PACE

[PMANN1]

This is a question for D. Schmidt and others on the board.
In a past post (Response to Game Theory) Dick had said,
"Personally , I wouldn't use pace figures. There are too many horses that are strong in the early going, but fade time after time. I think you need an overall rating, but not a final time rating either. ..." (I hope I didn't take this out of context.) Then you mention HSH and comparing a horse against it itself and then the field.
As one of the Authors of Pace Makes the Race do you feel TPR and other pace ratings are no longer effective? Or do you still use pace ratings in conjuction with class and/or form? I know you use HSH which uses a power number. I'm sure it has a speed or pace component in it but I'm not sure what else makes up the final number. Do you find the individual fraction pace ratings to be less effective?
You said you don't pay attention to recency also.
What is unimportant or what can be ignored in handicapping that is commonly used by others? Some say trainers, some recency?
I've checked out a couple of other boards recently and the information here is definately the best all encompassing information around.

[ranchwest]

In my experience, if you find what I call a dominant pace horse, one that unquestionably looks good, it will be bet down almost every time. Such types don't show a lot of profit. This points up the heavy emphasis on pace handicapping.

The trick is to find horses that will run TODAY, not ones that ran well in the past. Toss the horses that will not run back to their recent races and find a horse that will improve.

[NormanTD]

QUOTE "The trick is to find horses that will run TODAY, not ones that ran well in the past. Toss the horses that will not run back to their recent races and find a horse that will improve." RanchWest UNQUOTE

Well, I will be the first to say that while I'm aware of improving horses, I've not found much in the way of how to pick up on it other maybe a few of the more obvious.

The few I know to look for are dropping in purse/class, some early speed in last race or maybe some closing in the last race. But that's about it for me. And I've heard of things such as improving speed figures, decreasing number of beaten lengths but again, these are not from first hand knowledge.

RanchWest, would you please take a little time and maybe expand on things to look for to find an improving horse?

Thanks.

[ranchwest]

I try to find a horse who shows some back class and a running style that fits the track. I stay away from layoff horses. These things combined with some ideas that evolved out of William Scott's ideas on form are useful for me.

I'm very selective. I'm currently following about three tracks and only get about one play a day. Every once in a while, maybe once a week, a horse I have highly rated gets overlooked by the public and wins.

[Tom]

I don't agree that solid pace horses are betting favorites - it depends on what you use to identify the pace standout. The Crammer pace numbers are good and not widely used by the general public, so they are hidden value. I have caught some nice prices at Saratoga already this year, one of them paying something like $36 on horse with numbers that put him way ahead of anything else in the files at the first two calls, with a competitive final number to boot. He was coming of a 60+day layoff after two starts ( an angle by the "other" Crammer) and his Beyers were 10-12 points below everything else in the race.
At Finger Lakes recently, there was a race with 7 E horses, all looking evenly matched on times at the first two calls. One horse, however, had a huge early advantage, something like 134 to a 109 for the next closest one. He dropped off to miserable by the second call and looked terrible in the final numbers, but the key here was after 2 furlongs, only one horse in the race figured to be on the lead, in its prefered running position - all the other E horses were running where they could not win and the plug held on. Paid something like $18-20 - a gift. Why would you bet on an E horse that could not get the lead? The 6-5 favorite had the best Beyers in the field, by a large margin, but all earned when running on the lead, unopposed. Alone, he could run 60-70 Beyers; whenever he was challenged early or did not get the lead, his numbers were in the 30-40 range. Today, he did not figure to get the lead and didn't. The only problem with these standout horses is that you don't get them every day, but you get a few a week that pay real nice, so all you have to do is not go broke trying to force plays until the real thing comes along.

[BillW]

Tom,

Oaklawn is the breeding ground for that exact sort of thing. Two, 3 maybe 4 a week at $15 to $20 completely overlooked (I'm using Bris/Tsn and not a less widely distributed figure)

Bill

[ranchwest]

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I define dominant pace as a horse who shows to be clearly strong both early and late, a seemingly obvious horse.

Almost everyone's pace numbers and speed numbers pick up on the horse, but many such horses left their best run in their last race and are doing good to finish second this go around.

Basically, I'm referring to what a lot of people recognize as the too perfect horse.

I'm not saying that good pace handicappers can't still find horses at good odds. I'm just saying that there are so many bad pace handicappers that any horse that is one of these dominant pace types is going to be overbet.

[cj]

Originally posted by ranchwest
In my experience, if you find what I call a dominant pace horse, one that unquestionably looks good, it will be bet down almost every time. Such types don't show a lot of profit. This points up the heavy emphasis on pace handicapping.

The trick is to find horses that will run TODAY, not ones that ran well in the past. Toss the horses that will not run back to their recent races and find a horse that will improve.

RW,

What method are you using to find these dominant pace horses? I find plenty who aren't bet like they should be, same as Tom. Anyone recall War Emblem?

By the way Tom, WE was definitely an E who probably couldn't make the lead Sunday!

CJ

[ranchwest]

Everyone thought a horse had to be a closer to win the Derby. They just have to be able to get the distance. I had WE on top, but my last elimination caused me to miss the bottom of the exacta. I didn't make that mistake on the Preakness, I hit that exacta. And, yes, I posted it on this board.

[Dick Schmidt]

Pmann,

I'll try to answer your questions.


"This is a question for D. Schmidt and others on the board.
In a past post (Response to Game Theory) Dick had said,
"Personally , I wouldn't use pace figures. There are too many horses that are strong in the early going, but fade time after time. I think you need an overall rating, but not a final time rating either. ..." (I hope I didn't take this out of context.) Then you mention HSH and comparing a horse against it itself and then the field. "

Yes, this is a bit out of context. I was replying to a question about using one number to rate horses, like the Beyer number, to chart improvements and declines in a horse's performance. Sort of like the "Sheets." I was warning against using a one dimentional rating because you would wind up with one dimentional horses.


"As one of the Authors of Pace Makes the Race do you feel TPR and other pace ratings are no longer effective? Or do you still use pace ratings in conjuction with class and/or form? I know you use HSH which uses a power number. I'm sure it has a speed or pace component in it but I'm not sure what else makes up the final number. Do you find the individual fraction pace ratings to be less effective?"


What in the world gave you that idea? The strength of TPR is in that first word, TOTAL. We look at the complete race, not just the early part of it. So many handicappers seem to think that pace handicapping means early speed handicapping. TPR actually puts more wieght on the final third of the race, giving it the same weight as the first two thirds.

As for HSH, I'm not sure what makes up the final numbers either. I just use them, I don't care what they are. When you hear people talking about "pace doesn't work" or "Beyer numbers don't work" they aren't saying that they don't win as often, they mean they don't pay as much. Remember that there was a time that Andy made his living with the "Beyer numbers", but today, though the win percentage has remained about the same, they lose more than the take. Same with pace, as it has become more popular, it wins just as frequently, but the winners don't pay as much.


"You said you don't pay attention to recency also.
What is unimportant or what can be ignored in handicapping that is commonly used by others? Some say trainers, some recency?"


It is my personal oppinion that whatever is being used by most bettors is best ignored or discounted. Trainer handicapping is gaining in popularity, so I ignore it. I never look to see who is training or riding a horse I'm going to bet on. Recency is also overbet, with so many horses coming off layoffs (year round racing), people get hung up on it. I'm sure HSH has a display somewhere that tells me days off, but I never look at it. This is also the reason I've moved away from pure pace handicapping, it is too widespread and thus the value is diminished.



"I've checked out a couple of other boards recently and the information here is definately the best all encompassing information around."


Yup.


Dick

[Tom]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski


By the way Tom, WE was definitely an E who probably couldn't make the lead Sunday!

CJ

Using the last race, these are the Crammer pace figs for key horses' first two calls:
Momentum 140 147
Sky Jack 156 154
Bosque R 159 151
War Emblem 126 136
Came Home 135 134
This was the key to the race, for me - use a pace line for WE wehn he didn't have thelead at the first call. Unfortunately, it was the same logic that led me to throw out Came Home, too.
But hey, that's racing. I went with Momentum 1 unit win 3 units place, so I made a little.