I have a question

[turfbar]

TO anybody and everybody I pose this question in your opinion (and you can back it up with research or data), is it better to bet on a horse who won last race in a below par time or a horse who also won in PAR time but won by many lenghts lets say 4 open lenghts if these 2 horses were to meet 2day in the same race. Please no other variables just on those facts alone.


Turfbar

[Pgh. Gere]

In My experiance, the horse that won by open lengths is probably more likely to repeat. Probably outclassed the field in his last and had something in reserve. Secondly, in your question, he achieved par while the other did not. That can also be a good approach for todays race, use as contenders the horses that have performed to par or better and eliminate the other(s). In the scenario you propose, probably gonna get lower odds on the big winner verses the winner who ran below par time. Would need longer odds or another factor to take the winner who ran below par last out.

[Overlay]

In My experiance, the horse that won by open lengths is probably more likely to repeat. Probably outclassed the field in his last and had something in reserve. Secondly, in your question, he achieved par while the other did not. That can also be a good approach for todays race, use as contenders the horses that have performed to par or better and eliminate the other(s). In the scenario you propose, probably gonna get lower odds on the big winner verses the winner who ran below par time. Would need longer odds or another factor to take the winner who ran below par last out.

Maybe I interpreted turfbar's original post incorrectly, but when the post referred to a "below par time", I took that to mean a time that was faster than par, rather than slower, so that the horse that won by open lengths did so in a slower time than the horse that did not. Essentially, I understood turfbar to be asking whether you give greater weight to a performance in which a horse won in a slower time, but did so by a large margin which indicated that the horse was not fully extended, and still had something in reserve; or to a performance in which a horse won in a time that was faster than par, but where the horse may have been required to expend more effort or energy in doing so. Perhaps turfbar could clarify that point.

Personally, I think there are good arguments for both horses. I think statistics have verified the positive effect on subsequent performance of an "all-out", duelling battle for the lead in the late stages of the last race (contrary to the "conventional wisdom" that such a drive drains a horse, and causes it to run poorly in its next effort). At the same time, I seem to recall that a so-called "big win" is also a positive indicator for subsequent performance. I guess between the two, I would favor the horse that won while being more severely tested, especially if it ran faster in relation to par than the horse that won by open lengths.

[Pgh. Gere]

Overlay

Oh, below as in faster than par verses just par but by open lengths. You are probably right, guess Turfbar will need to clarify, if so I'd tend to agree with you that the first horse may be the better option. He could regress off of the faster than par performance and still win whereas the "big win" in average time could be A)he won with something in reserve or B) since was only in par time, perhaps he destroyed a weak field.

With no other varibles known, I'd probably take the one who won big.

[turfbar]

to clarify below par time in my world is 108.3 for six furlongs
133.0 for mile thats what i would call below par etc etc. etc

very interesting so far

Turfbar

[maxwell]

Is it better to get 2-1 or 4-1?

The public pounds the odds on situations like that into dust ... chalk dust.

[Murph]

The big win - above par scenario deserves extra consideration every time it happens at your track. The more you can learn about why these efforts are superior, the farther ahead of others without the additional info you will be.

Trips, pace, class, conditions of the race and the racetrack on that day all can lead to a better understanding of your figures when you are comparing them on horses running back.

I evaluate these "big wins" for key race consideration and try to determine when a returning runner is an overbet "false" favorite or even better, an overlooked contender.

Study those races and take advantage of the situations that arise when the crowd money may not have looked deep enough into the biggie race.

Murph
Man I LOVE handicapping!

[jazz]

This is probably a dumb question, but I am brand-new to horse racing.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Par is average, so below par horse faced tougher competition. I say bet the below par horse.

[Koko]

I think statistics have verified the positive effect on subsequent performance of an "all-out", duelling battle for the lead in the late stages of the last race (contrary to the "conventional wisdom" that such a drive drains a horse, and causes it to run poorly in its next effort).

I'm curious, where did you get ahold of data that points to such a concept?

[Light]

That's an interesting question but i don't think you can answer it accurately without seeing the PP's of the 2 horses involved. How did the horse who won by many lengths win. Was it an uncontested pace. Was it a FTS. What class etc.

I did come accross a similar scenario not too long ago at a race @Aqu. Five horse field,all had won their last race.A sprint for 3yo's only.All 5 could fit in your model of horse A or B. At first I thought,its too hard,I cant throw anyone out. Then I found a big clue to help me throw out the horse who won by many lengths and had the best final time and looked to be the speed of the race. His closing pace was well behind everyone else's ability to close including the second best speed in the field.He popped and stopped. Then this race did conform to the Pizzolla method of who has run succesfully(in the past) to the fulcrum or pace of the race. Which left the favorite out and he did run out. So my point is you cannot answer your question accurately without the whole picture.

[Overlay]

I'm curious, where did you get ahold of data that points to such a concept?

That was one of the findings noted in William Quirin's Winning at the Races. (I think Mike Nunamaker's more recent Modern Impact Values also pointed to the continuing validity of this concept. (at least at the time of his study).)

[rastajenk]

I think its best if golf is left to be the only sport in which being below par is better than being above par. It's like reading from left to right: every par chart I've ever seen has faster times/pars at the top and works down from there. Thus, if a final time is quicker than par, it will be above the par line on a chart, and, if converted to a numerical rating, will be greater than par.

This, of course, doesn't anwer the original question, but to think about it in any other way makes my head hurt. :confused:

The older I get, the less stock I put in the "left something in reserve" philosophy. If a horse wins by many and gets a rating clearly above par (by my definition), then he may be ready for the step up in class, but if he wins by daylight in par time give or take a couple ticks, he most likely faced a poor grouping within that particular class level, and would be a bet against the next time.

[Murph]

This is probably a dumb question, but I am brand-new to horse racing.

HI Jazz,
Par time is the average final time of a race run at the same track, distance,
surface and class. Par times are set for each class of runners, maidens, (non-winners) claiming horses, which are for sale in every claiming race, and allowance runners. The allowance class horses are the fastest and will most likely advance to stake winners. Every horse must win his allowance condition races to prove he can run fast enough to WIN money in the larger purse races.

Par times are used to calculate speed figures. Depending on the methods used to make the speed figures, each class of runner has a par time average. The speed figure is higher or lower than this par-average.

You may enjoy reading everything at http://www.turfpedia.com (http://www.turfpedia.com/) if you'd like to learn more. It's a great place to start!

Plus, thanks for the opportunity to answer your fine question.

Murph

[Murph]

I think its best if golf is left to be the only sport in which being below par is better than being above par. It's like reading from left to right: every par chart I've ever seen has faster times/pars at the top and works down from there. Thus, if a final time is quicker than par, it will be above the par line on a chart, and, if converted to a numerical rating, will be greater than par.

This, of course, doesn't anwer the original question, but to think about it in any other way makes my head hurt. :confused:


It just depends on the methods. Ragozin and co. have done an excellent job with below par type figs. I think that's what gave them their greatest appeal. Too many adjustments with their figs and I prefer too few.

Above or below par, there are so many types of figures being made it CAN make your head hurt. I say just understand and analyze the ones you prefer. I like mine the best usually, but I'm biased to understanding them. That's what make the figures so interesting to me.

Murph

[RaceIsClosed]

TO anybody and everybody I pose this question in your opinion (and you can back it up with research or data), is it better to bet on a horse who won last race in a below par time or a horse who also won in PAR time but won by many lenghts lets say 4 open lenghts if these 2 horses were to meet 2day in the same race. Please no other variables just on those facts alone.


Turfbar

All else equal, higher figures are better.

[hurrikane]

Never, at any time, is 'all else equal'

[46zilzal]

Never, at any time, is 'all else equal'
agree 100%

[twindouble]

agree 100%

Well I only agree, 99.9999999999999%. :cool:

[classhandicapper]

TO anybody and everybody I pose this question in your opinion (and you can back it up with research or data), is it better to bet on a horse who won last race in a below par time or a horse who also won in PAR time but won by many lenghts lets say 4 open lenghts if these 2 horses were to meet 2day in the same race. Please no other variables just on those facts alone.

Turfbar

For me it would matter how much faster the smaller margin winner was.

I'm not a big believer in the accuracy of speed figures down to the 1/5 second. When I look at multiple sets of high quality figures they often vary by a couple lengths either way. Sometimes as much at 3-4 lengths.

If it was one length or so difference in speed, I'd probably go with the bigger winner assuming he may actually have run faster than the figure indicates. The figure just may not reflect it because of accuracy issues. Plus a big winner might have had more in the tank - especially if he was drawing off through the stretch.

If the was a several length difference in speed, then I'd go with the faster horse.

Im most cases like this you just have acknowlege that the horses are too similar to seperate. The major factor is odds.