing ever to happen for those of us who don't care about time. It's nice to catch a horse like Birdstone in last year's Belmont. For those who forgot, Dave Litvin pegged him as the "low fig horse". Those that dole out numbers didn't give him a respectable one until he won his second Grade I.
Of course it's even nicer when the zero beyer horse comes in paying boxcars.
My best bet today at my local track is an entrant whose beyers are in the bottom quartile. I'm looking for 20-1 and expect the horse to win like an 8/5. When it does, the nice people who compute numbers will assign a nice one.

From what I gather this forum consists of many people who support and use these speed and pace figure to some degree. I also get the impression others use them to a great degree. As you know I stand with you on the above opinion but I'm not one to discount new ideas out of hand totally, only because I need to see it proved out over the long haul as we say. What has proved out is some handicappers found the need to improve on the Beyer figures by creating their own numbers because they couldn't just rely on them to make money as you and I knew from day one.

On another note, I'll still give these guys here the benifit of doubt, primarly because I just don't have the time or energy to live the horses like I used to. Many posters have expressed the need to put the time in to truly be successful playing the horses and I couldn't agree with that more. So, I'll see how all this talk about figures plays out and then decide if they are on to something or not. My gut says it's wishful thinking and it distorts the true essense of horse racing and handicapping.

[GameTheory]

or just disclose my formula to "de-mystify" speed and pace?:confused:;)Yes, yes, please help us!

[GMB@BP]

I think Beyer et. al are adjusting for class. If a low class horse runs a fast pace and a slow final time that horse won't be upgraded but if it happens in a so called "classy race " it may happen. It doen't have to be a fast pace scenario. I have just notice over the years that horses that run on the same day in almost the same conditions receive different numbers even though the lower class horse seemed to have run a better race. I haven't keep track of this it's just something that I've notice.

I tend to agree to a certain extent, of course you get into things such as projections and past figs that tend to influence the number.

I think Beyer and associates do a pretty good job all in all.

[Light]

DS said:City Zip's final time in victory was 1:11.03 seconds. In the very next race, a NY Bred maiden race, Le Bourget won by 7.5 lengths in 1:10.95

The Beyer figure maker decided to add four points to the figures of City Zip's race because "the pace in City Zip's race was too fast." Steve Crist even bothered to write about it---and he kind of praised the descion to make the Amsterdam faster than the maiden race.

The way I would adjust these 2 races is rather than award points to the Stake Race,I would take away points from the Maiden race. The maiden won by too large a margin and the time will reflect that.He is either a super horse or benefited from a track bias and/or a paceless field so you have to adjust the maiden race,not the stake race. You know if City Zip had the same loose on the lead pace his time would probably be 109.So awarding "points" to City Zip may be inaccurate since you are basing it on an aberrant maiden race.

[oddswizard]

I use Taulbot's Pace Calculator using pp's from turf races for my pace figures. One of the top 3 figures will win 70% of the turf races up to one mile. If your formulas are better I will change. In the meantime, it works for me.

[SilverSow]

As for making figures, I agree, there are other ways to do it. My way is faster as instead of making notes in a notebook, I record the variants in a file. Then, the answers are there in the printout next time the horses run. No different then writing words in a notebook, both accomplish the same thing.

How about that 5.5 race the other day, 20.4 for the 1/4? No real need for figures to tell me that was absurdly fast!

Did Durcan say it was "astonishing"? LOLOLOL...

Dave

[JackS]

I think most of us have seen this situation before. In assending order, a horse earns a 106, 106, 104, 111 Beyer. Attempting to justify the 111 is hopeless and the 104 appears to be the superior race over the other higher rated races. This 104 also may only put this horse into serious contention with other horses in todays race with horses who have run only 98's or 99's.
If the Beyer cannot be fully justified by the handicapper, it should be ignored or better yet played against..

[garyoz]

I think Beyer et. al are adjusting for class. If a low class horse runs a fast pace and a slow final time that horse won't be upgraded but if it happens in a so called "classy race " it may happen.

I think what you are seeing are adjustments based upon the projection methodology. Class is a component of the "projected time" and thus correlated to adjustments made to the figure after the race.

[rastajenk]

[/b]

. My gut says it's wishful thinking and it distorts the true essense of horse racing and handicapping.


Mine says the opposite, that it is the essence of handicapping. Everything else, like whether the horse feels good today, or whether he likes soft turf or firm turf, or biases, or trainer intent, or any number of other factors, are the real elements of wishful thinking.

[classhandicapper]

I think the only problem with numbers is that people actually believe they are accurate representations of ability/performance. IMO they aren't.

I look at many sources of speed/pace figures and often make my own for some of the bigger stakes. The one thing I am certain of is that figure makers often disagree - sometimes by a lot. Yet they all produce similar win percentages when tested. That says something about both accuracy and whether or not they are actually measuring ability correctly.

IMO, the process of making figures is very complex. A figure maker has to deal with subjective interpretations of the results and the complications of pace, trip, track bias, weather/wind, gate position, changing relationships between distances, many different possible pace scenarios and the impact on final time etc... It's no wonder that the best figure makers often disagree about who the fastest horse is.

I would further argue that time isn't even a very accurate way to measure performance. The typical horse race isn't a 100 yard dash where everyone is running at their fastest possible rate every step of the way. Horses rate. They jockey for position, prompt the pace of others, finish with different degrees of energy, have different levels of acceleration, stamina, determination etc... IMO the final time is as much a result of the race development and individual characteristics of the horses as it is their ability.

The thing is that better horses tend to run faster and horses than finish near the front are generally in better form. So speed figures naturally will produce lots of winners because they generally put you on the better horses. You can enhance that further by adding pace into the mix.

However, IMO if you want to take it a step further, I think you have to gain an understanding of the actual quality of the horses in a race and how the race development impacted the results from a non-numeric point of view. I think that level of understanding helps seperate horses that figure close on the numbers or in instances where equally competent figure makers say different horses are best.

Don't get me wrong, those qualitative and subjective trip evaluations also have limitations. That's where the numerics have their greatest use. They often help explain what happened in a race where the results are not so easy to interpret in a non-numeric fashion.

The key is that just because the set of figures you are using says the #1 is a 108 and the #2 is a 105, that does not mean he is either better or even ran faster last time. The 105 could be a much better horse and may have even run faster last time out.

[46zilzal]

always found Beyers and pace UNRELATED. Pace is how you got there and the Beyer is just the total.

[Fastracehorse]

I do it pretty much for every horse in every race - I can do a quick mental calculation now.

What a good adjusted fig can do is tell you who ran the best in the past. So if a horse is fresh or you think the trainer is sitting on him he can be a nice play.

Also horses beaten 25 lengths are often ignored by the public - but with an appropriate spotting the horse can score as an overlay.

Lastly, when you are good at using adjusted figs you realize how important "trainer intention" becomes.

fffastt

[v_d_g]

However, IMO if you want to take it a step further, I think you have to gain an understanding of the actual quality of the horses in a race and how the race development impacted the results from a non-numeric point of view. I think that level of understanding helps seperate horses that figure close on the numbers or in instances where equally competent figure makers say different horses are best.


That's about a well as it can be expressed. Nice.

Of course, following this method would mean you'd actually have to watch races, over time, and 'get to know' the horses. After a while, you'd know who can beat who and why (in a given race). Not the best approach in an era of simulcasting.

Does knowing 'why' a horse ran a particular way provide more insight than knowing it ran a particular number?

Are intuitions about races more representative than intuitions about numbers?

Which is truly elemental/essential: the (events of the) race or the figure? (i.e. the event or the model)


Race development is 'pace' for the the numbers sect.

[twindouble]

Mine says the opposite, that it is the essence of handicapping. Everything else, like whether the horse feels good today, or whether he likes soft turf or firm turf, or biases, or trainer intent, or any number of other factors, are the real elements of wishful thinking.

I would hope to think you didn't give much thought to what you said in bold because what you said pretty much flushes down the toilet what I've been doing for many years with a reasonable amount of success. How do support what your saying?

This is what I said.

"On another note, I'll still give these guys here the benifit of doubt, primarly because I just don't have the time or energy to live the horses like I used to. Many posters have expressed the need to put the time in to truly be successful playing the horses and I couldn't agree with that more. So, I'll see how all this talk about figures plays out and then decide if they are on to something or not. My gut says it's wishful thinking and it distorts the true essense of horse racing and handicapping."

Also;

"What has proved out is some handicappers found the need to improve on the Beyer figures by creating their own numbers because they couldn't just rely on them to make money as you and I knew from day one."

Also;
From what I gather this forum consists of many people who support and use these speed and pace figure to some degree. I also get the impression others use them to a great degree.


T.D.

[classhandicapper]

That's about a well as it can be expressed. Nice.

Of course, following this method would mean you'd actually have to watch races, over time, and 'get to know' the horses. After a while, you'd know who can beat who and why (in a given race). Not the best approach in an era of simulcasting.

Does knowing 'why' a horse ran a particular way provide more insight than knowing it ran a particular number?

Are intuitions about races more representative than intuitions about numbers?

Race development is 'pace' for the the numbers sect.

I agree with you on the simulcasting point. It's a major problem for me. As it is now, I mostly only play stakes races around the country because I get to see all those races (or at least most) and review the entries and charts. I feel strongly that I can often seperate closely matched contenders and know when the top figure is not the best horse because I am very familiar with the quality of the horses in each race and the other intangibles and trips. Whether there is a lot of value in that incremental knowledge is harder to know because I think the public is pretty sharp. In many cases it is making the correct favorite even when the numeric figures are saying something else (I assume because there are a lot of other people looking beyond just figures). I also assume there is value in knowing who the best horse actually is because I can avoid betting top numeric figure horses that aren't better than their lower figure opponents and thus avoid some horses that aren't the overlay they appear to be based on figures. However, that doesn't guarantee value for me. It probably just guarantees a slightly better top figure win percentage. I still have to assess the probabilties correctly to get value.

Personally, I think there is more to race development than just the pace and final time figures. I think position and running style are important. For example, we've all seen horses that don't run back to their figures if they don't get the lead. I think there are lots of things like that.

[Princequillo]

"The other one that is for me, the 2-year-old by Thunder Gulch out of Beautiful Pleasure that won a very fast maiden race in dazzling fashion."

He is Dr. Pleasure, and I believe he will likely take the BC Juvie and go on to the Classics next year.

[exactajack]

I've been holding back for almost a year since joining this board. I joined to get some help on a programming issue. Since then I come back out of boredome to see what issues people have that analyze races.
Well here goes! And this is only my observation. I think that most posters on this board use software programs where you have to choose a paceline for each horse and get a printout for the race. Then you must model them and compare the printout to your model and make a bet. GUESS WHAT? Take a look at a puppy dog chasing its tail around and around. That's what you people are doing. Pace and speed figs are the only way to go. The problem with everyone that's using them is that they think they are the answer to their handicapping prayers. WRONG!! You have to watch the races that the horses are coming out of to get a real handle on what ever figures you are using. I can give hundreds of examples to prove this point. And I will be willing to send my figs to anyone that wants them for reference. Fresh in my mind is the closing day at Saratoga. The very first race. Key Event did not have the top numbers on my figs or CJ's and I'm sure the Beyers. But if you watched the race you would have seen that the horse had problems in its last race that would have made its figs probably tops. I think it went off the fav cause Johnny V was a jocky switch and it was touted aroud the track about the trouble the horse had and not reported in the comment line. The horse won for fun. You have to be able to project what move the horse is going to make. Forward or backward. If you can do this then the game becomes easy. Pace is a huge factor. What pace will the horses be seeing today?? Who can compete at this pace?? What pace did the horse face in its last race?? Did the pace of the last race take its toll on the horse or did it help it move forward?? Answer these questions and you won't be whinning about BS. If you have to pick a single paceline then forget it. I was making velocity ratings for race segments before Howard Sartin went public in the gambling times back in the 80's. We met and became friends as well as Jimmy the hat, Purdy, Brohammer, all of them. They taught me alot BUT! You cannot analyze a race based on one horses past performance. You must be able to look at all of the horses races to see what's going on. Perfect example in the 7th on the last day of the meet at Saratoga. Russian Sweetie Pie was the fav. I knew this horse was a pig. I made a huge bet on Positivily Wild in RSP's last race. Why? PW had figs that showed it was going to make a forward move and if it did she would beat RSP. Now she's layed off for over 30 days comes back and I know there's a horse to beat her. Who?? Dutrow/Bailey? Not with my money. Jerkens and Samyn? The horse doesn't like to win. Now go thru your figs who do you have? Kimmel! $20 score. Keeps me alive in the pick 4. Hit the 8th with Honey rider. Now the 9th. Can Run Thru the sun wire them again? My figs say the horse may move forward. But I thought he'd get pressure and not last. Wrong! The horse was challenged twice and prevailed. Speed horses at Saratoga that fig to move forward is huge. Roddy Velente that owns the horse was watching the race right next to me high fiving everyone for his 2nd win of the day. He had a 8yr old that won earlier for the second time at Saratoga out of 3 starts with a 2nd in last. I'm out of the late pick 4.
My point to this long winded held back post is that figs, wheather final or pace and speed or whatever someone comes up with are just ONE TOOL in the tool box. One weapon in the arseneal. ULTIMATELY forget about using a program that requires you to select one paceline otherwise continue chasing your tail around and around.

[Light]

exactajack

Strong energy in your post,but you're pumped.Calm down. I am one of those dueshbags who does what you say is stupid and I can tell you it would make your head spin if I showed you what it has done in the last week. My point isn't to boost myself(that's allways counterproductive),but to point out that what you say is true for you is not the allmighty truth. I'm glad you're benefitting from your method. But there are people like me who are benefitting from the very method you claim doesn't work.

[PaceAdvantage]

And this is only my observation. I think that most posters on this board use software programs where you have to choose a paceline for each horse and get a printout for the race.

I doubt this very much.

My point to this long winded held back post is that figs, wheather final or pace and speed or whatever someone comes up with are just ONE TOOL in the tool box. One weapon in the arseneal. ULTIMATELY forget about using a program that requires you to select one paceline otherwise continue chasing your tail around and around.

I agree with your first two sentences in this quote. But your last sentence doesn't make sense. How do you completely dismiss another form of handicapping, especially when you give no indication that you have tried this method for yourself, and found it completely lacking in merit. Did I miss the post where you detailed your past experiences with software that requires you to choose a paceline?

BTW, I thought Key Event was a lock too....

[nobeyerspls]

Hi CJ

First of all you should know that I'm a numbers guy. I work in the investment industry and a formula that adjusts P/E ratios for net cash and growth rate bears my name. I welcomed the beyer speed figures when they first arrived, accepting them as a scientific approach. I even read the books. If you look at the evolution in their use you will find a typical cycle of Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. In this final stage the numbers have created track pars and a whole host of people who adjust them for various reasons. Because they are subjective, many don't trust them. They certainly are not science.

Instead of saying that they are useless, I should have said that they have no practical application for me. My handicapping task is to find live longshots and I have found ways to do that that don't involve figures or even race times. I am sure that the figures would let me bet Cigar with confidence during his long win streak, but that's not my kind of play. In another thread, a poster identified a study that showed that most winners improved their beyers significantly and the last-race high beyer, often the favorite, lost at nearly an 80% clip.

Lastly, how have the beyer speed figures served the public handicappers who often quote them as a reason to take a stand for or against a horse. The answer - miserably. Look at Andy Beyer's triple crown selections since his figures were published. He vacillates back and forth between those that are validated by the figures and those that aren't. In one sense he has a perfect record - he's 0 for forever.

Now, if you have found a useful way to digitize performance, stick with it. Of course the mother lode would be a way to digitize breeding results but that's asking too much.

[keilan]

I've been holding back for almost a year since joining this board. I joined to get some help on a programming issue. Since then I come back out of boredome to see what issues people have that analyze races.
Well here goes! And this is only my observation. I think that most posters on this board use software programs where you have to choose a paceline for each horse and get a printout for the race. Then you must model them and compare the printout to your model and make a bet. GUESS WHAT? Take a look at a puppy dog chasing its tail around and around. That's what you people are doing. Pace and speed figs are the only way to go. The problem with everyone that's using them is that they think they are the answer to their handicapping prayers. WRONG!! You have to watch the races that the horses are coming out of to get a real handle on what ever figures you are using. I can give hundreds of examples to prove this point. And I will be willing to send my figs to anyone that wants them for reference. Fresh in my mind is the closing day at Saratoga. The very first race. Key Event did not have the top numbers on my figs or CJ's and I'm sure the Beyers. But if you watched the race you would have seen that the horse had problems in its last race that would have made its figs probably tops. I think it went off the fav cause Johnny V was a jocky switch and it was touted aroud the track about the trouble the horse had and not reported in the comment line. The horse won for fun. You have to be able to project what move the horse is going to make. Forward or backward. If you can do this then the game becomes easy. Pace is a huge factor. What pace will the horses be seeing today?? Who can compete at this pace?? What pace did the horse face in its last race?? Did the pace of the last race take its toll on the horse or did it help it move forward?? Answer these questions and you won't be whinning about BS. If you have to pick a single paceline then forget it. I was making velocity ratings for race segments before Howard Sartin went public in the gambling times back in the 80's. We met and became friends as well as Jimmy the hat, Purdy, Brohammer, all of them. They taught me alot BUT! You cannot analyze a race based on one horses past performance. You must be able to look at all of the horses races to see what's going on. Perfect example in the 7th on the last day of the meet at Saratoga. Russian Sweetie Pie was the fav. I knew this horse was a pig. I made a huge bet on Positivily Wild in RSP's last race. Why? PW had figs that showed it was going to make a forward move and if it did she would beat RSP. Now she's layed off for over 30 days comes back and I know there's a horse to beat her. Who?? Dutrow/Bailey? Not with my money. Jerkens and Samyn? The horse doesn't like to win. Now go thru your figs who do you have? Kimmel! $20 score. Keeps me alive in the pick 4. Hit the 8th with Honey rider. Now the 9th. Can Run Thru the sun wire them again? My figs say the horse may move forward. But I thought he'd get pressure and not last. Wrong! The horse was challenged twice and prevailed. Speed horses at Saratoga that fig to move forward is huge. Roddy Velente that owns the horse was watching the race right next to me high fiving everyone for his 2nd win of the day. He had a 8yr old that won earlier for the second time at Saratoga out of 3 starts with a 2nd in last. I'm out of the late pick 4.
My point to this long winded held back post is that figs, wheather final or pace and speed or whatever someone comes up with are just ONE TOOL in the tool box. One weapon in the arseneal. ULTIMATELY forget about using a program that requires you to select one paceline otherwise continue chasing your tail around and around.


There isn't much in your post that I disagree with -- I've stated some of those observations myself in other threads. Though obviously there are other ways to win other than "pace" and "speed figs". I agree selecting one paceline with any commerical program is the quickest way I know of to the poor-house. Anyone who claims that they play that way and are consistent winners would have to be some of the best wagers in the game imo -- but then again I've been wrong before.

[WINMANWIN]

Originally Posted by exactajack

Can Run Thru the sun wire them again? My figs say the horse may move forward. But I thought he'd get pressure and not last. Wrong! The horse was challenged twice and prevailed. Speed horses at Saratoga that fig to move forward is huge. Roddy Velente that owns the horse was watching the race right next to me high fiving everyone for his 2nd win of the day. He had a 8yr old that won earlier for the second time at Saratoga out of 3 starts with a 2nd in last. I'm out of the late pick 4.

Roddy Velente was on the OTB show 2 days before, and was ALIVE closing day obviously. I never saw so many people in a WINNERS circle photo :eek:
That crew certainly had a MEMORABLE DAY.

[The Judge]

ExactaJack why would I spend all that time watching races before I bet the next race on a different day? It would be good if I had the time but I don't want to put that type of time into handicapping. I would rather take an educated guess as to what happened from the past performances and the trouble line or the comments on the race. If a horse is blocked in one race he may be blocked in the next race also or this time the jockey my not go thru a hole or that may have been his best race and he would have won "that race" but not the next race no matter how good the trip is. If there are ten horses in the race don't I have to keep track of all ten or is it just the one that got block. There are many ways to the win window ,you have one ,not "the one". If you select one line you still may look at all the lines of all the horses and choose the best one for today and todays race makes sense to me. We know it's not "the line" but if this is what the program needs to do it's work so be it.

[the little guy]

While obviously a lot of what exactajack says is true, his examples would carry a lot more weight if they were horses he told us about BEFORE their respective races, and not just redboards.

By the way, even though I'm hardly surprised Key Event won, I don't think he had nearly the supposed trouble and tough trip in his prior effor that others seem to have seen. But, I only watched the race five times.

[The Judge]

I''m not thru. Exactajack I think you are making a fundamental error , that is under-estimating your competition. Like most of us I'm sure you don't win every race nor do you have all the long shots. If this is true have you ever wondered who is winning the races that you are loosing? Have you ever made a bet on a horse that you thought would be 12-1 only to see the horse at 4-1 who are these people. My problem of late isn't that someone is out there selecting "one" pace line my problem is the horses that I use to get 10-1 and over , aren't paying that way any more. Somebody is doing something right maybe they are watching the re-plays maybe they are getting better at selecting the "one pace line". The other guy is good and getting better.

[twindouble]

I''m not thru. Exactajack I think you are making a fundamental error , that is under-estimating your competition. Like most of us I'm sure you don't win every race nor do you have all the long shots. If this is true have you ever wondered who is winning the races that you are loosing? Have you ever made a bet on a horse that you thought would be 12-1 only to see the horse at 4-1 who are these people. My problem of late isn't that someone is out there selecting "one" pace line my problem is the horses that I use to get 10-1 and over , aren't paying that way any more. Somebody is doing something right maybe they are watching the re-plays maybe they are getting better at selecting the "one pace line". The other guy is good and getting better.

Judge; When you get right down to it, the only compitition you have is yourself, the race in hand and the limits of your bankroll.

T.D.

[skate]

well, aside from the few sarcastic comments, i agree with most post at least partially.


i lean in the direction along with
fastracehorse
v d g
exactajack;


one negative that appears thru out is (my mind) the word "subjective".

now if the word "subjective" is ment to discribe a situation whereby your program or proceedure for capping, gives you a horse that is 2/1, 7/2 or even 4/1, then i agree, you are spinning wheels.
but to me, the pace and / or speed figures gives me an objective view of a race. they open up the race for me, so i can visualize the race to be run.
hence, if i can't find a decent price, i'll pass.

my pace and speed figures, won't find the chalk for me, they'll find a price.

[delayjf]

I found too many races cut loose that caused totally crazy pace numbers. If you think dirt races are bad, the turf races are 10 times worse.

CJ,
what do you mean by cut loose??

The three pace adjusted figures that I know of are CJ's at pacefigures, Fotias at equiform, and On-Target available at

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Fotias did not adjust his finally number but rather let the pace figure qualify the final number. I know CJ has a sort of power number that is a combination of pace and speed but he also features a final speed figure as well, or so I thought.

[cj]

By cut loose, I mean given a variant totally unrelated to the other races run around it. If you have the Beyer speed charts, it is pretty easy to compare the final time to the Beyer and see what variant was applied.

(Side note: Some tracks and distances don't adhere strictly to the chart, but I know the ones that differ and even gave away the chart here at one time)

So, a cut loose race might be something where all sprints were run in the first five races, but the variants are 20 fast, 20 fast, 11 fast, 20 fast, 20 fast.

80 times out of 100, I will find the cause of the slow final time in the 3rd race was caused by either a) a very, very slow pace, or b) a very, very fast pace.

Sometimes you will see the variant go the other way, where the horse appeared to run too fast, so say the 3rd race might be 30 fast.

These are nearly always caused by a) a runaway winner in a cheap race, or b) a lightly race horse exploding to a huge number and the figure maker just doesn't believe it.

Sometimes the races are just abberations, maybe the clock malfuntioned. I also have no problem admitting that sometimes the Beyer guys got it right, and I didn't. It happens once in a blue moon! :eek::eek: They are good, and I always check my work (and Buddha's) against the Beyer numbers, and big differences are looked at very closely.

[Fastracehorse]

You said, "my pace and speed figures, won't find the chalk for me, they'll find a price."

I'm a longshot player and I use speed figures - :cool:

fffastt

[cj]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Fotias did not adjust his finally number but rather let the pace figure qualify the final number. I know CJ has a sort of power number that is a combination of pace and speed but he also features a final speed figure as well, or so I thought.

You are correct on both counts.

[Overlay]

my pace and speed figures, won't find the chalk for me, they'll find a price.

As you say, finding a price is essential. This makes it necessary to look deeper than a horse's absolute rank in speed or pace (which would result in wagering on the chalk plays you noted), and to consider instead the probabilities associated with the horse's position compared to its rivals in regard to speed, pace, and other handicapping fundamentals. Then you can judge whether the horse's odds are offering value today in light of those probabilities, and bet accordingly.

[socantra]

should I allow them to waste their time

or just disclose my formula to "de-mystify" speed and pace?:confused:;)

Please do Speculus. Your formulae are always interesting, informative and quite often controversial.

socantra...

[skate]

yes, we are in agreement.

but let me go back to the word"subjective" that is used by several other people on the board. i'm not in disagreement (might be) with them, i'd like to find out why they don't use a speed and/or pace figure?
i assume that this speed or pace figure gives them a chalk, which lots of programs do. so they would use the word "subjective", which would indicate to me that they feel narrowed into picking "what ever figure they receive from speed/pace".
while to me this figure may just as likely give me a reason to eliminate the chalk, which in turn gives me a number one reason to play the race.

ok, am i making any sense here?

what has me on this case? i sold a computer to someone who had a really poor program (load purse, trainer, jock and record) and you come up with the chalk. which just got my goat. if you can skip to what i was thinking at the time- "just forget the cpu and pick the chalk" gees- i was thinking.
anyhow, i'm most likely off base here, but, maybe the cappers that don't like to use speed/pace figures come up with the chalk and this would justify their sourness towards these figures?

[nobeyerspls]

Skate

You suggested that those who don't use speed/pace figures don't like them because their handicapping methods come up with chalk. I don't know anything about pace figures or handicapping programs but those in my circle of handicappers that use speed figures are often led to the chalk.
Several years ago, I used the principles set forth by Beyer in his books and the figures to handicap full cards over four consecutive Saturdays. I came up with nine winners out of forty-two races with the highest price at $11.60. Most were $6.00 or less. Further, the trifecta most often involved entrants whose beyers were in the lowest quartile.
Here's a simple exercise. Take any copy of the printed form and scan through the past performances. First, look for failed favorites. You will note that they were assigned relatively high figures for the preceeding races and a low one for the failing effort. Now do the same for horses winning at odds of 10-1 or higher. You will see lower figures for the prior races and a high one for the winning effort. In brief, they're not predictive.
Now, there were reasons to take a stand against those losing favorites and for the longshots. Those reasons don't involve man made figures. I don't look at beyers and I don't bet chalk.

[skate]

let me go from here, i never ever used a beyers figure in my 15 years of capping.
and if the chalk was bet in each and every race that you refer to, they would lose about 70%. so i can see that the results you've stated are right in line.

i have a win % around 12 % and when i can come up with my 12% win %, i can make a profit. i do make a profit. the % includes exotics.

so, no question, that it's senseless to conclude that "A" speed figure that gives you a favorite should be a choice of anybodies.

just off the top-
speed will give you the winner from the top 4 or 5 highest speed horses in those races that you discribed. my thought of coarse. about 80% of the time.
pace will give you the top 3 horses in the races you discribe, my opinion.80% of the time.
form, can and most likely will define your bet, along with a 12/1 or better odds horse.

keeping in mind, i hit 12%. i am not in any case, looking for an exact formula. as you stated below.

from nobeyersplse;
Skate

"You suggested that those who don't use speed/pace figures don't like them because their handicapping methods come up with chalk. I don't know anything about pace figures or handicapping programs but those in my circle of handicappers that use speed figures are often led to the chalk. "

my answer;
im suggesting that some who use speed/pace figures come up with the chalk.
also, believe me, i have a lot of respect for your opinion, i've waited for your top "7" and i've made copies.
but , but ,but, if you are not paying attention to the pace and speed figures, as you stated above, then how do you exclude them. ok , if you win without these figures but how can you exclude them from anothers opinion?
and, this would be my point, when you stated "that those in your circle that use speed/pace figures are often led to the chalk", this is what i'm saying.

while this sounds like an argument, i can see that you are above that and if we can conclude a point in either direction, i just might come up with 13% winners.

thanks

[chickenhead]

Is this thread semi-incoherent, or is it just me? What exactly is being debated here please?

[Fastracehorse]

....think speed figures point only towards chalk to re-evaluate that notion.

On the contrary - personally derived speed figures are the author's own - nobody has them.

It is possible to derive top contenders that have a 30 point ( Beyer )disadvantage published in the form.

Of course speed figures do point to chalk as well - I believe over 90% of 1:9 shots win. Correct me on this stat if I'm wrong.

And NOBEYERSPLS: I admire anyone who can handicap without a speed fig - and it can be done. These handicappers like yourself have a deep understanding of the game.

Development of a good speed fig can also be dangerous. You occasionally have a tremendous advantage over other punters - but it kind of brings you back to ABC handicapping - you know; where a new punter relies on times and class too much.

A good handicapper must understand the complex nature of the game - beyond one good tool - if he wants to excel IMHO.

fffastt

[RobinFromIreland]

....I admire anyone who can handicap without a speed fig - and it can be done. These handicappers like yourself have a deep understanding of the game...

I'm an Irish handicapper. We only have turf racing. Our meetings rarely last more than one day. Running rails are moved regularly. Their are no pace times, no running positions, tiny exotic betting pools, often 20+ runners, race distances are unreliable and races are rarely truely run.

Does anyone think speed figs would be any use considering the above data?

And a small note: favs win 30-33% of races here, just like the USA with all their extra information. What does this tell you about handicapping?

[Fastracehorse]

Well for starters: Dirt racing may have more consistent environments - at least for bouts of time to allow for more comparitive analyses.

Our turf racing appears to be more consistent than yours as well - we rarely have 20 starters.

You maybe have more mis-matched races in Ire - where the fave over-matches his foes.

Many races in N. A. are highly competitive.

Speed figures may not be easily derived in Ire if there are no horses running on similar surfaces.

We have something called a track variant - where we can differentiate between 2 horses that ran the same final time - because one horse ran on a more difficult surface ( variant ).

Just some ideas :)

All THe Best Robin.

fffastt

[Vegas711]

:confused: For years I was of the opinion that a horse who over comes a fast pace and runs a fast final time is the best one. Now I am not so sure since more than 1 person has made a good point that slower pace times lead to slower final times,Thus they may have been disadvantaged.

What is the answer??????????

[cj]

:confused: For years I was of the opinion that a horse who over comes a fast pace and runs a fast final time is the best one. Now I am not so sure since more than 1 person has made a good point that slower pace times lead to slower final times,Thus they may have been disadvantaged.

What is the answer??????????

Picture a horse running 6f. Let's say the ideal pace time to run 6f in 1:10 is 45 seconds. A horse that usually runs 1:10 is forced to run the pace in 44, he will obviously slow down more late and run in maybe 1:11 or worse.

Now if the same horse is allowed to run in 46 seconds, he will have lots more energy in reserve, and finish faster, maybe 1:09.3.

The problem comes in when the race pace is extremely slow. Lets now say the same horse runs a 48 second half. Despite the slow pace, there is no way the horse can cover the final 1/4 mile in 22 seconds to get his normal finishing time of 1:10. Likely, it will be closer to 1:11, the same as he posted in the fast paced race.

What I have found is this. The slower the pace, the faster the speed, but only to a point. Once the pace slows too much, the lost time is impossible to overcome late in the race. The best place to see this is in turf routes, where you get a crazy extreme of pace scenarios.

[andicap]

Vegas,

I would go to paceappraiser.com to read a bunch of good stuff on pace analysis. Randy Giles has done a lot of research in this area and he knows pace.

I agree wholeheartedly with CJ. In fact when using pace figures it's often best to disregard pacelines from horses coming off very slow-paced races except in certain instances. This is especially true for closers who have absolutely no shot in slow-paced races unless they are especially versatile runners who can take the lead if the pace is too slow. Most closers, tho, will be too far back to get into contention because the leaders will run strong final fractions as well. Of course I also discount a closers strong final fraction if he ran very slowly early because, like the front-runners, he too had more in reserve. I prefer to see what he does in a race whose pace is going to be roughly similar to today's.

I consider it a legitimate excuse to go back a line unless the horse was a front-runner who ran an especially slow pace and a didn't back it up with a strong final fraction.

You're on the right track looking for horses who race within a couple of lengths of the lead coming out of fast-paced races as well as in-form closers who figure to improve if today's pace is hotter, especially in routes and on turf. Look for these horses to fill in back parts of exotics, often at high odds.
(although on occasion they will win which drives me crazy)

[nobeyerspls]

Skate

If you know that your win percentage is 12% then you are keeping decent records. Further, you have defined your handicapping challenge. It looks like you need winners at 8-1 or better to make a profit. Of course the odds can be lower if your winners are part of exotic bets.

All handicappers place a given weight on different factors. A guy in my circle begins with trainers and another looks for jockey changes. Those that value the beyer speed figures look at them as snapshots ( a record of the horses best and worst performances) or as a moving picture (rising beyers are positive, declining negative). In one sense the snapshot guys could be matched with those who look for back class. I state quite simply that they are not predictive, an opinion that the snapshot camp will agree with and the moving picture folks will argue against.

Let's look at the reality of widely fluctuating beyers. If a horse runs a 62 today, why doesn't he always run a 62? At the stakes level, the performance range is narrower. That might tell us that horses run in claiming races, and decend in that category, because they have problems. When the beyer pattern is 51-45-39-62, a problem was solved before that last race. The beyer folks recorded the trainer's success, they didn't predict it. Now some guy who treats the figures as snapshots, might have seen a higher beyer among older figures and concluded that some factor present before that last race will allow the horse to repeat one of those high-end performances. It's those other factors that find those 8-1 or better plays that you seek. I have been on a lifelong quest for them and I'm happy to say that I have identified several.

Put yourself in a trainer's shoes. When he receives a horse he is given a puzzle to solve. The first few months will be a search for distance, surface, class, and a host of equipment choices. He'll scope the horse after its first race even if no signs of bleeding are present. If you know a trainer at your local track, visit him and ask to look at the vet sheets for each horse under his care. You may never make another bet. The things that can go wrong with these animals are too numerous to list in this all ready too long post. What if that horse cited above had his tongue strap replaced with a bit with double sided black tape? A simple attempt to help him breathe that worked but might not have. What about those that displace their soft palate when engaged but don't do it when not challenged. I owned one of those and never placed a bet on her even when she won.

There is too much going on that isn't revealed by the figures or even the raw times of the races. I have learned to ignore both.

[skate]

but , i am one (surely) that never would say things like "only", when talking about capping. might be un intentional, cause i will error.

but , no, meaning never, would i say that something "always" leads to something.

look for the puntuations

minor stuff

[skate]

i have to say, i can see exactly what you are saying and thanks.

i'll re -read, to implant them in my brain, good stuff.

posting if tough with so many readers jumping in (fine and dandy) as i and others try to find and discribe a particular point, particularly with "capping" being the subject.

even though points are made, points don't get taken or digested on the level they were made.

no complaints

by me

[skate]

2 questions, please.

soft palate, how can one tell this has happened? and what takes place when it does happen?

also a point, that we can see, regards to fronts, off/on.

the palate situation, being a better, is tough.
but the wraps should be noticed, if you don't witness the warm-up, you might not know in time.
what is your opinion on fronts?

thanks again

[skate]

no more "pun" tuations lol


well at least not lately

[nobeyerspls]

Skate

People sometimes say that they swallowed their tongue when they really mean this. For my filly it happened when she got excited during the race. If someone hooked her at the head of the stretch she would swallow hard and really get on the bit. Her soft palate would then obstruct airflow and she would hardly take any in. The jock knows right away from the wheezing sound as its quite pronounced. If you watch a head-on replay and notice that the horse that is quitting is weaving left and right, that's a good clue.

Sometimes the condition is operable (ours wasn't). They can do it right in the stall. They literally slit the horses throat to get at the problem area. It looks a lot worse than it is. A stakes horse currently in training had this done recently but the name escapes me.

I'll answer the front wraps question in the other thread.

[Vegas711]

CJ.

From what i am reading, it is like their is an optimal pace, the closer the pace is to this optimal pace the greater is the likelyhood that a horse will run its best final time.

Andicap.

I absolutely agree with you on randys work at WWW.Paceappraiser.com (http://www.Paceappraiser.com) everyone should take a look at his articles.There is a lot of good information there.

Every day there is something new that can be learned.

[Fastracehorse]

Not only are final times mis-leading but so are individual fractional splits. They ( splits ) need to have a variant as well.

In many circumstances, just knowing that the horse was in a speed duel is evidence enough that he went too fffastt.

And to Vegas, your summation is probably right about the enduring speed duelers. However, the most successful runners have tactical speed - they stay out of the duel but can get the jump on the late runners.

fffastt

[Vegas711]

Fast.

Do you work for the daily racing form? just wondering from your moniker.

[KingChas]

Not only are final times mis-leading but so are individual fractional splits. They ( splits ) need to have a variant as well.



Damm Fast-guess the forms been holding out on us-huh? :D

PS; So much for the other threads truthfullness on comment lines and beaten lengths. :lol:

[traynor]

exactajack wrote: <You cannot analyze a race based on one horses past performance. You must be able to look at all of the horses races to see what's going on.>

That might be the most useful insight of the day. Anyone who believes that he or she can "pick a proper pace line" for an entry--mechanically, intuitively, or otherwise--and us that as a means of comparing the entry to other entries based on their "proper pace lines" is suffering from serious self-delusion.

That is not simply opinion. It is based on a multiple regression analysis of a very large database, the result of which indicated that the race must be evaluated, not the individual entries as separate components. Only after the race has been analyzed can the individual entries be compared and evaluated. The "pace line" approach goes about the decision process backwards; that is, the pace lines are used to evaluate probable pace, rather than the probable pace being used to select the appropriate pace line.

The argument that a race is comprised of the individual performances of the entries is spurious, as well as misleading; if you understand racing, you will immediately grasp that the race needs to be considered before the individual components of that race. For those of you who may lack the experience to grasp the point, a horse race is an entity in itself; the race will unfold along relatively predictable dimensions, within various constraints. Those using track profiles or similar pace analyses are quantum leaps ahead of the "pace line pickers." Specifically, rather than believing the "preferred running style" of entries--as revealed by their "proper pace lines"--will determine the pace of the race, the professional analyst realizes that the pace of the race is something to which the individual entries must comform and overcome, rather than "set."
Good luck

[skate]

with both feet in the box, a circle was drawn

[garyoz]

That is not simply opinion. It is based on a multiple regression analysis of a very large database, the result of which indicated that the race must be evaluated, not the individual entries as separate components.


Not to get geeky, but if you are going to cite a statistical analysis as your evidence could you please elaborate on the methodology? What was the depedent variable? How did you deal with the ever present problem in horse race modeling of multi-colinearity? You can't just cite a statistical method and say that is proof. I'm not disagreeing with the substance of what you are saying, but you can't just throw around statistical terms and say that is evidence. Until details of the methodology are disclosed in detail, it really is just as good as opinion.

[twindouble]

Not to get geeky, but if you are going to cite a statistical analysis as your evidence could you please elaborate on the methodology? What was the depedent variable? How did you deal with the ever present problem in horse race modeling of multi-colinearity? You can't just cite a statistical method and say that is proof. I'm not disagreeing with the substance of what you are saying, but you can't just throw around statistical terms and say that is evidence. Until details of the methodology are disclosed in detail, it really is just as good as opinion.

Garyoz, wouldn't it be easier to just tell everyone to learn how to read the racing form, follow the horses, trainers, jocks and watch the races? :bang:

It's a lot more fun doing that way when your just a high school grad. :)

Good luck,

T.D.

[Tom]

I'd be real intersted in the specifics of that study.

[BillW]

As would I.

[garyoz]

Garyoz, wouldn't it be easier to just tell everyone to learn how to read the racing form, follow the horses, trainers, jocks and watch the races? :bang:
It's a lot more fun doing that way when your just a high school grad. :)

T.D.

I was merely replying to Traynor. He cited a statistical method as a reason why something was a "fact" not "opinion." A statistical method is just crunching numbers to support a hypothesis, or contention. I was asking about the specifics of the analysis involved. I don't see what's wrong with that.

[skate]

as i have done myself, that is, i missed a point and was misled.

not your fault, but sometimes a post is responding to another and they include the post that they are responding to, also, sometimes a private message is sent to explain. this message may be in your "private message box".

hey , i know , this communication stuff gets me all the time, it works a little different than other forms of communication.

i hope you take this the way it is ment.

thanks

[twindouble]

Skate;

Thanks, it did cross my mind that what I posted would be out of contex but I let it go because I thought what I said wouldn't offend anyone. Just a general statement.

To me the language of the game is important, the majority of players don't want to look up every other word to understand this game or comunicate. In time if they want to cross the line into the technical college level world and speak to a few so be it. I respect those that are well educated but to me an intelligent person can get his point across without writting a thesis in the process. Otherwise what will happen is, a small clup will evolve here swimming in their own pond and the gates will be closed to new comers. So, IMO it would be better for some here to tone it down and explain things in simpler terms.

On the other hand, I could be living in the 20th century and don't realize it.


Good luck,

T.D.

[Vegas711]

exactajack wrote: <You cannot analyze a race based on one horses past performance. You must be able to look at all of the horses races to see what's going on.>

That might be the most useful insight of the day. Anyone who believes that he or she can "pick a proper pace line" for an entry--mechanically, intuitively, or otherwise--and us that as a means of comparing the entry to other entries based on their "proper pace lines" is suffering from serious self-delusion.

That is not simply opinion. It is based on a multiple regression analysis of a very large database, the result of which indicated that the race must be evaluated, not the individual entries as separate components. Only after the race has been analyzed can the individual entries be compared and evaluated. The "pace line" approach goes about the decision process backwards; that is, the pace lines are used to evaluate probable pace, rather than the probable pace being used to select the appropriate pace line.

The argument that a race is comprised of the individual performances of the entries is spurious, as well as misleading; if you understand racing, you will immediately grasp that the race needs to be considered before the individual components of that race. For those of you who may lack the experience to grasp the point, a horse race is an entity in itself; the race will unfold along relatively predictable dimensions, within various constraints. Those using track profiles or similar pace analyses are quantum leaps ahead of the "pace line pickers." Specifically, rather than believing the "preferred running style" of entries--as revealed by their "proper pace lines"--will determine the pace of the race, the professional analyst realizes that the pace of the race is something to which the individual entries must comform and overcome, rather than "set."
Good luck

Even if you have ratings for a horses last 10 races that you can view and compare against one and another like I have you still are going to be settling on 1 or 2 of these ratings. Sometimes you may settle on middling 2 of these ratings but most of the time you are going to end up picking 1 rating and that will be the bet.

This is what I have done with turf races where last year betting 1 horse i had a 38% win rate with average odds of 4-1.

I will again make the following statement this game that we all enjoy is not that difficult you do not need Multiple Regression analyis and a huge database to win.

Here it is the key to winning.. ok first forget about finding some magical number , forget about buying some complicated program that cost you $500.00 .Instead develope a very simple rating method which you can compare the strenghts of 1 horse to another ( limit it to 3 types of ratings). Next Work your method study it, record the situations where it is strong and where it is weak. Record what situations you may need an adjustment , always check your predictions against the result charts.Keep a simple log of how the track is playing, see if the bias of the track is so strong that it overcomes the pace matchup or whatever other factor you apply.

Finally just plan on doing a lot of work... That is it.

K.I.S.S

[classhandicapper]

CJ.

From what i am reading, it is like their is an optimal pace, the closer the pace is to this optimal pace the greater is the likelyhood that a horse will run its best final time.

The problem with this is that it assumes that the optimal pace for all horses is the same. IMO, that's not even true among horses of almost identical final time ability let alone all the horses in a race. Horses have varying degrees of accleration, stamina, late speed etc...

Let's say we have 3 horses that all ran 45.3 110 last time out.

Even if they can all run 6F in 110 after a 45.3 (in this example), they may react totally differently to a different sets of fractions. One may wilt badly if faced with a 44.4 because he lacks both acceleration and stamina and is a more even paced horse. Another may be impacted to a lesser degree because he's loaded with speed. On the flip side, a slower pace might enable that stamina short horse to improve MORE than the others. An extremely slow pace may impact the horse with the greatest potential closing acceleration less than the other two.

I'm a big fan of pace and speed numbers but I think many people fall into the same trap I've fallen into many times in my own handicapping development. They look at their numbers and formulas and they think they represent reality.

They DON'T!

Anyone who has made numbers knows how complex it is to make them accurately. Actually, they are not accurate at all. None of them are. They are close approximations at best (some better than others).

We've all also tried to formulize our pace figures with our final time figures to express ability with one combination number. Well what I am saying is that there is not one formula that fits all horse. There are too many possible pace combinations and too many horses with varied qualities to formulize all this accurately.

So what you are doing is taking is a semi-accurate pace figure and combining it with a semi-accurate final time figure by using a semi-accurate formula to give you one rating that supposedly expresses ability correctly. Pretty funny right. You can imagine how far off you will be if all the small errors in each are in the same direction (which they will be very often when you get the variants wrong by a little).

Now obviously at this point I sound like I am anti numbers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know how you could evaluate horse performance without these numbers.

The major point I am making is to that I think it's a bad idea to assume your figures and formulas are very accurate. Small differences in the numbers between horses often do not tell you who is actually better. Sometimes, there are ways of seperating those horses qualitatively that allows you to make much better odds lines than the error riddled numbers alone.

[skate]

thanks, great job on both accounts.

save me lots of time, b sides, i could not have put the subject a s correctly as you've done.

one point, odds and luck, will put a nice shinny finish on your well defined product.

[Vegas711]

I will not take any credit for this odds line approach but here it goes. I canno't even remember the persons name.

Take the total number of contenders ( the most likely to win) in a race for each one there is, you will have 1 point in odds line and ADD 1 point in odds line for the entire collection of non contenders.

Ex. A race has 12 horses of these 12 horses you make 4 of them a contender to win. So each horse would be assigned 4-1 odds. NEXT you add 1 more odds point for the remaining non contenders.

Your oddsline for all your contenders becomes 5-1. The non contenders get NO odds line.

If you have 3 contenders end result is that each horse will get a 4-1 odds line.
I realize that your no 1 pick should be lower so feel free to do so.:)

[peakpros]

I am a big fan of CJ figs. This is my second year with them. Last year was an absolute knockout . This year started slow but the last month has been unbelievable. I am solidily in the black. I am a Monmouth regular and go to the track 3-4 times week.

I use CJ figs in a variety of ways. The least of which is to use the best last fig horse as gospel.

I find that CJ figs produce the best priced winners when you can find a horse cycling up in form. We all know to look for early speed as an indicator that a horsemay be rounding into shape. To me CJ figs make it easier to quantify an improving race. And when ever I see that the horse cycling up has back figs that match those with the best in the race you have a tremendous play.
For an eaxmple check this past fridays 6th race winner. An absolute standout play at 11-1.

The interesting part is that I find that I don't do as well with CJ figs on the turf. They all seem to run in the same range and it is hard to pick out outstanding plays.

I agree with the poster that claimed it is "one tool in the box". But for me it is the one tool that must be present before I get to work.

[classhandicapper]

I think the very rough odds line formula is (number of contenders - 1) + 1 (for non contenders).

So if there are 3 contenders and 6 non-contenders, the contenders are 2-1 against each other (which seems logical assuming they are similar) and the sum of the probabilities of the other 6 is worth 1 contender. So the contenders are 3-1. You would need greater than 3-1 to make a bet.

Obviously you rarely get multiple contenders that are exactly alike and this doesn't take into account how superior the contenders are to the non-contenders, but making an accurate odds line is an extremely difficult task no matter who's doing it.

Sometimes I think it's not even worth the trouble for most horseplayers. Change the set of speed/pace figures they are using and you get a different odds line.

A simpler and perhaps more useful method for most horseplayers that I learned from a winning player is to rank the contenders.

If any horse is mis-bet relative to his rank he is probably an overlay.

If your clear top choice is going off the 2nd choice, the odds will usually be high enough for it to be an overlay (assuming you bothered trying to put exact percentages on it and were fairly skilled at that kind of thing).

If your clear 2nd choice is going off as the 3rd choice, that's probably an overlay.

The main flaw with this method is when your top choice is the favorite. Favorites tend to slightly outperform the take. If you occasionally identify a false favorite, the remainder should outperform even more.

So suppose the favorite is an overlay?

It's probably not a big flaw if you pass because even if you passed on many of them, I doubt you are giving up much in ROI. There's usually not much value on the win end with the favorite.

Maybe you could say if my top choice is the favorite and I hate the 2nd choice at these odds, I am willing to bet the favorite. That way you at least have some dead money in the pool creating value on the favorite.

[Vegas711]

To be perfectly honest i quit using oddslines 10 years ago. My worst 2 years where in 1995 1996 when i had 2 programs ( 1 was the master handicapper the other a no name program) that you bet the odds line. Playing only overlays i often lost 30 or more races in a row.My top pick based would win but becouse the program demanded higher odds i would end up betting either the 2nd or 3rd choice (which lost often) becouse it offered value.


Betting value each of these 2 years i lost $2000. After i quit betting value i started to break even, the last couple of years my game has turned profitable expecially betting turf races. So no more oddsline for me. I will just bet my top pick and make money.

[Geekyguy]

There is a "workaround" you can do with the Beyers that makes pace figures less necessary. Generally, the horse with the best Beyer today (i.e., the one who is going to run the fastest) gets to control the pace. The problem is figuring out who has the best "today figure."

Rather than adjust the last race Beyer for pace, I prefer to look for "confirmation" of that figure from past races, and this is where most people get tripped up because they don't know how to adjust for things like claims, development, trainer intent, etc.

If a horse ran second two races ago with a 92 Beyer, then won his last with an 81 Beyer, I treat the 81 as if it were at least the 92, then look to the 92 to see if it will improve or not. Usually, if you adjust the past Beyers properly, three or four of the past Beyers will point at the same number for today.

If I were doing pace adjustments for Beyers, I might add 4-8 points for a horse who was harmed by pace, subtract the same for those who were helped, or throw out the number altogether and see what the past points at. The exceptions are maidens who cut fast fractions and then drop in class, or closers that you know are going to be there late, especially if the pace falls apart.

I also find the "value line" to be a red herring. Better to find the true top Beyer in the race and just bet it, even if it appears to be an underlay. By that I don't mean the best last-race Beyer, but the one who figures to run the best Beyer today. Seems that the edge in "class" gives the horse up to 12 extra points by virtue of its ability to use that class to control the pace today.

[nobeyerspls]

Geekyguy

You advise to find the true top beyer and bet it. Not the best last-race beyer, but the one who figures to run the best beyer today. Wait a minute. You are telling us to find the winner who may not have run the best last race figure and bet it. Then you say an edge in "class" gives a horse 12 extra points. (Actually, kicking the ball between the uprights and above the crossbar gives one extra point). Sounds like you are a class handicapper who ignores figures.

The high beyer today will be assigned after the race. Those that finish behind will get lower figures. These numbers will record the finish after the fact. If the winner runs again and has the highest beyer going into that race that fact will be irrelevant. We will use our handicapping skills, class evaluation among them, to find the winner. Then the nice fig people will assign that number that has no meaning.

[cj]

We will use our handicapping skills, class evaluation among them, to find the winner. Then the nice fig people will assign that number that has no meaning.

Does this mean I have to give all the money back?

Seriously, it is comical that you seem to think your way is the only way. There are many people out there making money using figures and not considering class at all. I tend to believe speed is class, and it serves me just fine.

[nobeyerspls]

CJ

I never said that my way is the only way. Didn't Geeky guy tell us to find the horse with the best beyer today? Isn't that like saying "find the winner"?

I'm starting a new thread today on pace handicapping and would like you to contribute. Hey, I might learn something.

[Geekyguy]

Geekyguy

You advise to find the true top beyer and bet it. Not the best last-race beyer, but the one who figures to run the best beyer today. Wait a minute. You are telling us to find the winner who may not have run the best last race figure and bet it. Then you say an edge in "class" gives a horse 12 extra points. (Actually, kicking the ball between the uprights and above the crossbar gives one extra point). Sounds like you are a class handicapper who ignores figures.

The high beyer today will be assigned after the race. Those that finish behind will get lower figures. These numbers will record the finish after the fact. If the winner runs again and has the highest beyer going into that race that fact will be irrelevant. We will use our handicapping skills, class evaluation among them, to find the winner. Then the nice fig people will assign that number that has no meaning.

Picking the winner = picking the highest Beyer run today. Whoever does that the best will do so.

I don't always use a horse's best figure. Say a horse ran a 105 three back. He could be on the way to 115 or it could have been a fluke. Next race he loses and runs an 88. I now know he couldn't beat a 90 or whatever so the 105 becomes suspect. Even if he returns to the 105, or comes close, he's not likely going to move beyond it. I might drop the 105 to 101 if the bad race has an excuse, to 97 if it doesn't, and all the way to 89 or below if the 105 was due to a suspect pace or trip (or bias) favoring it.

Take Volponi: he ran two huge Beyers at three (113 in the spring and 110 later in the year). At four, he figured to be about eight points stronger than his peak three year old form, but he sat on the turf all year. He came back with a 102 or whatever in the prep at the Meadowlands, but ran second. That turned out to be a prep so there was an excuse, and next time out he confirmed his three year old form at odds of 43-1 in the biggest race of the year. The 113 had never really been "refuted."

[Geekyguy]

Does this mean I have to give all the money back?

Seriously, it is comical that you seem to think your way is the only way. There are many people out there making money using figures and not considering class at all. I tend to believe speed is class, and it serves me just fine.

Horses will run higher figures against weaker competition, all other factors being equal, because they can control the pace better against those horses and will consequently get better trips.

Saying "speed is class" does not mean you cannot do "class handicapping" using figures instead of conditions and purses as a unit measure.

A "speed handicapper" could also use raw final times.

[garyoz]

Horses will run higher figures against weaker competition, all other factors being equal, because they can control the pace better against those horses and will consequently get better trips.


My experience suggests the opposite. Horses will often run better figs by running up to the level of their competition. Slower horses won't win, but they will run "suck up" numbers putting out an effort stay with the rest of the pack. Or, perhaps due to projection methods the figuremakers have a higher final fig for the winner in a classier race and that moves the rest of the field up.

It is true that horses on a loose lead will run fast figures, sometimes lifetime tops. But, loose lead figures are a different issue than races against weaker competition.

I'm also not sure if I would agree with you on the "control the pace" idea. IMHO race shape has far more to do with controlling the pace than class. Another point is that if a horse does indeed outclass and overmatch his competition, the jock is far more likely to take the horse outside and keep it out of trouble. Therefore on a trip basis the horse would be going wide and getting a far worse trip.

[PaceAdvantage]

CJ

I never said that my way is the only way.

Maybe not, but you did insult the hell out of the guy with this little bitty:


Then the nice fig people will assign that number that has no meaning.

[Geekyguy]

My experience suggests the opposite. Horses will often run better figs by running up to the level of their competition. Slower horses won't win, but they will run "suck up" numbers putting out an effort stay with the rest of the pack. Or, perhaps due to projection methods the figuremakers have a higher final fig for the winner in a classier race and that moves the rest of the field up.

It is true that horses on a loose lead will run fast figures, sometimes lifetime tops. But, loose lead figures are a different issue than races against weaker competition.

I'm also not sure if I would agree with you on the "control the pace" idea. IMHO race shape has far more to do with controlling the pace than class. Another point is that if a horse does indeed outclass and overmatch his competition, the jock is far more likely to take the horse outside and keep it out of trouble. Therefore on a trip basis the horse would be going wide and getting a far worse trip.

Well, Beyer himself said that his favorite "figure" play is a horse who earned a top figure while losing badly to superior competition, and I haven't seen anything to contradict that.

In G1 races there are lots of horses who run "competitive" numbers against weaker horses but who aren't anywhere to be found near the top finishers.

[classhandicapper]

"In G1 races there are lots of horses who run "competitive" numbers against weaker horses but who aren't anywhere to be found near the top finishers."

I agree.

The value of class becomes more apparent as you move up the class ladder. If you concentrate a lot of your time on cheaper races, the class factor practically gets buried because form changes so much it's hard to seperate class from a million other factors influencing results. In fact, very often, a drop in class is a negative sign. It's no wonder that speed and pace oriented handicappers can do very well at the lower levels of racing without paying attention to class at all and thus don't appreciate it enough when they handicap the very best races.

However, once you start moving into the upper ranks of racing, the horses are more consistent. So it's much easier to learn how to measure ability and understand the class factor as an intangible.

There is zero doubt in my mind that a big part of class is pace. That is, as horses move up and down the classification ranks they face faster/slower paces and that impacts their final times. That why you might see Grade 3 winner with a 110 speed figure get buried against a group of tough Grade 1 horse that seem only slightly faster on a speed figure basis.

The reality is that the Grade 3 horse might be a 105 on pace and 109 on speed and the Grade 1 horses might be 112 - 112. So the difference is actually greater than 3 points on final time.

However, it goes further than that.

Even if the Grade 3 horse was a 112 - 112 and he earned those pace and speed figures against average Grade 3 horses, he is almost always inferior to a Grade 1 horse that earned a 112-112 against solid Grade 1 horses. As you move up the ladder the horses have greater degress of stamina, competitiveness, acceleration, heart, versatility and a lot of other intangibles that don't get exposed until they are required. So when that Grade 3 horse tries to get position and/or run with the Grade 1 horse he finds that the Grade 1 horse has something in the tank that he doesn't have. And when the Grade 1 horse delivers it, it's the winning blow. Whether it's a super quick 1/16 or 1/8 to get the better position or duel off his cheaper foe or whether he digs in a little deeper at the end, he prevails.

Now I'm not saying that a Grade 1 horse will always win because obviously form cycles are also a factor at the highest levels (as are many other things like bias etc..). However, IMO thoroughbed ability is not fully expressed by just speed and pace figures. There are intangibles of ability that don't get exposed until they are required and they are required more often and to higher degrees as you move up the ladder. IMO, ignoring these intangibles at the higher levels is as much an error as using speed figures without considering the pace.

[Fastracehorse]

" There are many people out there making money using figures and not considering class at all. "

===================================

This quote made me chuckle because it is true. But, what really made me laugh was the fact sometimes I use ANTI-CLASS.

That just means if a horse is jumping up in class I pay extra attention - it just seems funny to me that's all.

fffastt

[classhandicapper]

" There are many people out there making money using figures and not considering class at all. "

===================================

This quote made me chuckle because it is true. But, what really made me laugh was the fact sometimes I use ANTI-CLASS.

That just means if a horse is jumping up in class I pay extra attention - it just seems funny to me that's all.

fffastt

Do you think it's possible that the class in which a horse earned its figures is an important consideration in determining which horse actually ran the best race last time out, but that the public "tends" to overrate it?

The reason I suggest this is that IMO it's very obvious that it's important. Naturally, the bigger the difference in class (assuming you are classing properly) the more obvious it gets.

Now you may not agree with that, but on the assumption that I 'may" be correct, wouldn't you think that knowing that would probably help immensely in making an odds line and preventing you from playing underlay high figure horses that earned those figures against much cheaper when they are not really as good as they look but are getting bet off that figure.

One example of that is state bred maidens in NY that win by many lengths, earn a fast figure, and move up into an open allowance race. That's an example of a huge jump in class where the horses often disappoint dramatically even though they have a competitive or top figure. There are lots of moves like that where the class difference tells. The reason you don't see it too often is that most horses move 1 level at a time. So class is hardly a factor.

Just food for thought.

[garyoz]

Well, Beyer himself said that his favorite "figure" play is a horse who earned a top figure while losing badly to superior competition, and I haven't seen anything to contradict that.

In G1 races there are lots of horses who run "competitive" numbers against weaker horses but who aren't anywhere to be found near the top finishers.


Quoting Len Ragozin p.60-61 in The Odds Must Be Crazy:

"The Ragozin Sheets paved the way for the speed figure revolution that punctured one of racing's most enduring myths: that class in all important. The theory holds that once class is established by a horse, it is a measure that will gnerally outweigh mere speed and even current physical condition as revealed by speed a horse has recently shown...the presumption is that if the horse has reached the stretch in contention, as soon as one of his high-class superiors 'looks him in the eye,' he will remember his station in life and retreat to it."

You do have to remember that Len Ragozin is a Communist and that may color his take on class analysis. ;)

[46zilzal]

when horses can read condition books, that when I will believe the "class myth." Horses perform to their abilities and fitness unless you are at the highest levels of competition when the diffuse "class" comes to the fore.

[classhandicapper]

I don't know where all these crazy ideas about what class is come from.

It's so easy to make up some crazy definition of what class is so you can poke holes in it.

I think two horses run with each other and one hits the other with a 1/16 or and 1/8 that the other can't match and he beats him.

I think there's an opening between horses and two of them are in a position to get that one spot and the classier one has a tad more acceleration and gets there and it makes the difference.

I think two horses both run 6F in 45 amd 110 but one is close to exhausted at the end and the other has a lot of stamina in reserve when it's over. So if they hook up in a ferocious battle in 44.2, the one with that extra stamina will be impacted a lot less than the other and beat him.

These are real differences in ability, but they get relegated to intangibles because as handicappers we don't have the ability to measure them like we do quarter mile fractions and final times alone. You will just find horses with more of these intangibles and to greater degrees as you move up the ladder because the horses sort themselves out on the track over time.

[garyoz]

I think there's an opening between horses and two of them are in a position to get that one spot and the classier one has a tad more acceleration and gets there and it makes the difference.


How do you know the classier one has more acceleration? Isn't that an assumption? Would seem to me it is horse with the better quickness/speed at that stage of the race. That may or may not be correlated to a "class." Note, that is "correlated" not "caused."

[Vegas711]

The great debate. Is Class speed or is speed class.


GOOD LUCK.

[garyoz]

Doesn't matter because both are measured by speed figures. That's why so many figure handicappers aren't that concerned with class.

[classhandicapper]

How do you know the classier one has more acceleration? Isn't that an assumption? Would seem to me it is horse with the better quickness/speed at that stage of the race. That may or may not be correlated to a "class." Note, that is "correlated" not "caused."

Garyoz,

I don't think there are any absolutes. Sometimes the horse competing at the lower level is actually classier. He just hasn't proven it yet.

I'm probably boring people with this class stuff to begin with since this is a pace board amd many reject class. But I'll repeat myself one more time and then people can either accept/agree with me, reject what I am saying, or study it further.

I think for a very long time handicappers used to look at speed figures alone and notice how horses dropping in class would often improve their speed figures and horses rising in class would often run slower. A great example of that is when speedy MSW horses take a huge drop into maiden claimers. They often improve dramatically.

As people started making fairly sophisticated pace figures, they realized that there was a relationship between pace and final time. They understood that these fluctuations in speed figures that seemed correlated to big moves up and down the class ladder were actually the result of differences in the pace the horse faced.

I am saying that the combination of pace and final time numbers explains the vast majority of these class issues, but not everything.

"As a general rule", as you move up the ladder, not only do the horses run faster paces and faster final times, they also have other qualities in higher degrees. We just can't measure them numerically....at least not yet. So when we see 2 horses with identical (or very similar) pace/speed figures and one has been earning those figures at a much higher class level than the other, way more often than not he is the better horse.

The types of things I am talking about are versatility, acceleration, stamina, competitiveness, heart, brilliance, reserve racing energy, etc.....

More often than not, these qualities will seperate otherwise equal looking horses when they face each other. The classier horse can sustain the battle a little longer, dig a little deeper in the last 1/8 mile, run a little quicker during that 1/16 when they are really ding donging, deliver the death blow in a duel that causes the other horse to throw in the towel and finish up the track etc....

I am not saying that all classier horse have all these qualities in greater quantities. I believe all horses are very individual and that's why I tend to not use formulas too much to begin with despite how helpful they can be.

I'm not saying that a lightly raced allowance horse can't prove that he has more of these qualities than a horse than has been racing at a higher level.

I'm just saying that the general tendency is for horses at higer levels to be a bit tougher than you can measure with just pace and speed figures.

So in those very marginal decisions between horses with the same or very similar speed and pace figures, you are usually better off preferring the one that has competed successfully at the much higher level stricty from a "who is more likely to win" perpective. Value is another issue.

[nobeyerspls]

Geekyguy

Forgive me if this is a duplicate post. I thought I posted it and then didn't see it. I pointed out the blinker change before Volponi's BC score. I hold that the figures correctly identify successful trainer moves after the race.

[nobeyerspls]

Paceadvantage

Your right, this was unclear and too strong. I was talking about beyer speed figures, not pace figures. I have a position on the former that I will debate with anyone, Andy Beyer included. I have no position on pace figures as I am trying to learn how thay are used. My interest in them has been piqued because more than one guy on here has said that they can use them to find longshots.

[Geekyguy]

"In G1 races there are lots of horses who run "competitive" numbers against weaker horses but who aren't anywhere to be found near the top finishers."

I agree.

The value of class becomes more apparent as you move up the class ladder. If you concentrate a lot of your time on cheaper races, the class factor practically gets buried because form changes so much it's hard to seperate class from a million other factors influencing results. In fact, very often, a drop in class is a negative sign. It's no wonder that speed and pace oriented handicappers can do very well at the lower levels of racing without paying attention to class at all and thus don't appreciate it enough when they handicap the very best races.

However, once you start moving into the upper ranks of racing, the horses are more consistent. So it's much easier to learn how to measure ability and understand the class factor as an intangible.

There is zero doubt in my mind that a big part of class is pace. That is, as horses move up and down the classification ranks they face faster/slower paces and that impacts their final times. That why you might see Grade 3 winner with a 110 speed figure get buried against a group of tough Grade 1 horse that seem only slightly faster on a speed figure basis.

The reality is that the Grade 3 horse might be a 105 on pace and 109 on speed and the Grade 1 horses might be 112 - 112. So the difference is actually greater than 3 points on final time.

However, it goes further than that.

Even if the Grade 3 horse was a 112 - 112 and he earned those pace and speed figures against average Grade 3 horses, he is almost always inferior to a Grade 1 horse that earned a 112-112 against solid Grade 1 horses. As you move up the ladder the horses have greater degress of stamina, competitiveness, acceleration, heart, versatility and a lot of other intangibles that don't get exposed until they are required. So when that Grade 3 horse tries to get position and/or run with the Grade 1 horse he finds that the Grade 1 horse has something in the tank that he doesn't have. And when the Grade 1 horse delivers it, it's the winning blow. Whether it's a super quick 1/16 or 1/8 to get the better position or duel off his cheaper foe or whether he digs in a little deeper at the end, he prevails.

Now I'm not saying that a Grade 1 horse will always win because obviously form cycles are also a factor at the highest levels (as are many other things like bias etc..). However, IMO thoroughbed ability is not fully expressed by just speed and pace figures. There are intangibles of ability that don't get exposed until they are required and they are required more often and to higher degrees as you move up the ladder. IMO, ignoring these intangibles at the higher levels is as much an error as using speed figures without considering the pace.


I find the main difference is depth of field. The lower-class figures are earned against maybe one or two horses with comparable figures, rather than 10-12 in the higher company.

[Geekyguy]

Quoting Len Ragozin p.60-61 in The Odds Must Be Crazy:

"The Ragozin Sheets paved the way for the speed figure revolution that punctured one of racing's most enduring myths: that class in all important. The theory holds that once class is established by a horse, it is a measure that will gnerally outweigh mere speed and even current physical condition as revealed by speed a horse has recently shown...the presumption is that if the horse has reached the stretch in contention, as soon as one of his high-class superiors 'looks him in the eye,' he will remember his station in life and retreat to it."

You do have to remember that Len Ragozin is a Communist and that may color his take on class analysis. ;)

I bet even Ragozin would agree that a figure earned against a "deeper" field with the same top figure is a better number. Classier races have much greater depth.

[Fastracehorse]

"Do you think it's possible that the class in which a horse earned its figures is an important consideration in determining which horse actually ran the best race last time out, but that the public "tends" to overrate it?"

==========================

I agree with you whole-heartedly. Everything is classier in a classier race.

It's just that the consistency of a horse's performance is consistently inconsistent over time IMHO :)

So, because of these incosistencies - I believe Class can be over-rated. Your Mdn breaker eg. can also have the converse result - scour the PP's of any Form for this: Horses that outrun their odds after breaking their Mdn - you will see that it is many - and I now ask you a question: Why is that??


The notion that classier horses are more consistent than cheaper ones is over-rated as well. They all have injuries and class is relative.

There are occasions when a superior animal keeps winning because he is superior - which leads to the "Consistency is Class" fallacy, again IMHO.

fffastt

[Geekyguy]

Form for this: Horses that outrun their odds after breaking their Mdn - you will see that it is many - and I now ask you a question: Why is that?? The notion that classier horses are more consistent than cheaper ones is over-rated as well. They all have injuries and class is relative.

There are occasions when a superior animal keeps winning because he is superior - which leads to the "Consistency is Class" fallacy, again IMHO.

fffastt

I was talking about depth, not consistency. Put a 110 in against six of his figure peers and he's part of a scramble; put him in against a group that can't break 105 and he'll control the pace.

Maiden breakers usually improve because the trainer has gotten serious with them and they are still developing.