"The Power Of Early Speed"

[xfile]

Just got my copy today (Dec. 15). Looks great with a TON of GOOD handicapping insights. Very interesting the way Klein has all those different angles in his study on early speed. I have always done well betting overlays with early speed. Actually I won't touch a closer at my odds requirement
(8-1++) unless a speed duel sets him up or it is on the turf. Your thoughts?? (for those who have the book) :cool:

[46zilzal]

pssst Don't tell too many people about this

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sounds fine to me!

[Vegas711]

I ordered it, looking forward to reading it.

[John]

got it as a gift.....I will read it through when I have the time.

You guys that have it. find anything worth reading.

[Gekish]

Just got it, read it. Informative but nothing new. His speed point ratings are worth looking into, but he never tells you how many of his best speed point horses get the lead at the first call. On page 11 the following statistic from a large sample: first call leaders win 28.4 % of the time with a 3.12 ROI($2). The problem is that best I could predict the first call leader is 40-45 % and if 28.4% of those win I end up with 12 % winners and around 1.85 ROI. In order to show profit you must predict at least 65% of the first call leader. I am off to Santa Anita opening day. New surface on the dirt track ?

[cj]

Seems he ran a query on everything except his two new ratings to me.

[Vegas711]

The Butler did it.

[cato]

CJ said: "Seems he ran a query on everything except his two new ratings to me."

I'm sure he ran one--just didn't print it....

Cato

[John]

Maybe someone on the board that knows Mr.Klein can invite him to explain why there is no a query on his two new ratings

[cj]

CJ said: "Seems he ran a query on everything except his two new ratings to me."

I'm sure he ran one--just didn't print it....

Cato

To be fair, I don't think he had the capability. It seems he is more a pen and paper type guy. He would have had to have all his KSP and KTB stats in a database, which it doesn't sound like he has.

[Valuist]

Is the book worth it? I haven't seen it. By now, we've had it drummed into our heads a million times how significant early speed is. I think finding closers who win is more difficult (but usually more financially rewarding).

[cj]

Is the book worth it? I haven't seen it. By now, we've had it drummed into our heads a million times how significant early speed is. I think finding closers who win is more difficult (but usually more financially rewarding).

Tough to agree with that after the Malibu! :D

I think the book is OK, it only costs $10, so why not? MANY charts, he could have saved a lot of paper. The one thing sorely missing is a test of his Klein Speed Points.

[John]

I have not read it yet. because I am going on a cruise to the Caribbean the first week in January and wanted to read it then.

If Klein's points are in line with Bill Quirn's early speed points.Then use Quirns
work as a guild line.

Quirn at the end of his chapter on speed points said, "The leson here is this, If your handicapping has narrowed a field down to two horses. one a speed horse and the other a closer. over the long run the speed horse will prove to be the better bet. "

[Vegas711]

Kleins speed points profitablilty can be checked on by anyone who has a data base, the only thing you need to find out is their predictability in picking who will lead at the first call. This can be done with as little as thousand races, if they do indeed predict the lead horse 90 % of the time then you can achieve the R.O.I s that are listed in his book.


Quirin speed points are good, but not good enough to use as a stand alone method , which is for the most part the purpose of the book .To get the returns klein talks about you have to be very close to 90 % predicting the leader at the first call. If you drop much below this you might as well use other factors.

[John]

whoa!!!. You would have to be very, very selective in not only the horse you chose but the race too. To predict 9 races out of 10 who is going to be 1st at the first call.
Apparently not too many of these horses can be easily foreseen or they would be bet down more than they are.

[Tom]

Without plagerizing the book, what does Klein do differently from Quirinn for speed points?

Does he use postion, velocity, vodoo?
What variable would I need to query my db to test them?

I'm a little hesitant to order the book - Amazon keeps saying it in not yet released, and DRF doesn't even list it in thier bookstore! Nice coverage of thier own product! Good ole DRF :lol:

[46zilzal]

what is really great about this book, Quirin's work and 'capping in general, after a few weeks most everyone will revert to looking of that big closer and forget the relevance of all of this data.

[shanta]

whoa!!!. Apparently not too many of these horses can be easily foreseen or they would be bet down more than they are.

Great post John. I agree 100%.

Richie

[cj]

Several people have bought the book through my site, and it has shipped to some according to the records that Amazon keeps. It does still say not yet released on the site.

From DRF it can be found here (http://store.drf.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Product_ID=15746&CATID=18&objectgroup_ID=460&af_id=37), but is 50% more expensive, a definite underlay!

[Overlay]

Borders has it by now (at least in my neck of the woods), and it may be on the shelves in the other large chains as well. I haven't gotten into it in detail yet, but at first glance Klein appears to differentiate between horses more than Quirin did based on how close the horse was running to the leader or how vigorously it was contesting the early pace, rather than considering all horses that were running second or third at the first call as being of equal value.

[cj]

He differentiates not only between position, but in how far from the lead. A horse running second by 1 length is weighted heavier than a horse running second 4 lengths from the lead.

I don't think it is illegal to post what is available in a $10 book, but I could be wrong, its not my field. I'll wait and see what PA says first. The whole thing is only a paragraph or so long, much shorter than Quirin's rules.

I plan on incorporating it into my program and seeing the results.

[andicap]

I would argue a paragraph summarizing the rules is fair use, considering how many people have copied and repeated Quirin's speed points in their books.

[John]

CJ, your program is fine the way it is.Start jucieing it up and I may lose those good prices.

[John]

[QUOTE=cj]He differentiates not only between position, but in how far from the lead. A horse running second by 1 length is weighted heavier than a horse running second 4 lengths from the lead.

I don't get it. a horse running close could be running slower than the one who is farther away.Klein, must consider time I would think.

[Overlay]

Again, I haven't read Klein's book in detail yet, but Quirin at least did not consider time or pace in his treatment of early speed. He was concerned only with running style as reflected by position at the first call (first, second, third, etc.) and how many lengths the horse was trailing the leader by at that point. He relied on other measures of condition and overall speed to determine whether the horse could be competitive in light of how fast the race was actually being run. What was more important to him as far as early speed was concerned was the fact that horses with running styles that placed them consistently near the front in the early going were less likely to run into trouble (regardless of the pace scenario), and also that race results that he studied indicated a bias that was close to universal in favor of horses that were in front or close to the leader at the first call (again, without regard to pace). The trick was predicting which horses would actually be in front early in any particular race (given the varying running styles of horses and the early-speed make-up of individual race fields), and it was that question that he attempted to address by developing his speed-point model.

[John]

Nice post Overlay.but, really it never works out the way I figure it.

[Tom]

I did find it at Borders tonight, along with the Wall Street Method - bought both.

Also saw Quinn's the Best of T-Bred Handicapping Revised Edition - not sure if this is really new - have to look at my cover to see. Got the Handicapper's too. Looks like a real good read for a horseplayer. Spending some of my "stupid money" from the Maliibu yesterday! :D

I always had issues with Quirrin's ranking a 3 by two lengths the same 2 points as 1 by 5, but we shall see....KSP looks like something I can check out in my db.

[Overlay]

Nice post Overlay.but, really it never works out the way I figure it.

I'm not sure whether you're saying that in your experience speed points have not been reliable in identifying who the early leaders are likely to be; or that you have not found the same correlation that Quirin did between speed point totals and winning probability; or that you believe that time/pace need to be factored in to the equation for speed points to have real meaning. I should add that Quirin recognized that only five races on a typical nine-race card would be won by early-speed horses, while the other four would go to horses that were not so forwardly placed early. However, from a standpoint of betting with the probabilities of the game, those horses that could be reasonably predicted to be among the early leaders were decidedly better bets on a race-in, race-out basis than horses that ran farther back from the front in the early stages, and had to rely on the front-runners tiring, as well as on getting the trip needed to navigate to the front smoothly, without losing any of their forward momentum, later in the race.

[GMB@BP]

He differentiates not only between position, but in how far from the lead. A horse running second by 1 length is weighted heavier than a horse running second 4 lengths from the lead.

I don't think it is illegal to post what is available in a $10 book, but I could be wrong, its not my field. I'll wait and see what PA says first. The whole thing is only a paragraph or so long, much shorter than Quirin's rules.

I plan on incorporating it into my program and seeing the results.

a glimmer of hope :lol:

[andicap]

Yeah, I pre-ordered it on Amazon and still haven't gotten it. Don't care that much as it looks like this book will disappoint me since Klein has not provided any proof his speed points are an improvement over the old.

[classhandicapper]

I think looking at the class of the race the horse has been earning its speed points in is a good supplement to the speed points alone. Not only are the paces generally faster as you move up the ladder, but so are the "potential paces". By "potential paces" I mean that horses generally only run as fast early as they have to in order to secure the position the jockey wants. So the fractions themselves are often not idicative of how fast the horse's could have run early if required. So a lot of 1sts and 2nds at a higher class is usually indicative of a faster horse than a lot of 1sts and 2nds at a lower class.

[GMB@BP]

I think looking at the class of the race the horse has been earning its speed points in is a good supplement to the speed points alone. Not only are the paces generally faster as you move up the ladder, but so are the "potential paces". By "potential paces" I mean that horses generally only run as fast early as they have to in order to secure the position the jockey wants. So the fractions themselves are often not idicative of how fast the horse's could have run early if required. So a lot of 1sts and 2nds at a higher class is usually indicative of a faster horse than a lot of 1sts and 2nds at a lower class.

agree completely, also the number of E horses that a horse faced in the previous races does effect the pace figures, IMO.

[socantra]

Also saw Quinn's the Best of T-Bred Handicapping Revised Edition - not sure if this is really new - have to look at my cover to see.

Best of T-Bred Handicapping was revised in 2003. It's about half new and half material from the '87 edition.

socantra...

[classhandicapper]

agree completely, also the number of E horses that a horse faced in the previous races does effect the pace figures, IMO.

Yep. We discussed this elsewhere. When you find a race loaded with speed (especially a sprint), some of them will get outrun regardless of what the fractions are. The horse that did get the lead in a field like that is probably especially quick out of the gate. The horses that got outrun will often be able to get the lead and run much better the next time out in a more average pace scenario in terms of number of Es.

[46zilzal]

quickness is very much different than speedy.....on many quagmire tracks, quickness wins due to the clean silks syndrome and little else.

[Vegas711]

whoa!!!. You would have to be very, very selective in not only the horse you chose but the race too. To predict 9 races out of 10 who is going to be 1st at the first call.
.


This is wrong as far as the book goes. The reason you get these huge R.O.I.s is becouse horses that look terrible otherwise win becouse they have 1 factor going for them and that is the POWER OF EARLY SPEED. This is the entire point of the mans resarch, if you ADD selectivity to it you will not get the benefit of kliens work. He does say that you can incorporate other handicapping factors but you will get a lesser return.


Some one here who has a 500 or a 1000 race data base can find out if kleins speed points are more accurate in predicting what horse gets the lead. If his method performes poorly at predicting the first call leader then it is of little value knowing that the leader at the first call for 1.6 million races has a huge return on investment.


I would like to know what % of the time does Kleins top early speed rating horse get the lead at the first call, this is the question that needs an answer.

[classhandicapper]

I have two small problems with these attempts to get at overlays using early speed as a primary factor.

1. Most of the "high priced" horses that won on the front end showed surprise early speed - meaning they weren't predictable front runners based on the PPs.

2. People are generally assuming that it was early speed that caused many of these horses to win without considering the possibility that generally improved form and ability usually leads to improved early speed.

I'm not arguing that early speed isn't important, but I think it's somewhat overrated as an independent factor. I think the degree of early speed a horse can show is often related to how good it is and how sharp it is at that moment in time. So when a horse gets good all of sudden, it often just goes out and gets the lead.

[cj]

I would like to know what % of the time does Kleins top early speed rating horse get the lead at the first call, this is the question that needs an answer.

I'd like to know this as well, and more importantly, what do the ones he predicts correctly PAY!

[46zilzal]

front end in the 5th today at Aqueduct was over 10/1 and was wire to wire....Bad weather and a surface that promotes the front end worked together for Two Toed Sloth

[46zilzal]

I have two small problems with these attempts to get at overlays using early speed as a primary factor.

1. Most of the "high priced" horses that won on the front end showed surprise early speed - meaning they weren't predictable front runners based on the PPs.

.
I would change that to SOME not MOST as the example previously noted was no surpise

[46zilzal]

PACE is active and everything else is REACTIVE.

Rider is in front, they SET the pace that the rest of the field REACTS to.

Rider out front choses the best part of the surface and does not have much in the way of traffic to impede the run. If he takes off near the line, the field has to REACT to that duo. AGAIN the reactors are a PASSIVE partner in this game.

Riders off the pace have to make an educated guess as to WHEN to move based upon another educated guess as to the fractions.

If the leader gets the hint that NO one is going with him (AND the horse is tractable), the rider can dictate and even SLOWER pace so as to have energy left in reserve.

When you review horses based upon energy distribution, and NOT postion you can ELIMINATE the early horses which are OUT OF BALANCE (NOTHING in the tank late) and only look at those that will stay on somewhat past the 2nd call.

[cj]

Been testing the Bias Ratings. Klein says a "fair" track should be about 80, but in reality he guesses it would be a little higher. So far in 2006, the average rating is right around 150! I wouldn't want to be making a bet guessing a 150 track was speed biased.

[46zilzal]

the MAJOR thing I see as resistant to the idea of early speed is that so many cannot understand that an early type DOES NOT HAVE to be on the lead in it's next start to do well.

[cj]

the MAJOR thing I see as resistant to the idea of early speed is that so many cannot understand that an early type DOES NOT HAVE to be on the lead in it's next start to do well.

Some do, some don't and your post has nothing to do with this thread. Most people here would consider and Early type horse, or E, to be need the lead. The type horse you talk about MOST people here would call an EP. We get it, you don't use the designations in the same way, you use %E or %M, though we'll never know how as you never really say what you are doing.

Why not pick an Aqueduct race Thursday or a Gulfstream race tomorrow and explain what you are talking about?

Now, back on topic, anyone find it scary the guy that wrote the book had no idea what an average type rating would be?

[46zilzal]

it has everything to do with this thread.....and I would not touch Gulfstream until I see how the track MAY have changed.


Gee I didn't realize we have censors now

[JackS]

On a speed favoring surface it always seems to me that if your money is on speed of the speed you want your horse in front by open lengths in the earliest stages of the race and not dueling with one or two other speed types. The jock can now ease the horse somewhat and give up ground to horses behind him. As the horses enter the home stretch and the lead has significantly dwindled, your speedy front runner has now got to have enough left to fend off the horses who have been chaseing him. For the bettors who have these horses who appear to be closing and soon to pass the speedy leader are often amazed that passing the front runner is not going to possible and that their horse was significantly used(up) in the middle stages of the race.
This is my preffered scenerio for a front runner. The proverbial box to wire type.

[cj]

it has everything to do with this thread.....and I would not touch Gulfstream until I see how the track MAY have changed.


Gee I didn't realize we have censors now

Which leaves Aqueduct? I'm not censoring, just not smart enough to understand your posts I guess.

[46zilzal]

one example amongst MANY for the big A in the feature Sunday Oprah Winney would have had to overcome the COMPELTELY wrong style (not on the positive side of the early late balance equation ) to have any chance to win. THE POWER OF EARLY dictated the winner and place horses just by STYLE over substance. Happens there and in the COLD all the time that was MONDAY

Race Name: Ruthless S.
Off at: 3:44 Race Type: Stakes
Age Restriction: Three Year Old
Sex Restriction: Fillies
Value of Race: $65,430
Distance: Six Furlongs
Surface Type: Dirt Track Condition: Good
Winning Time: 1:11.21
Pgm Horse Jockey Win Place Show
1 Silvestris Eibar Coa 5.30 3.10
4 Livermore Valley Ramon A. Dominguez 3.70 5 Jet Set Broad Alan Garcia
Also ran: 3 - Oprah Winney

[46zilzal]

best early balances at the big A
5th race - Aqueduct - December 29, 2005

Off at: 2:21 Race Type: Claiming
Age Restriction: Three Year Old and Upward
Sex Restriction: Fillies and Mares
Value of Race: $18,000
Distance: One And One Sixteenth Miles
Surface Type: Dirt Track Condition: Sloppy
Winning Time: 1:49.26
Pgm Horse Jockey Win Place Show
7 Two Toed Sloth Antonio Vega 34.20 13.60 9.50
2 Hooky Kyle Kaenel 6.90 5.30
10 Pretty Possible Jose A. Santos 6.10

[46zilzal]

or this one...same idea in the SPLITzacta.

1st race - Aqueduct - December 11, 2005

Off at: 12:30 Race Type: Claiming
Age Restriction: Three Year Old and Upward
Value of Race: $44,000
Distance: One Mile And Seventy Yards
Surface Type: Dirt Track Condition: Fast
Winning Time: 1:42.51
Pgm Horse Jockey Win Place Show
6 True Call Eibar Coa 41.80 19.00 6.60
1A Long Term Success Kyle Kaenel 7.80 3.70
3 Limero (ARG) Julian Pimentel 2.60
Also ran: 7 - El Prado Rob , 5 - Private Lap , 8 - Pay Attention , 4 - Impeachthepro , 2 - Napoleon Solo


THE POWER of early is indeed alive and well there day in day out

[sjk]

Been testing the Bias Ratings. Klein says a "fair" track should be about 80, but in reality he guesses it would be a little higher. So far in 2006, the average rating is right around 150! I wouldn't want to be making a bet guessing a 150 track was speed biased.

I will admit that I had not actually read all the way to the track bias section of the book but this sounded like a pretty easy calculation that was done from start to finish between the 8th and 9th at Pha (wish it had taken a couple minutes longer since I did not win the 9th).

I get an average of 138 for dirt and 98 for turf over a sample of 380k or so races.

You would have thought that with all of the drf database resources at his disposal Klein could have done a few of these calculations.

[andicap]

I also wish he had separated out sprints and routes especially one-turn and two-turn races.
Do the calculations on any number of days and you'll see major differences between the two. My guess is he was afraid of having too small a sample size, a legitimate concern but I've found too many days where the route and sprint bias figure are far apart.
If you compute them separately and they end up close together you can group them, but look at AQI on 12/30: the routes ran much more sustained than the sprints. I would have to run a pace analysis before determining if that was really the case however.

[PaceAdvantage]

Censoring and thread-flow are two different things 46. You're smart enough to know the difference.

Thanks for your cooperation.

[46zilzal]

The idea in the book is NOT new. That is all I wanted to show. The trick is knowing WHERE to apply it.

[Tom]

The whole premis of the book was this huge sample Klien had to work with, yet he doesn't test of verify things! He says his SP are superior to Quirin's, but offers zero proof. The book was good in that it inspired me to do my own research and come up with some things to use backed by data.

I think a lot better job could have been done by DRF for this project. But then, it is DRF........


46 - the 7 horse - Sloth - looks like you used three paclines, no?
Which lines on the graph were the key for you? What are you looking at for balance in this example? I find this stuff fascinating.

[46zilzal]

One looks for horses AT AQUEDUCT which are on the POSITIVE side (relatively) to the rest of the field. I NEVER use a single line for fear of sample error. I am looking a the NAUTRE of the energy distribution of how the animal generally runs NOT ANY ONE specific run. If you look at the various examples there, the MORE positive e/l numbers were the contenders in each race.

[Tom]

So if I read the graph right, the winner is slightly more balanced early as opposed to the 4 who appears to be heavily balanced towards other than early, or late?
<-------------------------- Late
------> Early
-------------------------> More early

??

[46zilzal]

yes

[46zilzal]

MORE early that is

[46zilzal]

I'm reminded of some of the chemical reactions we learned in Organic and Biochemisty. I am unable to reproduce the arrows of the reactions, but IN THEORY they showed that the reaction of certain chemicals to one another was BI-DRECTIONAL, in other words, when the chemicals got together there would be an equilibrium somewhere BETWEEN the chemicals on the left side and the right sides of the equation. IN REALITY one side was always favored, and in racing it is EARLY over late...

[ryesteve]

The whole premis of the book was this huge sample Klien had to work with, yet he doesn't test of verify things! He says his SP are superior to Quirin's, but offers zero proof. The book was good in that it inspired me to do my own research and come up with some things to use backed by data.

My reaction exactly, but it didn't exactly inspire me to do any research. The guy had a db of 200k races... if his speed points method was really all that good, I can't help but think he would've presented some data to back it up, rather than just a handful of anecdotes on their application. I'm really not interested in tabulations using data that isn't known until a race is 23 seconds old, but there was sure plenty of that.

[turffan]

I've got a copy of the book and at the least it is making me pay even more attention to an important factor so it was worth it in that respect.

Don't know if this has been mentioned - probably has.

Unless I'm missing something, while his % of winners and ROI calculations are perfectly fine for the "leaders" at the first call, they are meaningless for the "non-leaders" since he lumps them all in together. This tends to make the disparity of % winners and ROI between leaders and non-leaders look larger. There is only one leader but several non-leaders. By simple arithmetic, if the win % for leaders in a certain category is 30% the win % for non-leaders is 70%.

With the calculation method he used, in an 8-horse race you would bet $2 on the leader and $14 (7x2) on the non-leaders. Even if a non-leader won there would still be six losers among the non-leaders so the "win percentage" is 14% (1/7) at most and unless the winner pays more than $14 it's a negative ROI.

[ryesteve]

it didn't exactly inspire me to do any research. The guy had a db of 200k races... if his speed points method was really all that good, I can't help but think he would've presented some data to back it up
Ok, I guess I was mistaken... apparently I WAS inspired to do some research, to see if there was any value at all to this stuff. And my answer is a resounding "no". I just got through churning some data and in terms of win rate and ROI on the high end, KSPs aren't even as good as the "simplistic" QSPs. The following tabulations were run on a sample of about 150,000 horses:

Win% WinROI
QSP=8 16.4% $1.63
QSP=7 17.9% $1.72
QSP=6 16.2% $1.63
QSP=5 14.4% $1.57
QSP=4 13.9% $1.66
QSP=3 12.0% $1.56
QSP=2 11.3% $1.45
QSP=1 10.0% $1.39
QSP=0 8.5% $1.39


Win% WinROI
XX<=klein< 10 15.3% $1.52
10<=klein< 30 16.7% $1.71
30<=klein< 60 15.7% $1.60
60<=klein< 90 14.9% $1.63
90<=klein<120 13.5% $1.63
120<=klein<150 12.3% $1.59
150<=klein<180 11.3% $1.47
180<=klein<210 10.1% $1.43
210<=klein<XXX 8.1% $1.31


After seeing this, NOW I'm sure I'm not motivated to look into this any further. If I had to hindsight what the problem with the KSPs are, while I agree that his idea of adjusting for fieldsize and distance switches makes sense, the scaling of the adjustments seems out of whack to me. For example, a horse who was 2nd dueling for the lead in a 6 horse field gets the same number as a horse who was laying 3rd, 2 lengths off the lead, in a 12 horse field. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I was trying to guess who the most likely leader would be today, I'd be guessing the horse that was dueling for the lead last time. The distance adjustments are even worse. In a 10 horse field, a one furlong distance switch is worth almost 3 lengths. This feels way too high. Is a horse who was running 4th, 2 lengths off the leader at 7f really the same as one who was running 4th, 5 lengths off the leader at 6f? I can't see it that way. So yeah, now that I've done the work, it makes sense to me why it doesn't work.

[cj]

I like to read books on handicapping, good and bad, and just see if they inspire anything worth tinkering with. After reading the Speed Points method, I immediately thought, this chapter is junk. No need to test, experience taught me there was nothing here.

The bias chapter, however, I think is OK. So far adding this to my capping has been quite helpful, though not using Klein's suggestions for use at all. I came up with my own ideas, applied common sense, and so far, so good.

That's really all I ask for in a book, to get me thinking.

[ryesteve]

No need to test
You should've told me that yesterday :D

Well, if there's anyone out there who wants to see if the book gets THEM thinking, I'd be very happy to part with mine for $10, postage included.

[Vegas711]

Rysteve


How often does the top Klein speed horse get the lead at the first call? this info is what every reader of his book would like to know.

You make some Good points.

[ryesteve]

How often does the top Klein speed horse get the lead at the first call?
I'm not sure that I'm motivated to go back and find that out... but we can deduce from the ROIs that the answer is "not nearly enough" and/or "too many at short odds"

[Lemon_Drop_Kid]

You should've told me that yesterday :D

Well, if there's anyone out there who wants to see if the book gets THEM thinking, I'd be very happy to part with mine for $10, postage included.

Don't mean to be rude, but I'll undercut you at $9.00, postage included.

Wait. The price of our stamps just went up. :confused: Tough call.

In all seriousness, lots of charts, no real tests, just another DRF yawner :sleeping:

[Vegas711]

Dear Mr. Klein.


Congrats for suckering me out of $15.00 . It is true that a sucker is born every minute.What a revelation that early speed is a dominate factor in horse racing, you should get an eclipse award for this insightful piece of infomation.Why write a book about something that even blue haired ladies know about when you have no means of showing how to capitalize on it. My question for you is did you spend more than 15 minutes in coming up with your speed point method?


When are you going to have your book tour ? I would like to get my copy autographed:liar:

[ryesteve]

Rather than compete against each other, let's team up... 3 copies for $25 to the next person to respond :D

[Handiman]

Just hold on boys. My copy from amazon isn't here yet. I should have waited to hear from some of you sharp guys who read the book and then thumbed your nose at it. Oh well, $14 is less than I'll lose on just one race today, so I guess it will be worth the read. At least for the reason CJ said he read it. Anything sometimes to just get the ole brain perkolating.

I now don't expect anything from the book, so if it takes getting here on muleback, I can wait.

Thanks to all the brains here on this board. You guys are awesome.

Handi

[SAL]

While there wasn't anything earth shattering in the book as far as early speed goes, the stuff about track bias was interesting. And usually if I get anything out of a book, no matter how insignifigant it is I think of it as money well spent. That being said, I think it's a worthwhile read and worth the money.

[Lefty]

vegas711 said: When are you going to have your book tour ? I would like to get my copy autographed
_________________________________________
After chastizing the author he says the above.
PRICELESS! I'm still laughing.

[Overlay]

Since Vegas711's comment had a Pinocchio emoticon next to it, I believe he intended that to indicate that he didn't mean to be taken seriously.

[Lefty]

Yes, I know. It was funny. You see, you chastize, then ask for an autographed copy. FUNNY! It was meant to be funny and it was. Contradiction and surprise are 2 of the "engines" of humor.

[Overlay]

Lefty:

Sorry that I misinterpreted your intent.

[Handiman]

Well the mule showed up. I'm about three quarters through the book. I really like to read, so I never consider a book a waste of money. I have found some interesting things that have made me think, and given me cause for tinkering. Whether or not the KSP's are worth anything in their pure form, I haven't a clue. I think that he did make a solid effort at getting the sample size big enough. I have to say, I think that the field size thing skews things a bit. For example, if you have a field size of 6 horses and your horse get's the lead and wins great. He earns one number. But he get anoth totaly different number if you put him in a 12 horse race. But, and here's the point of contention. Add six closers or three strong closers and three just over matched horses and your horses ability to get the 1st call lead hasn't changed a bit. To give him kudos for getting out in front of some old milk cart nags doesn't make sense. He could be in a four horse race and not be able to get the lead, because he just isn't strong enough to fend off another speedster.
Like most other sets of empirical data, some qualifiers have to be stated and parameter's set to make the data useful. So five horse field or 12 horse field really doesn't say anything, till you see who and what makes up the field.

Just my thoughts...I'll continue to read and then start tinkering.

Handi

[ryesteve]

Whether or not the KSP's are worth anything in their pure form, I haven't a clue. I think that he did make a solid effort at getting the sample size big enough.

The problem is that his huge sample had absolutely NOTHING to do with the KSPs. The sample was used to belabor the point, "early speed is good". At no point did he draw from it to present any data on the performance of his KSPs.

[Handiman]

Rye,

You are exactly right. Only one reason that I can think of, that would cause someone to print a system, or methodolgy, and then offer up a gazillion charts and not tie them together......The sys or meth doesn't work. Again, I repeat I don't know if there is any validity to the KSP's....does seem like if they were spot on....you would show the typical day at the track report.


Oh well,
Handi

[John]

I think it was the title that got all of us to want to read it.If he titled it "A method on early speed". Maybe a lot of us would not have wanted it. But, the word "POWER" attracted my mind.

Very clever of the guys from DRF.They know there is a list of people like reysteve and Cj that will buy and try to get something out of it.

Stay tuned boys and girls,DRF will be coming out with a new book shortly.Anyone know the title ???

[headhawg]

Stay tuned boys and girls,DRF will be coming out with a new book shortly.Anyone know the title ???
Yes. "Turf Racing -- The Power of Late Speed".

I'm going to copyright it first so that they can't have it. :)

[John]

How about "Over The Fences The Power Of Jumpers"

[xfile]

I've got it......."Beyer on Crack".......:cool:

[BIG RED]

I'm another early speed lover, especially with a price. I'm glad I read this thread. Looks like a no go for me. A couple of you did mention that if you get one insightful idea out of a book, it is worth it, I agree. I don't get technical as much as most of you do with the fractions per say, so this doesn't look right for me.

[cj]

One thing I would say this book is not is technical. His Speed Points and Bias Ratings are quite simplistic.

[Elliott Sidewater]

Title:

Money My A**, Milkshakes Make The Mare Go.

Subtitle:

Medicinal Replacements for the Mint Julep in Kentucky Racing
-----------------------------------------------
Seriously, though, the Klein book did ask and answer several novel questions about track propensities toward early speed, and the trainer and jockey tables were at least interesting to pore through. Although the KSP won't produce a profit when followed blindly, does or should anyone realistically expect that any one factor will? It's not as if the book was titled "What Part of Speed Wins Everything Don't You Losers Understand?".

An old idea with QSP that I believe has worked since the pub. of Winning At The Races is when one horse enjoys a 2 pt advantage over the field. Would I play it mechanically then, putting my money where my mouth is?? NO. Because if I did, I'd commit money to some chronic quitters that I'd never bet after 5 seconds of consideration. So, my point is (I do have one), is that before dismissing the KSP as useless, worthless, etc., a deeper level of analysis might be warranted. One that involves context. For example, what do the gaps between the numbers among members of a field tell us, what kind of declines/gains in the KSP ratings between races for a single horse are meaningful and why. I'm not pushing the book or the ratings - it's just that putting myself in the author's place, it's his first book ever and he chose this subject about which his whole experience in racing has been built upon. He wanted it to be worth publishing, worth buying, and worth reading. The guy has made brilliant picks in Breeders Cup races and Kentucky Derbys that almost no one else dared to - Charismatic comes to mind. You've got to respect that - among public selectors, Steve Klein is a standout in my mind.

It's too easy, too convenient, and too self serving to dismiss someone else's work so I'm going to go back and read the book a second time and see what other questions come to mind and think about how this interesting book might help improve my play. I received the book as a gift so maybe that made me a bit more neutral as I read it, but if I had paid for it I still wouldn't have regretted the purchase.

[Tom]

Welcome, Elliot....

Are you the Elliot Sidewater who used to present at Sartin seminar's in Albany?

[andicap]

You mean there could be TWO Elliot Sidewaters?

:)

[ryesteve]

Although the KSP won't produce a profit when followed blindly, does or should anyone realistically expect that any one factor will?
No, it shouldn't produce a profit all by itself, but since his premise was that his KSPs were better than QSPs, high rated horses should have provided a better starting point towards showing a profit. No one was complaining that the ROI of high KSP horses was under 2.00; the complaint is that the ROI of high KSP horses was worse than the ROI of high QSP horses.

[Elliott Sidewater]

Tom:

Yes, that's me. I wish I could remember all the enthusiastic and sincere Sartin handicappers I met during those seminars but you know it has been a long time. I enjoyed teaching, writing, and speaking during those few years and am pleasantly surprised that a few actually remember me. I see that Dick Schmidt is an active poster here and that he is still as witty and cantankerous as ever.

Andicap: - no, there isn't anyone else with the same name to my knowledge. One benefit of having an unusual name is that people tend to remember it.

Regards,
Elliott

[shoelessjoe]

Elliott,This is really a hell of a surprise for me,I use Synergism 2 and have been doing what you wrote in the Follow UP some 15 years ago.I play mostly Charles Town and the top 2 angle in DR,FW and turn time fraction and it works great.If you can further shed any light on this or anything else that deals with Synergism 2 it would be much appreciated.That's if you can remember back that far.Jeff

[Elliott Sidewater]

Well isn't that something. What I recall about that article was that my records of the winning Synergism 2 factors at Philadelphia Park at the time showed amazing results when all 3 of those factors fell in the top 2 rankings for a specific horse. Since I was and still am a one track at a time type player, I thought this confluence of factors might be either a) peculiar to Philadelphia Park or b) sheer coincidence, not repeatable. Of course, c) a legitimate winning angle was another possibility. Still, the data I had was strong enough that Doc said "go ahead and write it up, you may be on to something". I do remember advising caution and testing before trying it elsewhere. I'm intrigued to hear that it also works at CT, which is a very tough track to win at consistently. I used to stare at my records, hundreds of races, all written in columns and nothing computerized, looking for patterns I could associate with a high percentage of winners. That's how I stumbled on to this idea. I can assure you that there was no flash of brilliance or moment of sublime revelation - only pattern recognition came into play.

Good for you, I commend your taking the initiative to see that it wasn't a fluke and to win with it. That's what I hoped would happen.

I haven't used the program in a long time because none of my computers run DOS anymore, and I can't figure out how to get it or Validator to run on my machines, both of which are running Windows XP. I wanted to learn Validator and test it out on some old races but have been thwarted so far by the operating system. Will anything in DOS run on a XP machine?

[shoelessjoe]

Elliott,Just to refresh you memory

Total Races-115

Win% One Horse-34.1%

Avg Mutual-11.78

Longest Losing Streak-7 Races

[Tom]

Elliot,

I have your imortal comment on tape from one seminar...you were commenting on how the crowd was who you were playing against, and as you looked around, you noticed that most of them had in thier hands......beer! No DRF, just beer! :D

We had some fun times at the ole Americana!

[shoelessjoe]

Tom,What tapes would that be on?Shoeless

[Tom]

Cassettes I taped at the seminars.

[46zilzal]

ELLIOT SAYS: I haven't used the program in a long time because none of my computers run DOS anymore, and I can't figure out how to get it or Validator to run on my machines, both of which are running Windows XP. I wanted to learn Validator and test it out on some old races but have been thwarted so far by the operating system. Will anything in DOS run on a XP machine?

only pattern recognition came into play.
THE KEY to any software


all those programs run on Windows XP

[tahoesid]

XP does have a compatibility mode which may allow you to run some DOS programs.. I have managed to run some things from the command line mode. Try start/run/cmd and that will get you into the command prompt where you can try to run some things....

You can also set parameters for a program under properties that may let you run the software in emulation mode.

There are several other ways to run old software in XP and some research should help you with that issue.
The easiest way(after it is set up) is to use a dual boot system that will allow you to boot into Windows 98 or XP, thereby letting you run DOS stuff.

[Lefty]

Randy Giles has reviewed Klein's book. If you subscribe to his sire, he sends the blogs by e-mail now.

[46zilzal]

who is his sire? His dad no doubt

[Lefty]

A typo 46. Make that site.

[Handiman]

Has anybody tried to use the KSP's with any other selection system...as a qualifier or select contenders, then look at the ksp's?


I saw where they didn't seem to stand up on their own as a stand alone fig.

Hand1

[JulieKrone]

http://www.theeldergeek.com/use_compatibility_mode.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/appcompat.mspx

[John]

Julie, Welcome and thanks for the Heads-up. I have a lot of old programs that won't run on my XP. I think your links will help.

[Tom]

I would have liked it if Klein had included some statistical study of his speed points, but asinde from that, my own personal use of them on a limited basis is interestting. They do seem to seperate front runners better that Quirin speed points, but then again, I will never have a database large enough to really compare the two. But I do think they have helped me land a few winners I might have otherwise dismissed - too many horses clustered wtih 8-7 points.

I made a program to calclate them for me - using Infotran to extract the data from the BRIS files, then Excel to manipulate the numbers - all the the turf adjustment - haven't figure out how to do that in Excel yet.

[cj]

I think the bias ratings have some merit as well, just not using them anywhere near the way Klein describes in his book.

[Handiman]

I think the reason that Klein didn't include any statistical data concerning a run with his numbers, is the data would have been dismal at best. I programmed his numbers into one of my programs, just so I could see them perform next to my stuff, and I didn't waste many computer strokes hitting keys recording wins. It's amazing the stuff one can get published these days.


I'm just about to publish a book titled..."First Across the Line"...It's an amazing statistical study of how the first horse across the finish line pays more win bets than the other runners in the race. My sample is not quite large enough to draw any major conclusions yet, but so far it has a perfect record.

Handi

[cj]

Shoot, I was going to write the Power of Leading at the 1/8 pole, but if customers had a choice between yours and mine, they'll pick yours every time. Oh well, I can always do the 5 minute Abs video.

[Valuist]

So basically, there's no new ground covered (pun intended) in this book?

[raybo]

Just a general comment, having not read this whole post,I hope I'm not repeating or stepping on anyone's toes. As someone said early in the thread, we have all been beaten over the head with the importance of early speed. I think that it all boils down to early pace, and that often times is a result of several horses not just a single horse. I don't know if , by early speed, we are supposed to look for horses that are fast to the 1st call, 2nd call, or whatever. Personally, I believe that if a horse can be in the top 3 or 4 horses at the final turn, no matter how he got there, he is a real threat to win. Many people think early speed means , wire to wire. That seems to be a misconception. Ability to handle a fast early pace without undue stress and still being able to be in good position at the top of the stretch is what matters. Now that may mean that the horse was 15 lgths off the pace early but by the stretch run he had closed to be in the top 3 or 4 leaders at the stretch. That horse would not be considered to have early speed and also wouldnt be considered a closer either because he was in contention prior to the stretch call. If you can tell me the 3 or 4 horses that are leading at the top of the stretch, I'll tell you the likely winner. Therein lies the real problem, its just as hard to predict the stretch leaders as it is to predict the winner.

Anyone got a solution to that problem? If so,I'd like to hear it. The whole "early speed" thing has taken on a life of its own and everyone is using it, thus, decreased odds on horses with good early speed. I personally dont care how speedy he is early, only where he is at the end of the turn.

[NEhandicapper]

I do believe in the importance of early speed and I do agree that it is a very common knowledge. The book proved with many statistical numbers and examples of how important leading, or more importantly, being near the front produces many winners. As handicapping books go, the premise was based on scientific data. But handicapping is an ART, not a science. This is why I believe that even though the book contained numerous statistical examples like track, conditions, trainers and jockeys etc…, the author did not include how his early speed numbers (Klein Numbers) performed when tested against the database used for his studies. I think he even mentioned in the book it is not about who has the best early speed number, but how the horse’s numbers correspond with each other.

I calculated his numbers for many races and they were pretty much in tune with the quirin speed points and BRIS early pace numbers. I have always done a similar analysis modifying the PCR process created by William Scott in “Total Victory at the Track”.

As to the horses position at the end of the turn, I agree in its importance. When I tested my database against horses that were within the top three for early speed factors, the win percentage was good and the ROI was just above even. When I added a query that had the early speed figures with turn time performance added…well the results were great. The number of horses that qualified dropped significantly, but the win percentage of the qualifying horse was around 40% with an ROI of $2.60. The “In the money” percentage was at 85%!

[raybo]

RE: "As to the horses position at the end of the turn, I agree in its importance. When I tested my database against horses that were within the top three for early speed factors, the win percentage was good and the ROI was just above even. When I added a query that had the early speed figures with turn time performance added…well the results were great. The number of horses that qualified dropped significantly, but the win percentage of the qualifying horse was around 40% with an ROI of $2.60. The “In the money” percentage was at 85%!"

I agree. I have looked at results charts until I could see them in my sleep, not only does the winner come from the top 4 at the stretch call, so does the other 3 money positions most of the time. That depends, of course, on the condition of the track being normal. Those 4 horse are the true contenders. Very rarely does a horse outside those 4 stretch horses ever win a race.

[46zilzal]

I have been experimenting in what I call an "early filter" and it has done marvelously. I think, but cannot prove, that it finds improving early speed in horses a race or two before they show the balance of that improvement. Using TWO lines, I simply hide the "later" one (better move to the second call between them) and then only compare those that rank in the top 3-5 earlies.

IT works so well that I am still trying to pinch myself.

[raybo]

46zilzal

I have used what i call "a 2 race improvement" for quite a while (actually it's measured over the last 3 races not just 2), and it does point to many winners. Basicly I use the Bris E1, E2, LP figures. I look at the 2nd race back and if the E1 and E2 figures were higher than the 3rd race back but the LP was lower, he starts to get my attention. Then I look at his last race, if, in his last race, he declined in E1 and E2 but improved in LP, then I say he has improved at all 3 pace calls over his last 3 races and often he will run his best today. It works pretty often, although you have to look at those 3 races and factor in the time between races, trainer philosophy, race distances, etc. Works can verify the improvement, too.

Often, when a horse's E1 and E2 figures decline in his last race, the public will not support him because they have been drilled with the early speed thing so much that they don't notice that he has already improved that part of his game and now has finished strong, thus projecting signs of being ready for a very good, complete, performance now, especially if the pace today is a mild one. Because of the lack of support by the public he can go off as an overlay, sometimes a substantial one.

[Tom]

I have been experimenting in what I call an "early filter" and it has done marvelously. I think, but cannot prove, that it finds improving early speed in horses a race or two before they show the balance of that improvement. Using TWO lines, I simply hide the "later" one (better move to the second call between them) and then only compare those that rank in the top 3-5 earlies.

IT works so well that I am still trying to pinch myself.

Are you still using a final call beaten length of 7.5 as max, or relaxing that somewhat? And the second line - are you going past last three similar?

[Hosshead]

Turn Time: The thing that's tricky about interpreting turn time is:
In Sprints (6f on 1mi. track) - Turn Time is part of the 1/2 mi. (pace) fraction.
But in Routes it's not part of the 6f (pace) fraction, which is before they ever get to the (far) turn. If the horse has the lead after 6f (in a route), sometimes the jock can give the horse a "breather" on the far turn, saving him for the stretch. Thus his turn time won't look so good. But that's the exception rather than the rule. Otherwise, all that energy used on the turn is not part of the early pace, as it is in a sprint. It's an addition to the early pace.

[raybo]

"Turn Time: The thing that's tricky about interpreting turn time is:
In Sprints (6f on 1mi. track) - Turn Time is part of the 1/2 mi. (pace) fraction.
But in Routes it's not part of the 6f (pace) fraction, which is before they ever get to the (far) turn."

I agree, figuring how a horse ranks with his competitors at the top of the stretch is very difficult. Track layout, size, distances, etc. make this tough. Bris' E2 will get you part way but then you have the problem you stated left to deal with in order to get them to the stretch. Very frustrating!!

[46zilzal]

Are you still using a final call beaten length of 7.5 as max, or relaxing that somewhat? And the second line - are you going past last three similar?
short answer to the first is NO: each horse is treated independent but rarely LIMIT to that CRAZY, diffuse 7.5 limit. Usually use a second line that was CLOSE (usually last three) but does NOT limit to the same distance.

[46zilzal]

46zilzal

I have used what i call "a 2 race improvement" for quite a while (actually it's measured over the last 3 races not just 2), and it does point to many winners. Basicly I use the Bris E1, E2, LP figures. I
I think it is hidden "improving early speed"

[raybo]

46zilzal

Well, it's hidden to some, for sure. But in this case the early speed improvement has already happened, then the strong finish at a slower pace sets him up for his best performance, IMO. It happens much too often to just be coincidence. Most of the betting public looks at the last race, maybe last 2 races, but most don't use Bris pace figures and most don't know what they're seeing anyway, so the 3rd and 2nd races back showing improvement early flys right by them. All they see is a decline in early pace in his last race. A smart horseman knows that significant late improvement should not be ignored.

[46zilzal]

46zilzal

Well, it's hidden to some, for sure. But in this case the early speed improvement has already happened, then the strong finish at a slower pace sets him up for his best performance, IMO. It happens much too often to just be coincidence. Most of the betting public looks at the last race, maybe last 2 races, but most don't use Bris pace figures and most don't know what they're seeing anyway, so the 3rd and 2nd races back showing improvement early flys right by them. All they see is a decline in early pace in his last race. A smart horseman knows that significant late improvement should not be ignored.

Could not have said it any better. We are like Newton and Leibnitz finding calculus independently of one another.

[46zilzal]

happened again in the ninth at Aqueduct where horses that showed a move POSITIVELY on this graph, came back to improve (3,5,6 had shown a move that way and TWO were here on top...a move POSITIVELY means an EARLIER move)
inning Time: 1:39.11
Pgm Horse Jockey Win Place Show
5 Great Lady K Channing Hill 10.00 4.60 3.50
3 New York Dream Michael J. Luzzi 3.40 2.60
4 Sydsational Fernando Jara 4.30
Also ran: 10 - Tatooma , 8 - Raf and Ready , 6 - Sheer Silk , 1 - Tomorrows Dance , 7 - Magic Belle

[46zilzal]

actually, looking back on this the 4 horse was moving that way as well.

[dav4463]

So what is the consensus? Are the speed points worth calculating? Do they help anyone in figuring out the pace scenario and help in picking winners? Are they any better than Quirin's? Is there a cutoff point to the numbers that points to a speed duel setting up closers ? Tom is the only one that seems to like them much so far.

[raybo]

Personally, I think many apply too much emphasis on early speed. Speed points are only as good as the horses that ran that day, at that track, at that distance. Certainly early speed must be considered, as a too fast early pace will certainly cause a good horse to crash and burn. There is also a traffic problem they must contend with if they lay off a fast early pace. IMO, a horse that has shown in the past that, while confronted with a pace similar to what he will face today, he was able to attain a contender position at the top of the stretch and went on to finish strong, no matter how far off the early pace he was prior to the stretch, is a horse that you can put your money on, if his odds are good enough. The solution in racing is not how many that you hit, but how much profit you make. So, taking a horse with the above credentials at 4/1-5/1 or higher rather than the speed burning favorite at 2/1 or lower is the smarter wager, even if he gets beat! After all, the best handicappers only hit about 30-40% of their wagers, so you can expect to miss 60-70%, and when you do hit, it had better be worth it. That's why betting favorites is the general public's play, if that weren't the case, well, we'd all be vying for pennies in this game. We all strive to find what the public has missed in the data.

Early speed, late speed, middle speed? They all have relevance, but you have to see the whole picture and weigh them equally. You wouldn't bet a horse solely on his speed number, without considering other factors, would you? Of course not. So why would anyone bet on early speed solely?

As far as figuring numbers goes, I think that almost all the numbers available commercially must be verified by some means, I have my way of doing that, just as most of the people here have their way. As long as what you are doing to them tends to point out when the numbers were inflated or deflated, consistently, it doesn't really matter how you accomplish that. Verifying and adjusting the numbers you use as handicapping factors is the most important thing you can do, prior to making any analysis or comparisons between horses in a particular race. Really there are almost no numbers that can be used "as is". The distance, post position, weight, jockey/trainer percentages, horses money and ITM % numbers, beaten lengths, and age, are about the only ones you can use without questioning them. All the rest must be verifyed in one way or another.

And then there's current condition, which overrides all the aforementioned crap! So, have fun. Ain't this game neat!!

[JackS]

My subjective view since I have no records to prove one way or the other, is that on speed favoring tracks/distances, speed will win about 80% of the time.
I have nothing against using speed points ,in fact , have used them from time to time but even more important, is identifying true possible speed regardless of points.
A Typical ten horse field will usually contain 3-4 such horses and this is the main contention in this race. Among these 3-4 it is often easy to completely eliminate one horse. This horse does not represent 25-30% of your total guestimate because of elimination but rather 5-10% or (0% if your so inclined).
A very quick line can now be made on the remaining three and assuming that you can make distinctions between the three, the line would be 2/3/4-1.
Staying within the concepts of underlays/overlays, anyone of these horses can be eliminated if bet down below our guess.
Within this same race a quick glance at the mid/off pace runners can be used in place of the speed horse that was eliminated and a further guess (and staying within the concepts of overlays), might be a bet at double the ML if you can find anything redeeming concerning these horses.
Quick and easy, down and clean. Keeping things simple and restricting the decimal point to speed figures and not trying to be super exact when assigning percentages as to horses chances can make life at the track much easier.

[46zilzal]

identifying speed is only HALF the problem. KNOWING if that speed will carry TODAY is the more difficult one and requires vigilence THROUGHOUT the card in carefully identifying IF that projected speed is working TODAY. Don't know how many folks NEVER change gears throughout a program.

I sincerely HOPE that people continue thinking that speed is merely POSITIONAL

[raybo]

RE: "My subjective view since I have no records to prove one way or the other, is that on speed favoring tracks/distances, speed will win about 80% of the time."

What do you mean by "speed"? Just the speed number? Just an early pace number? A combination of the 2? The speed number only represents the final time of a race. It has nothing to do with how the race was run. If you only use that speed number then you are doing what the public does, generally. True the highest speed number wins more races, but at lower prices because the public bets speed numbers. Also, where are you getting that speed number from? His last race? His best race? An average of the last 2 or 3? A representative race? I'm not arguing with you, really, but handicapping is not "quick and easy, down and clean". Speed is subjective and means different things to different people. A good speed figure means very little to me. How did he get the figure and is it verified as being legitimate and useable? After you answer that question then you can use the figure as a capability number for comparisons. Without knowing what he was up against when he got that figure you really know nothing about what he can do against other animals. "Class" is another way to describe what a horse is worth against other animals. Class is a combination of what pace a horse can handle throughout a race and still finish strong and, of course, how much heart and leadership he has.

[JackS]

Raybo- Speed in the context of my post is early speed. Sorry not to make it clear.

[46zilzal]

Without knowing what he was up against when he got that figure you really know nothing about what he can do against other animals.
he was UP AGAINST a pace that day, then you compare if the same ability will re-surface versus today's match up of various pace possiblities

this class baloney shows itself ONLY at the HIGHEST levels which leaves out about 80% of all horses.

[raybo]

RE: "this class baloney shows itself ONLY at the HIGHEST levels which leaves out about 80% of all horses."

???? So, what you're saying is that the pace a horse can handle and still finsh strong is only important in 20% of races? And that a horse's desire to lead the pack is only a factor in 20% of races? And a horse's refusal to be passed by another hores is only a factor in 20% of races? My goodness, I guess I've been handicapping "animals" too long, today's horses must not fall into that category any more. Maybe it's time for me to be put to pasture.

[raybo]

RE: "Speed in the context of my post is early speed"

Ok, that's a little clearer. Now, at what point do you measure that early speed? At the 1st call, 2nd call, Str. call, average of 1st and 2nd, average of 1st, 2nd and Str.? Or do you just use a commercially manufactured early number like Quirin?

[46zilzal]

???? So, what you're saying is that the pace a horse can handle and still finsh strong is only important in 20% of races? And that a horse's desire to lead the pack is only a factor in 20% of races? And a horse's refusal to be passed by another hores is only a factor in 20% of races? My goodness, I guess I've been handicapping "animals" too long, today's horses must not fall into that category any more. Maybe it's time for me to be put to pasture.
NONE of that is measurable

[JackS]

Raybo- I use the standard and well known 1st, 2nd or third within 2 lengths at the first call and prefferably up to three races back although at times I will go many races back if necessary. i.e, 1st or 2nd back after a layoff ect.
For routes- first thru fourth up to 3 lengths back at the 2nd call.

[Tom]

Problem with Quirin is that it gives equal value to various performances:

Assume a 6 furlong dirt race:

Horse A

1-2
1-3
1-2

Horse B

3-2
3-2
3-2

A gets 8 speed points, with the bonus and extra point while B gets 7 with the bonus. Are you willing to say B has almosy an identical chance of leading today has A?

Under my system, A get 17 points while B gets 7 points.

Remember, this is to predict early speed, not winning.

[46zilzal]

Problem with Quirin is that it gives equal value to various performances:



AND wtihout regard to the pace of the race IT CAME FROM

[JackS]

46- I would never give up pace. Pace becomes the secondary qualifier/disqualifier after early speed has been identified. In most races I use a simple "s" to denote speed versus Quirins 2-8 points. If a 2 or 3 beats a 7 or 8 on pace, this would probably be my bet.

[46zilzal]

46- I would never give up pace. Pace becomes the secondary qualifier/disqualifier after early speed has been identified. In most races I use a simple "s" to denote speed versus Quirins 2-8 points. If a 2 or 3 beats a 7 or 8 on pace, this would probably be my bet.
good you will go far

[Tom]

AND wtihout regard to the pace of the race IT CAME FROM

Not meant to evaluate velocity, Totally different view of the race - looks only at a horse's prefered running style. Puts velocity figures into persepective.

[raybo]

JackS : "I use the standard and well known 1st, 2nd or third within 2 lengths at the first call"

Jack, so you are saying that you use only a third of a 6F race to determine who the contenders are? Do you totally ignore the other horses? Even the ones that may have gone on to win from such a "dismal" early performance? From my experience watching races, the first call is just the beginning of the run. To be only a few lgths back of the leader at the 1st call would never disqualify any horse automatically from my contender list. Chances are , the horses that are 1,2,3, or 4th at the stretch call would not necessarily all be one of those 3 animals you speak of at the 1st call. Rarely is the winner of a race not one of those 4 animals at the stretch call. Frankly, I just can't see the relevance of a position at such an early period in a race.

I'm, at least, glad to see that you use pace as a secondary qualification factor. That makes me feel a little better about your approach. I use that as my primary qualification factor.

OH, just a little note to 46zilzal, "NONE of that is measurable"; none of it may be measureable by you. Don't make rash statements of supposed fact about someone else's ability to "measure" when you have no personal knowledge of that person or his methods. That only makes you appear foolish and pompous. Now, if that's your opinion then maybe you should qualify your remark as such.

[46zilzal]

I am constantly amazed at the ongoing belief that animals somehow take on HUMAN traits when they race. Konrad Lorenz and other animal behaviorists related that it is HARD WIRED instincts that aids these animals survival. I love horses but on the cerbral scale of things they are NOT smart. They just run. When one passes another he is simply running faster and that point in the contest not thinking about running faster with COURAGE or some such baloney.

[raybo]

RE: "Konrad Lorenz and other animal behaviorists related that it is HARD WIRED instincts that aids these animals survival. I love horses but on the cerbral scale of things they are NOT smart. They just run"

Exactly! They don't think about the pace they are running, they run according to their particular running style (if the jockey allows them to, that is). If that running style includes a desire to run in front of the herd they will try to do that. If it includes a dislike for being passed by other horses they will try to prevent that from happening. These ARE NOT human traits, these are animal traits. These kinds of "class" behaviors are common in animals. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. Some horses have more heart than others. Whether or not you believe it or not, or whether or not you are able to measure it or not, is on you. It is not a numbers thing like most of the other data we use, but that doesn't mean it's not there or can't be measured subjectively. If you don't consider "class" in your calculations and analysis, then that's on you, too.

[JackS]

Raybo- The horse you describe would be a contender but since he runs and wins against a known speed bias at this track and at this distance, his chances are only as good as his record. A super record might be 2-1-1 per 5 starts or 3-2-2 per 8 starts. This would make him about a 40% play. These numbers will almost always be noted by ML and the public and be bet down below fair odds. Considering that this horse will be beat 60% of the time and probably by a horse with known speed, this is an easy go against.

[raybo]

"Raybo- The horse you describe would be a contender "

Cool, that's my boy! I'm not talking about my final selection for the win, only the contenders, at this point. That's just the first step in the process for figuring the winner. But if, like me, you bet only superfectas, getting hold of all the logical contenders for the stretch run is extremely important. Not only do I need to know the probable winner, I need to know what other horses will be in a contender position late and allow them to get in the money.

After all, this thread started as a discussion of the importance of early speed in determining the outcome. I'm still trying to figure out at what point that early speed should be measured. The first call seems to be a little early to me.

[46zilzal]

After all, this thread started as a discussion of the importance of early speed in determining the outcome. I'm still trying to figure out at what point that early speed should be measured. The first call seems to be a little early to me.
too early to make a difference...2nd call is the pivot point usually >60% into the contest

[raybo]

RE: " too early to make a difference...2nd call is the pivot point usually >60% into the contest "

That's pretty much my feeling, too. I am sure a reasonably accurate number could be calculated for the 2nd call (similar to Bris' E2, but adjusted and verified). An even more impressive accomplishment, at least in my eyes, would be to do the same thing for the stretch call. As stated earlier, that is a sticky one, because of the different distances and track layouts, etc. I haven't given up yet, but it is certainly a tester.

[46zilzal]

most DIRT races are fairly well decided around the 2nd call....silky sullivans abound but never get up

[shots]

Is early speed or ep more important in real cheap races?

[JackS]

Shots- Maybe but I think I'd err on the side of track bias no matter what the class.
Two G1 horses facing off on a speed favoring track with equal records, one early and one late, prefer the early.

[maxwell]

I use a system based on the 1st. or 2nd. call - sprints only.

Perimeters :

5 - 5 1/2 f = 2 3/4 lengths behind

6 - 6 1/2 f = 3 3/4 lengths behind

7 - 7 1/2 f = 4 3/4 lengths behind

If a horse beat half the field to either call while being outside the length perimeter, I give 1 point PROVIDED there were at least 8 runners in the field.

Inside the perimeter :

I used to give 1 point for being within the length perimeter and 1 point for being 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. I no longer get hung up 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. If a horse is 5th by 2 lengths, it gets 2 points. The reason for this is that I use only past races that fit the class on final time, distance, and betting value.

I will use as an example a horse I picked on the selection board: Catch My Cat at Aqueduct. It won at 8/1 or so in a 25K clm race.

There are 12 past races showing but only four really mattered.

6f - 35K - 3rd by 2 1/2 - 3rd by 1 1/2 - finish : 6th by 3 - 8.30/1 - 79 Beyer - 4 points.

6f - 25K * - 5th by 1 3/4 - 5th by 2 1/4 - finish : 4th by 2 - 7.40/1 - 80 Beyer - 4 points.

6f - 40K - 86 Beyer - finish : 2nd by 2 1/2 - 12.50/1 - up close all the way - 4 points.

7f - 70K - 54 Beyer - finish : 8th by 16 - 7.70/1 - up close for 1/2 mile. - 4 points.

The quality of the last race was roughly a 94 Beyer ( 16x 2.5 + the 54 he got)

This guy easily qualified on early speed, class, and price.

For any horse to qualify, it must get as many points as it has qualifying races - during the 1st. OR 2nd. call.

Ex:

2 x
x 1
2 2
x 2
x x

Qualifies : 5 races, 5 points during the 2nd. call.

And then there's the little matter of jock, trainer, form, and pace. :D

I'm just starting to learn about pace. There's NO end to this!

[Tom]

Hate to disagree, but many races are decided well before the FIRST call. A need to lead horse that is out gamed early is through, generally. Second call mean nothing if you have already given up, and it happens every day. This was a given according to Jim bradshaw - the race starts when the gate opens.

This is why that big media horse lost the BC Sprint last year - he was out raced early. The most potent indicator of long shots in HTR remains E1, first call velocity, in combination with other factors.

[shanta]

Hate to disagree, but many races are decided well before the FIRST call. A need to lead horse that is out gamed early is through, generally. Second call mean nothing if you have already given up, and it happens every day. This was a given according to Jim bradshaw - the race starts when the gate opens.

This is why that big media horse lost the BC Sprint last year - he was out raced early. The most potent indicator of long shots in HTR remains E1, first call velocity, in combination with other factors.

Tom I agree totally with you.

"Hat" told me on the phone 13 years ago " Son the gate is gonna open. A horse is gonna go to the lead and the others will either catch him or they won't.Remember that".

Pace is a bitch.

Richie :)

[raybo]

Ok, that's fine. You guys keep using E1 and I'll keep working on getting better. I don't remember seeing gobs of wire to wire races, maybe I'm blind. Anyway, I've tried it already and it doesn't work too well for me. I'll still keep pluggin away at some ideas that have been nagging at me for a good while now.

[46zilzal]

OI don't remember seeing gobs of wire to wire races, maybe I'm blind.

there are LOTS of them, you just need to know where to look Aqueduct inner for example

[JackS]

Raybo- There's plenty of good prices based on speed. Typical of these types is a quick break and then a just as quick fade. Don't be fooled too often, this is often the first sign of a horse coming into form. Catch the price while it's hot. Should this horse fail but come close, he really will be a short price next time out which might make your off the pace runner an even better bet.
This is a game of decisions as much as it is looking for the probable winner.

[raybo]

RE: "This is a game of decisions as much as it is looking for the probable winner."

I've been in the game since 1978, you don't have to tell me about decisions. Been "rollin my own" forever. I have never gone with what is popular or easy. I don't care about $6 horses either. As a matter of fact, getting the winner is only 1/4 of what I do. I have many more "decisions" to make than almost everyone who posts here.

[Lefty]

RE: "This is a game of decisions as much as it is looking for the probable winner."

I've been in the game since 1978, you don't have to tell me about decisions. Been "rollin my own" forever. I have never gone with what is popular or easy. I don't care about $6 horses either. As a matter of fact, getting the winner is only 1/4 of what I do. I have many more "decisions" to make than almost everyone who posts here.

Raybo, yourstatement is intresting. Why do you have more decisions to make than most of us or even rest of us? I assume we're talkin horse racing, and it strikes me as interesting.

[GaryG]

RE: "This is a game of decisions as much as it is looking for the probable winner."

I've been in the game since 1978, you don't have to tell me about decisions. Been "rollin my own" forever. I have never gone with what is popular or easy. I don't care about $6 horses either. As a matter of fact, getting the winner is only 1/4 of what I do. I have many more "decisions" to make than almost everyone who posts here.This game must be more complicated than I thought. I just pick em, bet em and record the results. Maybe ignorance is bliss..:eek:

[maxwell]

I have no idea why anyone would worry about what happens before the 1st. call. Sure, it's great if a horse can fly from the get-go, but I haven't seen too many Ruffians around lately. Too many things happen when the gate opens to get too caught up in that stuff. If a horse is compromised at the start, I'll skip the 1st. call and give them a chance to get back in the game - provided they made some kind of move.

Need-to-lead types are pretty much a waste of time unless they are dropping down or catching a soft field. Not my type of play.

[46zilzal]

Need-to-lead types are pretty much a waste of time unless they are dropping down or catching a soft field. Not my type of play.
depends on the VENUE and the make up of the field. If one waits, these types are goldmines because EVERYONE assumes they will quit...

for some strange reason, when it is very cold, these types DON'T stop

[raybo]

Lefty, I play only superfectas. Never bet win , place, or show, exactas or tris. The winner is only part of the answer for me.

[46zilzal]

in the long run, the spectre of pure randomness, makes you realize that you have to bet exotics

[raybo]

RE: "in the long run, the spectre of pure randomness, makes you realize that you have to bet exotics"

Well, I don't guess I would have put it that way, but I guess it boils down to the same thing. Why bet $10 to win $30 when I can bet $10 and win $2000 or more? Don't make sense to me. Sure I hit winners more often than I hit supers but, the ratio is much, much better. I have it working well enough, so that, basically, when I hit the winner I have the super often enough to make it the way to go. And with the advent of the 10c supers, the pools are growing tremendously. Playing right into my hands.

[46zilzal]

the really great thing about earlier horses is that they have to be caught. Don't know how many times the other riders misjudge how much ground they have to make up

[Tom]

Max,

One of the most important thinkg I look at while evaluationg the early pace match ups is the break call. I think I've posted aboutthis before, but if you have two speead horses, who figure to be dueling, look at the break call for a possible edge:

A

Break FCP
4 1
3 2
4 1


B

1 1
1 2
1 1


B might get the quick pop on the A and be long gone before the duel ever developes.

And those need the lead horses - you have to know which paceline to use. You might have to go back 6 lines to find a race where he is the lone speed, like he is today - use that line. Many, many nice winners come from 6,7,8 lines back when it is legit to throw out all the recent raes. You see this all the time at cheap track for $5,000 nw1,6 mos type conditions.

[maxwell]

Tom,

I assume price comes into play? I will go with a front-runner as he obviously fits the profile of speed. But if can only carry his speed when he's 2 or 3/1, I pass. That's why I play with an odds line ( 6.50 --> 12.50 ). I don't use race lines in the pp's that are lower than 6/1.

In some ways I am some sort of pace 'capper as I look for horses that can adapt to anything that comes their way.

I just picked up Davidowitz's newly revised book: Betting Thoroughbreds. My head was spinning just breezing through the chapter on pace. Lots to learn yet!

[raybo]

RE: "the really great thing about earlier horses is that they have to be caught. Don't know how many times the other riders misjudge how much ground they have to make up"

The really bad thing about early burners is that they very often burn out well before the finish. They don't have to be caught, they turn around and walk back to the real contenders.

[46zilzal]

The really bad thing about early burners is that they very often burn out well before the finish. They don't have to be caught, they turn around and walk back to the real contenders.

DEPENDS ON THE VENUE you follow. My major efforts are at tracks where they DON'T back up that much day in, day out

[raybo]

RE: "DEPENDS ON THE VENUE you follow. My major efforts are at tracks where they DON'T back up that much day in, day out"

Good for you. Making a profit there, day in, day out? Never mind, good luck with whatever it is you do.

[First_Place]

"Horseracing's like the stock market except you don't have to wait as long to go broke."

Speak for yourself. :D

FP

[maxwell]

Tom,

After reading your post yesterday morning, I decided to really focus on the break and run-up to the first call. Sure enough, the horse that got the jump was in contention most of the time. A couple ran a brave second to strong faves - 4/5 and 6/5 I believe. If the faves had faltered, those gatebusters would have been home free.

I also noticed how the riders tried to get into the first or second tier as quick as possible; there's a flow to the process that is easy to see if you make the effort.

I will add gate speed to my arsenal; incorporate it into my playable running lines.

Horses that break 1st. 2nd. or 3rd. are no-brainers; it's the others that you have to get a handle on. If a horse can beat 1/2 of the field to the front in an 8, 10, or 12-field race, that might seem reasonable?

Now I have one more headache to worry about. :D

Thanks for the tip.

[46zilzal]

horses that break well are great, but MANY horses postionally prominant early have NO CHANCE. IF the pp's don't tell you that an animal will be prominant at the second call (usually top five), FORGET THEM.

I don't know how often the ENTIRE field comes home with each and every horse showing a recent line predicting it will have a performance putting it close to the 2nd call. THE ENTIRE FIELD.

[maxwell]

46,

Horses that break well also have a better chance of getting out of the way of the chain-reaction that often occurs when a horse ducks in or out. Some starts look like something right out of a bowling alley.

I agree the 2nd. call is crucial in sprints; if a horse doesn't have tactical position going into the turn, the party is usually over.

[46zilzal]

routes too

[Tom]

Max,

I find that to be a good tie breaker many times. If a horse breaks three lengths behind another speedball, but makes it up by the first call, you will see two horses, mabye a head apart, who ran 2 furlongs in 22.2, but one of them had to be used much harder to get there - it takes a lot to make up a length in the early part of the race where all the horses are fresh.

[46zilzal]

- it takes a lot to make up a length in the early part of the race where all the horses are fresh.


what? and you went to all those Sartin programs and came out with this belief. remember those track ratio's Belmont is a 1:2 and a track like Aqueduct or Keeneland is a 1:4??? takes 4 units of late to make up for one unit lost early

[Tom]

Exactly my point - if A nd B are early horses and B had to make up three lengths on the first fraction to get even with A, then who would you rather have in the stretch?

[pandy]

I'd like to see a comparison of Speed Points method vs Bris E1 (or E2). Seems to me that E1 or E2 will work just as well, probably better, than anyone's Speed Points method.

Pandy

[JackS]

Ever notice this scenerio? Your known speed of speed fails to break with the other speed and as Tom points out he is now at a huge dis-advantage should he rush up to take the lead. Your only hope now is that the horse is rateable from off the pace and will be able to use his conserved and unused speed in the stretch to run down the cheaper stuff on the front end.
It doesn't happen very often and probably takes a degree of class to pull off a win in this circumstance, but it may be your only hope.

[Light]

Didn't realize this discussion was about speed rather than the book which seems to have recieved a :ThmbDown: This discussion is probably as good or better than the book.

My two cents on speed is there are 2 types of speed horses. Need to lead and those that can stay and find another gear and even catch a rabbit horse on the front end. The best study on speed would be to find races where there are no closers and all the entrants are speed types.

I've found 2 scenarios from those races. One is sometimes there is a speed of the speed that wires all the other speed. Pizzolla's fulcrum method sometimes is a good indicator in those races.

Second would be a race like yesterday's 8th @ Aqu. All speed types.The favorite,Tiger,looked like a speed type that could stay.Ran second. Using Pizzolla's method,I realized the #8(Man of Danger) was the speed of the speed. He did get a clear lead,but again the Pizzola method proved he can't stay if the pace is too hot.

The interesting horse and winner was #9 Anew($34). At first glance he looked like a need the lead type too and was stepping up in class. Allthough he had a combination of sprints and routes,he faded in every one of his starts except the race 2 back where he ran even. What sold me was the comment of his last race,a wire to wire job,ran away when asked. So I realized this horse had more in the tank and was a horse in transition and was learning how to find another gear on the front end and that's why the trainer knew he could stand the class raise. So you had 2 horses in this front runners only type of race who qualified with an ability to stay if they did or did not get the lead and they ran 1-2.

Using the Bris LP's on wire to wire horses has also proved helpful. At first glance some horses look like monsters wining by 5 lenths in wire to wire fashion.But if their LP's are weak compared to other speed,they are really bad bets in speed duels.

Of course talking about all this is alot easier than applying it in live races.

[46zilzal]

that one was a predicted closer and the speed of the speed was there but looked weak as you predicted (shipper lines from Gulfstream usually project too fast at Aqueuduct)

[46zilzal]

BOTTOM LINE: any horse has a CHANCE that is within the top 5 second call on dirt.

[Light]

Belmont is a 1:2 and a track like Aqueduct or Keeneland is a 1:4??? takes 4 units of late to make up for one unit lost early

What are you talking about in the above statement and how do you get those numbers?

[Light]

that one was a predicted closer ...

Predicted by who? The first and 2nd place finishers @AQu 8th yesterday did not win any races off the pace. Their only wins were w-w. Their best closing races were even races finishing 4th and 6th respectively.

[46zilzal]

What are you talking about in the above statement and how do you get those numbers?
ratios of early to late speed. Speed tracks require 4 units of late energy to make up for one lost early....Tracks that are more evelnly balanced, i.e. Belmont have the ratio 1:2

[46zilzal]

Predicted by who? The first and 2nd place finishers @AQu 8th yesterday did not win any races off the pace. Their only wins were w-w. Their best closing races were even races finishing 4th and 6th respectively.
ENERGY distribution NOT POSITION dictated that

[46zilzal]

styles on Anew's 1st,2nd,4th, 5th lines back. An interesting horse: a positional front runner that is a sustained runner

[Light]

Zil

From the Bris pacelines I selected I had Anew's LP tops at 99,Introspect second @ 98 and Tiger 3rd @ 95. This was the Trifecta. The E2 +Lp had Tiger first with 205 and Anew second with 203. Wish horseracing was allways this clean cut.

I think we are saying the same things about Anew in a different way.

ratios of early to late speed. Speed tracks require 4 units of late energy to make up for one lost early....Tracks that are more evelnly balanced, i.e. Belmont have the ratio 1:2

I still don't understand how this ratio is derived and what difference it makes.

[46zilzal]

we are seeing the same things differing ways, but this SPRINT was a rarity with a SINGLE speedball and many sustained ones. These are the energy distributions for the entire field. ALSO I never base a selection on a single performance since I am looking for a PERFORMER, not the performance. When a style is dominant, it repeats.

those ratios were developed by people elucidating why some courses favored certain horse's running styles and found that the fair courses (Belmont and others) showed that per ONE unit of energy lost early, it required TWO units late to come out even at the end. At a speedball track (Hastings, inner Aqueduct, Fort Erie) that ratio climbs to ONE unit lost early requires FOUR units to make up late, really favoring early dominance.

[Light]

Track bias is largely due to energy absorption by the surface which is constantly affected by various factors.To say one surface is a 1:2 ratio and another is a 1:4 would be unreliable as a fixed ratio.

[46zilzal]

it changes DAY TO DAY of course. those are TRENDS to consider overall. ONE GOES BY WHAT THE TRACK IS PLAYING TODAY