What is Pace????

[Handiman]

I've read alot of books on handicapping. I have a fairly large library. But I would like to see some answers from members here, on what is their take on Pace. How do you see it....measure it....what indicators do you use to develop a view of pace?

Is it how fast first half of race is run...is it how fast last half was run? Do you break it down by furlongs? Does it depend on distance? And once you decide what pace is, how do you in general, relate that to todays race...about to run?

I'd really like to see some responses here. I think it would be interesting to see differing views, if there are any.

Handiman

[Tom]

Pace is how the races is run, in terms of times for the various segments. Typically, you have three segments, F1,F2 andF3. Added together, they equal the final time, but it is not a clsoed loop system - that is, you cannot mix and match the three times and still get the same total. Energy expended early is lost late at a greater rate.
PAce included horse's running styles and class to a degree - if opne horse gets a lone lead, he can be dangerous and run times he will never run if challeneged. If several horses all wnat the early lead, only one will really have it, the others either challenging him for it or pressing it. Not having the lead might cause a horse to quit and never approach his true petential.
There is stress when two horses hook up, and one might have the ability (class?) to put the pedal down for a few yards and blow the other way - not enough you will be able to pick it out of the racing times.
I measure pace using velocity at each call, abd using pace figures at the pace call and final fractions.
I use speed points and running styles to qualify the early pace, at the first call.
Pace will affect final times, so I keep track of fast and slow paced races, and I will excuse a horse for a poor final figure if the pace was slow.

I'm sure we will get some interesting replies to this one......there are other thread here - do a search - that got into pace pretty deep.

[DJofSD]

There is stress when two horses hook up....

The equine equivalent of being or not being in the zone.

P.S. Dial up internet sucks!

[46zilzal]

Think of it as how the horses will run to the second call, evaluate that. Then, how will they run the third fraction.

I vote for second call most of the time on dirt. Third fraction, most of the time for blade runners (grass).

A good simple explanation was one a fellow gave at a seminar I attended. He said think about running around your block. The first time jog slowly and then run the last part full out. Rest. Try it again and run full out for 100 yards. See how fast you run that last part the second time. Pace does that.

[Vegas711]

Pace the way I look at is a series of individual matchups, ie what effect will the collection of the other horses have on the horse you are looking at.Horse racing in extremely simple terms is just a bunch of horses running with and against other horses. Pace needs to take into consideration both position of the individual horse and the horses velocity or how he will be able to cope with the ability of his competition.For me the thing that I like to do is visualize beginning at the first 1/4 where all the horses will be positioned and again at the 1/2 mile point, then looking at the pace setters estimate the 1/2 mile time, from this I get a feel for who will be advantaged from this. The final fraction is important but only if you take into consideration what the horse has done in the first part of the race. A horse will a huge final fraction unless he is within striking position will not get up there in time to win, most of the time these types get 2nd or 3rd.

[classhandicapper]

Pace is how the races is run, in terms of times for the various segments. Typically, you have three segments, F1,F2 andF3. Added together, they equal the final time, but it is not a clsoed loop system - that is, you cannot mix and match the three times and still get the same total. Energy expended early is lost late at a greater rate.
PAce included horse's running styles and class to a degree - if opne horse gets a lone lead, he can be dangerous and run times he will never run if challeneged. If several horses all wnat the early lead, only one will really have it, the others either challenging him for it or pressing it. Not having the lead might cause a horse to quit and never approach his true petential.
There is stress when two horses hook up, and one might have the ability (class?) to put the pedal down for a few yards and blow the other way - not enough you will be able to pick it out of the racing times.
I measure pace using velocity at each call, abd using pace figures at the pace call and final fractions.
I use speed points and running styles to qualify the early pace, at the first call.
Pace will affect final times, so I keep track of fast and slow paced races, and I will excuse a horse for a poor final figure if the pace was slow.

I'm sure we will get some interesting replies to this one......there are other thread here - do a search - that got into pace pretty deep.

I couldn't agree more! What he said!!!!

[Dick Schmidt]

Pace can be a difficult concept to explain or write about; I've been trying to nail it for years. However, it is extremely easy to understand physically. Here is what you do: go outside and run around the block, or down the street a quarter mile or so. Start off nice and slow and build to a big finish. Now wait a while, or a day or two and do it again. This time go hard at the start. Sprint the first 100 yards, have a fast friend race you from the start, whatever it takes. Then finish the course. By the end, you will have a deep and abiding understanding of pace and the penalty lactic acid extracts for going too hard, too early. That's pace.

Called "hitting the wall" by runners, having a "piano dropped on your back" by swimmers and "the bonk" by bicyclists, it can hit and destroy any athlete no matter how strong or fast. It almost cost Floyd Landis the Tour de France when he "bonked" on a long climb. It can cost any horse any race, and if you want to play profitably, you need to get your mind around it. If you haven't read it, get "Modern Pace Handicapping" by Tom Brohamer. Tom is a fellow who really understands pace and does a decent job of describing it.

Dick

[Cesario!]

Very well put, Dick. I've always thought of it that way -- sort of an "incremental" view of pace. The effect of a 1/5 of a second in the early part of a race has an far greater effect than a 1/5 of a second on final time.

In my early handicapping days, I always felt that a horse has an ideal early fraction that would lead to his best performance. I've refined this concept, but it still remains at the core of my pace handicapping.

[Handiman]

Thanks to everyone that has offered up some excellent ideas. I have read Brohammer's book63+0 several years ago, when it first came out. I have tried many different angles in relation to pace. I'd be the first one to agree that there is more than one way to skin a race.

Since the winner of almost every race is in the top 4 at the head of the stretch, I've recently begun to narrow my search for horses who can be there. I have found it a fun and rewarding search. By analyzing a horses propensity to be just a few or less beaten lengths at the stretch call, I have found some nice winners. Plus, a show bet I place typically pays $3.60 or better.

One thing I have noticed, is that there usually seems to be a horse that doesn't figure, by his numbers, to be a player in each race, but then turns in a performance that is contrary to most of his previous outings. I don't know if this is the intention of the trainer, to place him in the group, or what, but it nearly happens every race. I have a friend who is taking that information and catching some very nice exactas. In fact he is now in the black and continues to win.

I just need to find a way to spot trainer contrary intention.

Handiman

[shanta]

Pace is a "zone" where meta-physical forces combine with kinetic energy and cause all kinds of chain reactions and chaos during the race. Those who have entered this zone report a feeling of euphoria similar to a "shroom" experience they had back in the 60's. It's very enlightening to say the least.

I am not speaking from personal experience on this however. :confused:
Rich

[formula_2002]

Probably has a lot to do with;
Muscular strength;
Lung capacity and breathing efficiency;
And over all body and mental condition;
.
If you seat your self down and breathe normally, and you are lucky, you could do that all day long.
Now, while seated if you breathe as quickly as possible, you will most likely pass out, or, if you are smart and lucky, you will slow your breathing.
Now, while seated, if you slowly increase your rate of breathing, you will reach a point where you will have to stop breathing so quickly, or else, once again pass out.

Now, (assuming it's not) make sure your body weight is optimal and repeat the above. Your breathing efficiency should improve.


Now work out with a good trainer and repeat the above. Your breathing efficiency should improve.


Now make sure you are perfectly happy and repeat the above. Your breathing efficiency should improve.

Note: “breathing efficiency “ the ability to do more work
Curiously enough so is ,“Energy” , the ability to do more work


Now some where in all of that, you should have a better understanding of pace..

Medical disclaimer.. don’t do any of the above without a medical doctor.

[Vegas711]

Pace is not always an all out taxing effort sometimes you will have horses racing in the front of the pack in their confort zone, its not always a me first situation.A lot of horses like to be in the front but not alone, they like the company its like they feel security.Pace handicapping at the highest level will be reached when you can I.D. the needs of the individual runners.

[cj]

Pace isn't always about going too fast. One of the most overlooked excuses for a poor race, i.e. low speed figure, is running in a race with a slower than average pace. The public only sees the speed figure, but you will know the horse may be capable of much better.

This occurs at all levels of racing, but nowhere is it more potent than with young horses. You can catch some absolutely bonanzas with 2yos with low looking speed figures that won their debut against a slow pace. As an example, I see many horses with lines like pace 60, speed 70, come back to demolish horses that won their debuts with speed figures in the mid 80s. Horses that win slow paced races (in relation to the final time) are dangerous despite the speed figure earned.

[the_fat_man]

Pace can be a difficult concept to explain or write about; I've been trying to nail it for years. However, it is extremely easy to understand physically. Here is what you do: go outside and run around the block, or down the street a quarter mile or so. Start off nice and slow and build to a big finish. Now wait a while, or a day or two and do it again. This time go hard at the start. Sprint the first 100 yards, have a fast friend race you from the start, whatever it takes. Then finish the course. By the end, you will have a deep and abiding understanding of pace and the penalty lactic acid extracts for going too hard, too early. That's pace.

Called "hitting the wall" by runners, having a "piano dropped on your back" by swimmers and "the bonk" by bicyclists, it can hit and destroy any athlete no matter how strong or fast. It almost cost Floyd Landis the Tour de France when he "bonked" on a long climb. It can cost any horse any race, and if you want to play profitably, you need to get your mind around it. If you haven't read it, get "Modern Pace Handicapping" by Tom Brohamer. Tom is a fellow who really understands pace and does a decent job of describing it.

Dick

EUREKA
Why is this enlightened gentleman so addicted to number?
(more below)

A few months ago I was at the local velodrome (track racing) watching the races. Now, I've been cycling for a few years and have a hands-on sense of what it means to ride with a pack and what any number of factors can do to one's overall performance.

But as I watched the cyclists going around the track and then began predicting (very reliably, actually) who would win a given race based on his/her position going into the final turn (i.e. given the shape of the race) the similarity with horseracing was made all the more evident.

Alot of you pace guys would be real dangerous if you actually got down to watching races. Then again, if you had the time/inclination to do so, you wouldn't feel the need to calcuate your (abstract) figures. Oh, the thrill of actually having an opinion.:bang:

Can pace handicappers avoid theory relative viewing?
if your figures say a given move is an OPTICAL ILLUSION
but your eyes say otherwise, TRUST YOUR FIGURES boys.

Of course, anyone watching races closely (and I don't mean looking for trouble trips) is doing nothing other than (unquantified) pace handicapping.

Leave it to the fat man to tie it all together.

[Valuist]

EUREKA

Can pace handicappers avoid theory relative viewing?
if your figures say a given move is an OPTICAL ILLUSION
but your eyes say otherwise, TRUST YOUR FIGURES boys.

Of course, anyone watching races closely (and I don't mean looking for trouble trips) is doing nothing other than (unquantified) pace handicapping.

Leave it to the fat man to tie it all together.

Some of us are watching the replays. I like to either have a chart printout or the DRF weekly charts, if I'm running a week or so behind replays. I know what you are saying. Sometimes its an optical illusion; sometimes it isn't. On paper it may look great that a horse made up 8 lengths between the first and second call and then you see the video of the race and see 4 other horses made a nearly identical move. But then some of the come from the cloud finishes can fool people and look great when the race is really falling apart. I think its best to use both the charts and replays.

[Dick Schmidt]

Fatman,


Where is it we can bet on horses going in to the final turn???? I could call the winner about 90% of the time at the top of the stretch, but getting a bet down was a problem. Knowing where a horse must be to win at a given track is one of the powerful questions that keeping a model and track profile can answer.


Vegas,

A horse's favored running position has little to do with pace, other than force a horse who must be up front to overextend himself sometimes. Read a fascinating book on horse behavior called "Horsewatching" by Desmond Morris of "Naked Ape" fame. He points out that in nature, horses only really run when they are being chased by something with long, pointy teeth. The safest place to be is the middle of the herd, the dominate place is in the lead and the worse place to be is in the back. Most horses prefer to run with the herd (Pressers and Early Pressers for those who read Brohamer) and are by far the most common types of horses. Late horses rarely win (compared to the number of such horses) because it is an unnatural place for a horse to be, back where the pointy teeth are lurking, and only horses who aren't really fit run back there most of the time. Being in front is a dominance game. In a wild horse herd, there is only one adult male, and he is always out front. Some horses will almost kill themselves to get in front, if only for a few seconds. I know the "lone front runner" is a popular angle, but it is also a stone loser. Too many of them can't rate.

Dick

In accordance with the prophesy.

[Dave Schwartz]

DIck,

Sounds like an interesting book.

About the pointy-teeth thing...

Horses in the wild (and I have seen them) do a number of things to compete for the right to be head-man. This is important because everyone else is relegated to being... celebate.

Anyone, one of the behaviors they exhibit is to race each other for dominance (and maybe bragging rights?).

'Course it is the woman who runs things anyway. <G>


Dave

[rastajenk]

If Beyer had been on the Beagle, he could have reduced the Theory of Evolution to a single-page speed-figure chart. :eek:

[Cesario!]

Fatman,


Read a fascinating book on horse behavior called "Horsewatching" by Desmond Morris of "Naked Ape" fame. He points out that in nature, horses only really run when they are being chased by something with long, pointy teeth. The safest place to be is the middle of the herd, the dominate place is in the lead and the worse place to be is in the back.

Another excellent book on horse behavior is "Such is the true nature of horses" by Robert Vavra. A careful reading helps explain why some $3 million dollar horses just don't want to take the lead, and it also shines great light on the concept of the dominant mare.

[Handiman]

I've been doing some thinking. I know it may come as a big shock, but I have. Anyway, There is an approach I've been thinking about that I'm going to try, which if successfull, will give me a fairly good idea of overall projected race level, in relation to combined intention and group ability. If I'm successfull, I'll be able to rate the group about to run, on what their overall group desire level will be and then how the group will most likely run together. After all, it is a herd, albeit a small one most often. And while the pointy-teeth thing won't be biting at their butts, those continually in the back, will get the glue factory pointy-teeth chomping at their butt.

I guess what I'm seeking is a different way at looking at the possible pace ahead.

Thanks for listening.
Handiman :)

[Show Me the Wire]

Handiman:

Yes, it is a small herd, but with a difference. The herd animals have a lightwieght human on their backs with whips. Whips are to stimulate by simulating a nip on the behind by the dominant male stalion.

My point is racing uses the animal's flight instinct to change the animals behavior. The smarter ones figure out what they are supposed to do or the reverse. The reverse meaning there is no pointy tooth animal to eat them if they fail to stay in the protection of the running pack or the need to show dominance for survival.

What does it mean? The pace you see is artificially controlled by humans using the flight instinct of the horse.

[bigmack]

EUREKA
Why is this enlightened gentleman so addicted to number?
(more below)

Alot of you pace guys would be real dangerous if you actually got down to watching races. Then again, if you had the time/inclination to do so, you wouldn't feel the need to calcuate your (abstract) figures. Oh, the thrill of actually having an opinion.

Can pace handicappers avoid theory relative viewing?
if your figures say a given move is an OPTICAL ILLUSION
but your eyes say otherwise, TRUST YOUR FIGURES boys.

Of course, anyone watching races closely (and I don't mean looking for trouble trips) is doing nothing other than (unquantified) pace handicapping.

Leave it to the fat man to tie it all together.
By "tie it all together" do you mean "be condescendingly didactic"?

[PaceAdvantage]

By "tie it all together" do you mean "be condescendingly didactic"?

Oh please, that's tame compared to what else is out there....Allow me to extinguish this one before it even starts.

[Vegas711]

Fatman,





Vegas,

A horse's favored running position has little to do with pace, other than force a horse who must be up front to overextend himself sometimes. Read a fascinating book on horse behavior called "Horsewatching" by Desmond Morris of "Naked Ape" fame. He points out that in nature, horses only really run when they are being chased by something with long, pointy teeth. The safest place to be is the middle of the herd, the dominate place is in the lead and the worse place to be is in the back. Most horses prefer to run with the herd (Pressers and Early Pressers for those who read Brohamer) and are by far the most common types of horses. Late horses rarely win (compared to the number of such horses) because it is an unnatural place for a horse to be, back where the pointy teeth are lurking, and only horses who aren't really fit run back there most of the time. Being in front is a dominance game. In a wild horse herd, there is only one adult male, and he is always out front. Some horses will almost kill themselves to get in front, if only for a few seconds. I know the "lone front runner" is a popular angle, but it is also a stone loser. Too many of them can't rate.

Dick

In accordance with the prophesy.


I have read his book, I agree with alot of what you say it is just in all my race watching( thousands and thousands of races) that there is more depth to pace than what so far has been covered. My game has competley improved by looking at Pace in new and different ways.
.

[Vegas711]

Handiman:

Yes, it is a small herd, but with a difference. The herd animals have a lightwieght human on their backs with whips. Whips are to stimulate by simulating a nip on the behind by the dominant male stalion.

My point is racing uses the animal's flight instinct to change the animals behavior. The smarter ones figure out what they are supposed to do or the reverse. The reverse meaning there is no pointy tooth animal to eat them if they fail to stay in the protection of the running pack or the need to show dominance for survival.

What does it mean? The pace you see is artificially controlled by humans using the flight instinct of the horse.

What about when a horse tosses its jockey? I saw a horse dump its rider after leaving the gate, after a late start the horse weaved in and around several horses , spliting 2 horses and winning the race. The movie "Sea Biscuit" took 14 takes to get 1 segment of a race to match the actual race...I will not argue that whipping will get a horse to move, but how much effect does a jockey have that I will leave alone.

[Dick Schmidt]

Dave,

You are right, of course. Young horses especially race each other all the time. However, they rarely go for more than a hundred yards or so, then stop for more "horseplay." (Nice turn of phrase, don't you think?) It is one way they establish dominance. When the adult stallions fight, it is a bloody business, with many seriously injured or even killed. I often how they get a bunch of intact males to get along and not start trying to kill each other on the track. My grandfather, who was a genuine cowboy and a hell of a horseman, once had his horse attack another and there was little he could do but jump off.


Show,

Pace is somewhat controlled by the jockey, but not as much as you might think. I once talked to Lafitte Pincay about this very thing and he told me that the start of a race was incredibly chaotic. The horses accelerate so fast that the jockey has his hands full (usually of the horse's mane) just trying to stay on. The saddles they use don't offer much help. In his words, the first furlong belongs to the horse. The jockey can sometimes steer a bit, but rating is out of the question for at least an eighth of a mile. The longer the race, the more control the jock has. Of course, the way the horse is trained influences how he runs, but horses are remarkably hard to change once they learn one way of going.

Dick

A jockey's first priority is not to win the race, but rather to live through it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Dick:

I agree that most jockeys hold on to the mane and let the horse do want it wants. However, look at Earlie Fires he whips horses out of the gate and others do too. To me when a jock does that he artificiall influences the pace, or how about the jockey after a horse breaks poorly rushes the horse to the front.

When a jockey asks a horse for a move from the pack or when a jockey holds a horse back are artifical encouragement of pace. The jockey has enough control to sffect the outcome of a race. He can move prematurely or too late.

The best jocks are the ones that allow the horse to settle in a comfortable pace and let the horse do most of the work.

Vegas 711:

Yes, I have seen it happen too. But that is what I cautioned Handiman about, there are usually jockey's on the back. The question is would the horse run the same pace with the jock.

[formula_2002]

Probably has a lot to do with;
Muscular strength;
Lung capacity and breathing efficiency;
And over all body and mental condition;
.
If you seat your self down and breathe normally, and you are lucky, you could do that all day long.
Now, while seated if you breathe as quickly as possible, you will most likely pass out, or, if you are smart and lucky, you will slow your breathing.
Now, while seated, if you slowly increase your rate of breathing, you will reach a point where you will have to stop breathing so quickly, or else, once again pass out.

Now, (assuming it's not) make sure your body weight is optimal and repeat the above. Your breathing efficiency should improve.


Now work out with a good trainer and repeat the above. Your breathing efficiency should improve.


Now make sure you are perfectly happy and repeat the above. Your breathing efficiency should improve.

Note: “breathing efficiency “ the ability to do more work
Curiously enough so is ,“Energy” , the ability to do more work


Now some where in all of that, you should have a better understanding of pace..

Medical disclaimer.. don’t do any of the above without a medical doctor.

One more time..

Pace is the ability to do work efficicently.

Winning pace is the ability to do more work efficienlty then the competition.

Profitable winning pace is the ability for your pick to do more work efficienlty then the competition at your price or better.

[classhandicapper]

Pace isn't always about going too fast. One of the most overlooked excuses for a poor race, i.e. low speed figure, is running in a race with a slower than average pace. The public only sees the speed figure, but you will know the horse may be capable of much better.

This occurs at all levels of racing, but nowhere is it more potent than with young horses. You can catch some absolutely bonanzas with 2yos with low looking speed figures that won their debut against a slow pace. As an example, I see many horses with lines like pace 60, speed 70, come back to demolish horses that won their debuts with speed figures in the mid 80s. Horses that win slow paced races (in relation to the final time) are dangerous despite the speed figure earned.

I agree totally and it's an important point.

[wes]

http://www.keypony.com/Figures.htm

May help in your pace information.


wes

[classhandicapper]

but your eyes say otherwise, TRUST YOUR FIGURES boys.

The major problem with figures is accuracy.

We tend to work "relationships" that may not always exist.

We have charts that tell us that 6F in 1.13 is equal to 7F in 126.1 etc... We have pace charts that tells us what kind of pace is typical for a certain final time at a certain distance. Then we have formulas that try to measure the impact of pace on final time.

Unfortunately the world isn't very neat.

Tracks change speed during the course of the day as the maintenance crew rolls the track, digs it up, adds water, allows moisture to evaporate.

The wind blows, but not uniformly throughout the day.

The starting gate is not always in the same position relative to the actual start of the timer.

Sometimes the track is more or less tiring, so the normal relationships between distances and/or pace might be altered.

When you think about all that, it becomes very clear that what we are doing is taking an estimated pace figure, combining it with an estimated final time figure and then using an estimated pace formula in an attempt to measure how well the horses ran.

Is there any doubt that the numbers won't reflect reality some of the time?

IMO, people that are slaves to their numbers are often missing the boat and people that don't use them are missing a great tool.

There are times when I know the abilities of the horses very well. I watch a race develop and know based on the RESULTS how much of an impact the pace had and how well various horses ran within it. Then I see Beyer figures etc.. that make absoluely no sense based on what I know about those horses' abilities and how they ran. I ultimately turn out to be right in those situations WAY MORE OFTEN than the numbers. The people that are slaves to their numbers are betting overlays that don't exist.

On the flip side, there are times when my knowledge of the horses is very limited and even after watching the race it's unclear to me how well some of them ran. In those situations, the numbers can be like a shining light in a dense fog.

The trick is to not exclude any information you have when trying to evaluate how well horses ran. IMO, you have to relaize the limitations of each of the tools and use some common sense.

[the_fat_man]

I have read his book, I agree with alot of what you say it is just in all my race watching( thousands and thousands of races) that there is more depth to pace than what so far has been covered. My game has competley improved by looking at Pace in new and different ways.
.

Right on.

If one were to sit down with a tape of the days races and spend a considerable amount of time on each, breaking it down step by step, it's amazing what insights result.

Of course, this would require that one follow each horse individually for the entire race, which would be very time consuming.

Then again, one would be in a position, if one understood race shapes, to know whether a given horse

a) was in a position to run ---given the shape

b) actually ran (or didn't) when in a position to do so


This ties in a bit to the ridiculous statement by DRUGS in the Giacomo thread, that one run closers like Giacomo need rabbits to run well.

One run closers, need the race to fall apart, so that their move is the last ---everyone else has run before them.


His assumption, also, is that there are horses that are good enough to prevail when race shape/bias is against them. See Floyd Landis' incredible climb for this one.

Even Lance Armstrong needs RABBITS to get him in a position to win. The difference being that once in position to run, the good ones get the job done.

[Show Me the Wire]

Right on.



Then again, one would be in a position, if one understood race shapes, to know whether a given horse

a) was in a position to run ---given the shape

b) actually ran (or didn't) when in a position to do so

The above are valid observation, but it begs the question of pace. Was one in position or not in position because of the start?

Was the horse actually asked to run? If it was asked to run and the horse did not run, was it because of conditioning, or did the horse actually run but it was too slow for the other entrants?




This ties in a bit to the ridiculous statement by DRUGS in the Giacomo thread, that one run closers like Giacomo need rabbits to run well.

One run closers, need the race to fall apart, so that their move is the last ---everyone else has run before them.



Not necessarily true. If the one run closer is the fastest horse in the race at the distance, it will win without needing the front running animals stopping.

A horse that can run 6 panels, covering the ground in 1:10 flat will beat any other horse that can cover the ground in 1:11. It doesn't matter if the 1:10 horse is a one run closer or not it will win, it is just plain faster, covering the ground, than the other horses.

[skate]

well, sure you can say that 1:10 horse will beat a 1:11 horse, but only on your paper is it a fact.

and is that your bet?

lots and lots of reasons for a race to take shape and turn out the way it did. 110 and 111 , 112 or whatever, is only one reason.

the only "ONE" fact to look into, at all times, (this is not to say, others facts do not influence) that being the odds, always- always, odds are the most important figure to look at, when capping anything.

[Show Me the Wire]

What do you mean on paper it is a fact. Horses are not all equal. It is a physical fact, not some theory, some horse are faster than other horses. The paradox, which confuses people is that the fastest horse over the covered ground may not be the quickest or the speediest horse.

[Show Me the Wire]

Attempt at clarification. By paper do you mean the publish time in the pps. If so I understand what you mean. But in reality a good trainer knows approximately how fast each of his horses cover a certain amount of ground when they are in good condition.

Healthy sound horses are usaually consistent in their performances. A good guide to get a handle on the ability of a horse, using raw time, is the raw time should be within 4/5 of of the best performance and worst performance in a competitive finish.

For example, and this is just one, I campaigned a mare in Kentucky, Arkansas, and Illinois. She could cover 6 panels in about 1:1I, at all these tracks and different surfaces, competing against different horses, in varying weather conditions she gave a competitive performance in the area of 1:10 4/5 to 1:11 2/5. Forgive me for using 5ths as that is the easiest way for me to think.

[the_fat_man]

The above are valid observation, but it begs the question of pace. Was one in position or not in position because of the start?

Was the horse actually asked to run? If it was asked to run and the horse did not run, was it because of conditioning, or did the horse actually run but it was too slow for the other entrants?


Not necessarily true. If the one run closer is the fastest horse in the race at the distance, it will win without needing the front running animals stopping.

A horse that can run 6 panels, covering the ground in 1:10 flat will beat any other horse that can cover the ground in 1:11. It doesn't matter if the 1:10 horse is a one run closer or not it will win, it is just plain faster, covering the ground, than the other horses.

As for the first part

There's no need for you to spell out the banal (what's already implicit in my comments). No flexing required.

As for the second
your example is that of the SUPERIOR ANIMAL that can transcend pace/setup. Not exactly the norm in the typical race card.

Similar to the superior track rider, who has the ability to push a higher gear than his competitors. No matter what, you don't want to be in front cause he's always going to run you down.

Moreover, since horses typically slow down as the race progresses,
the one run SUPERIOR closer does need the leaders to slow down.
He's running faster than they are at the end but they're not running as fast as they did earlier when they were ahead of him.

[Tom]

I do not see how watcing races gives you and edge. Everyting you need is right in the PPs - unless you spot trouble not reported. How could anyone psossible have previously wathced every race in the PPs of every horse in the race, and remember anyhting without extensive notes? And watching without knowing the times begs the questin - how do youput anyting in perseptive without using the times?


And I absolutely disagree that the fastes hores will win regardless of pace - I've seen the fastest horse beaten far too many times by a lone front runner with inferior speed figs.

[RXB]

A horse's favored running position has little to do with pace, other than force a horse who must be up front to overextend himself sometimes. Read a fascinating book on horse behavior called "Horsewatching" by Desmond Morris of "Naked Ape" fame. He points out that in nature, horses only really run when they are being chased by something with long, pointy teeth. The safest place to be is the middle of the herd, the dominate place is in the lead and the worse place to be is in the back. Most horses prefer to run with the herd (Pressers and Early Pressers for those who read Brohamer) and are by far the most common types of horses. Late horses rarely win (compared to the number of such horses) because it is an unnatural place for a horse to be, back where the pointy teeth are lurking, and only horses who aren't really fit run back there most of the time. Being in front is a dominance game. In a wild horse herd, there is only one adult male, and he is always out front. Some horses will almost kill themselves to get in front, if only for a few seconds. I know the "lone front runner" is a popular angle, but it is also a stone loser. Too many of them can't rate.


I can't quite get myself to buy into a lot of these herd mentality theories that are put forward. Not that they are totally invalid, but I think that trying to apply the behavioural patterns of wild horses to racetrack horses is a rather spotty process.

Late horses do just fine on the grass. Also, there is a difference between "late" and "slow" and a horse that is in 8th position at the first call could be there because it runs late, or is just slow, or was troubled early, or because the jockey is rating far off of a wicked pace...

You can take a "non-dominant" off-the-pace sprinter and put him in a route race. Is it a sudden surge of "dominance" that puts him on the lead in the route? Primarily, it's his speed. Now, some horses might be more willing to take the lead than others but I don't buy the idea that a horse's velocity capabilities have little to do with its position in the race.

There's a reason why the old, the young and the infirm tend to be the victims of predators in the wild and it has little to do with any ideas of dominance or non-dominance. They are simply incapable of running fast enough, far enough.

[the_fat_man]

I do not see how watcing races gives you and edge. Everyting you need is right in the PPs - unless you spot trouble not reported. How could anyone psossible have previously wathced every race in the PPs of every horse in the race, and remember anyhting without extensive notes? And watching without knowing the times begs the questin - how do youput anyting in perseptive without using the times?


And I absolutely disagree that the fastes hores will win regardless of pace - I've seen the fastest horse beaten far too many times by a lone front runner with inferior speed figs.

1)Absolutely not true, that everything you need is in the PPs.
2) anyone who trips for any period of time realizes --the hard way-- that focusing on trouble lines is NOT the way to go --- there's so much more to it than that
3) you're correct, there's an incredible amount of information that needs to be recorded ---that's why very few take this route
4) not advocating watching races without reference to pace or final time:
what I do (would do), I have a program that takes the chart info, sorts the lengths ahead to lengths behind, allowing me to graph the race, thereby clearly making evident all the MOVES and the shape of the race, then calculates the running times by call for each of the horses (the splits).
(I could adjust here if I were using speed/pace figures)
Then, I go in, superficially, and note the running positions on the turns (and BS and finish). At that point, with graph -shape-, pace and speed info, and position info in hand,
I'm ready to TRIP. (Here'd I make use of a voice program to tape my comments and, use a voice to text to record ---in my dreams). 5 hours for a 10 race card. ok, 4. A piece of cake.:bang:

No wonder I'm too lazy to play.


:lol::lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

I am interested in your belief that the closer is not running faster than the front runners the late runner passed.

Please explain this to me in a way I can understand. If a the race is run in a 1:10 at 6 furlongs with splits of 22, 46, and 58 and the winner is behind the front runner by 10 lengths at the 1/2 mile pole and the front-running pace setter gets beat in the final stride.

To keep it simple lets say 1/5 equals a length. The winner ran the first two furlongs in 24 seconds and the later stage (last four furlongs) of the race it accelerated and covered the remaining ground in 46 seconds, while the front runner covered the final 4 furlongs in 48 seconds.

Is not the closer running faster than the front-runner during the last stages of the race? Isn't the differnce a result of energy distribution, where one horse is quicker and runs faster in the earlier stages and the other uses it speed later thus faster in the late stages?

[Tom]

Then explain how people are winning everyday without watching replays at all? If you do all that and it works, more power to you, but it is hardy required to understand and use pace.

[46zilzal]

And I absolutely disagree that the fastes hores will win regardless of pace - I've seen the fastest horse beaten far too many times by a lone front runner with inferior speed figs.
exactly because getting an easy lead leaves gas in the tank and they have to OVERCOME that advantage after extending a lot of energy just keeping up.

[RXB]

Then explain how people are winning everyday without watching replays at all? If you do all that and it works, more power to you, but it is hardy required to understand and use pace.

You're both probably right. Watching replays certainly isn't a requirement for winning. But, if someone has a natural ability in that area and also hones that ability through practice, and can sit through four consecutive hours of watching replays, he's got a big advantage.

[skate]

show me the wire;

i got off track, sorry.
i was taking what you stated "a horse going 1:10 will beat a horse going 1:11,as being run on paper. an example.

so, before this race started, i may bet the 1:11 horse if the odds permit (120/1) if the 1:10 horse went off at 4/5.

this is just my way to get others to look at the race from an option angle.
which i should not be doing.
some think , i try to get "betters" off a winner, not true.

having the $ and the odds (after the basics) are the most important issues.
more so than the Class, Fps, pace, times, post position, trainer, jock and all other conditions. ok, that's me.
i'm not saying that anything, figures etc. are wrong, at any time.

but when you "get with it", it comes down to "enough money and odds".

[Jeff P]

A horse that can run 6 panels, covering the ground in 1:10 flat will beat any other horse that can cover the ground in 1:11. It doesn't matter if the 1:10 horse is a one run closer or not it will win, it is just plain faster, covering the ground, than the other horses. Um... no. I disagree with this.

When I was in college I could sprint 100 meters in just under 11 seconds. These days I can still do it in just under 12 seconds - all things considered not too shabby at all for a guy my age.

I have an 8 year old nephew. He's fast for an 8 year old - but nowhere near as fast as me. But that doesn't stop him from wanting to race me over and over and over and over...

So there's this little game that we play... where we race to some distant object - like a mailbox or a tree - and of course he gets a head start. If I give him enough of a head start, even though I'm stronger and faster (the superior closer) I still can't catch him.

The same thing happens in horse races. Jockeys often out-think themselves and end up positioning their horses right out of a race. They'll see that X-Horse is on the lead. Not to worry. They "know" that their own mount can blow past X-Horse at any point in time... so they'll take their mount well back in the field and wait for someone else to make a move and put pressure on X-Horse. Sometimes nobody applies the pressure... and when that happens X-Horse (who almost everybody thinks is inferior to others in the field) "somehow" gets to the wire first.

When we start to analyze and talk about what "somehow" actually means within the context of a horse race... of course we are attempting to come to grips with the concept of pace.




-jp

.

[the_fat_man]

Then explain how people are winning everyday without watching replays at all? If you do all that and it works, more power to you, but it is hardy required to understand and use pace.

Plenty of different ways to win at the game (or, different ways to try to win, depending on who you speak to)

I disagree with the latter:

you absolutely must understand pace to trip correctly

[bigmack]

sit through four consecutive hours of watching replays, he's got a big advantage.
Do it and see how much of an advantage you have after a few days.

[Show Me the Wire]

Jeff P:

We don't disagree we agree, I agree the light weight people on the back artificially influence the pace and the race (response to Handiman).

That is exactly why the best (fastest horse over the amount of ground) can lose without random poor racing luck.

[Tom]

Plenty of different ways to win at the game (or, different ways to try to win, depending on who you speak to)

I disagree with the latter:

you absolutely must understand pace to trip correctly

Great, I agree too, but no one was talking about trips - the thread was what is pace?

[sjk]

There is no such thing as a horse that always runs 1:11. A horse's final figure is strongly determined by his energy distribution (I have never done a %E calculation in my life but that is what it amounts to), his jockey's tactics and his trip.

If a horse has an early lead the trip and the jockey's tactics are cut and dried. For a deep closer all three are issues. For the closer to reproduce the 1:11 from the last race takes a confluence of all the factors.

[the_fat_man]

Great, I agree too, but no one was talking about trips - the thread was what is pace?

Exactly, and since, in my opinion, understanding pace is a prerequisite for/integral component of race watching, we're on topic. :D

Enough of this, time to ride.

[Valuist]

Then explain how people are winning everyday without watching replays at all? If you do all that and it works, more power to you, but it is hardy required to understand and use pace.

I know one thing: if I didn't watch replays, I don't think I'd have much chance of winning unless I was extremely picky about what I bet, and I'm not. The pps definitely do NOT have all the info. Premature moves, mid call moves never show up in the pps.

That said, I don't think each race requires going over 5 times. I'll go thru turf races much more than a regular sized field of sprinters over a neutral main track. I also don't make notes for every horse; just what I feel is significant. I always try and sense the pace visually; is the field bunched or strung out? Sometimes the teletimer will look like its a slow pace but the field is very strung out. I'm all for ways of simplifying the process but I think eliminating it would be hazardous to the bottom line.

[Jeff P]

A horse that can run 6 panels, covering the ground in 1:10 flat will beat any other horse that can cover the ground in 1:11. It doesn't matter if the 1:10 horse is a one run closer or not it will win, it is just plain faster, covering the ground, than the other horses.
Let's take things a step further.

Horse A is the 1:10 flat horse. Let's say he typically runs his 1:10 in fractions of 46.0 and 24.0. Let's also say for the sake of argument that the time of 1:10 translates to a speed figure of 90.

Horse B is the 1:11 horse. Let's say he typically runs his 1:11 in fractions of 45.0 and 26.0. Let's also say that his time of 1:11 translates to a speed figure of 85.

It should be obvious that when these two face off against each other that there are going to be times when B is going to get to the wire before A. The reasons for this are many. Consider... B is typically going to enjoy a lead of roughly 5 lengths after going the first half mile. Maybe A's jockey waits too long to make his move... maybe nobody else in the race applies pressure to B today... maybe the track's racing surface isn't deep and tiring today and B is still full of run through the stretch... maybe B is on an upward form cycle today while A is on the decline... maybe B's trainer has the intent of getting his picture taken today while A's trainer is shooting for that stakes race three weeks from now... Like I said the reasons are many. Even though A is the superior animal and should win most of the time B somehow gets to the wire first at least some percentage of the time.

Others in this thread have posted about using the odds as a decision breaker. The thing I find really interesting about thoroughbred horse racing is the way the betting public (predictably) behaves much of the time. All other things being equal I would predict that when presented with a match race between A and B as described above - they will most likely make A the betting favorite.

Most of my own profits at the windows come from situations where the betting public overbets A and ignores B.



-jp

.

[Show Me the Wire]

Jeff P:

Once again I agree with you, and I am glad to see you make profits from certain situations.

Please keep in mind my statement was in response to the conclusion that the only way a closer can win is if the horses in front stop or the race falls apart.

My statement in no way means the fastest horse in the race will always beat the quickest horse, but there are legitimate wins by closers, meaning the closer out ran the other horses.

[classhandicapper]

I do not see how watcing races gives you and edge. Everyting you need is right in the PPs - unless you spot trouble not reported. How could anyone psossible have previously wathced every race in the PPs of every horse in the race, and remember anyhting without extensive notes? And watching without knowing the times begs the questin - how do youput anyting in perseptive without using the times?

This goes back to my accuracy post.

You can get a good feel for the horses' abilities, quality and early speed from the PPs. Then when you watch a race (for example) you'll see that several really fast horses were hard urged out of the gate. They seperated themselves from normally pretty quick stalkers. The jocks continued to enthusiastically push around the turn and then they all tired worse than you would have figured based on their PPs. So you assume the pace had to be fast. When you look at the pace figure though, it's not that fast.

So what happened?

Sometimes the wind blows, the track changed speeds but not uniformly, they put the gate in a different spot etc....

When you see a race and are familiar with the horses, it helps you verify or contradict the numbers you are working with - which in turn helps you make more informed judgements about the proper odds.

IMO the numbers are almost indespensible in helping verify observations and actually measuring the degrees of fast and slow we are seeing.

There are also some less obvious scenarios that come up from time to time when the pace switches from fast to slow or slow to fast within the earlier parts of the race as challenges develop or end. You can sometimes see those things better than you measure them.

[Jeff P]

Once again I agree with you, and I am glad to see you make profits from certain situations.

Please keep in mind my statement was in response to the conclusion that the only way a closer can win is if the horses in front stop or the race falls apart.

My statement in no way means the fastest horse in the race will always beat the quickest horse, but there are legitimate wins by closers, meaning the closer out ran the other horses. Understood... and agreed.

-jp

.

[Show Me the Wire]

Handiman:

A good discussion of your question is in the pace/math question thread. The discussion and the actual race covers many of the thoughts expressed in response to your question.

The artificial pace, influenced through the randomness of the break, jockey strategy, the fat one's assertion about watcing the race, the difficulty in correctly identifying the pace setting horse etc.

[delayjf]

This occurs at all levels of racing, but nowhere is it more potent than with young horses. You can catch some absolutely bonanzas with 2yos with low looking speed figures that won their debut against a slow pace. As an example, I see many horses with lines like pace 60, speed 70, come back to demolish horses that won their debuts with speed figures in the mid 80s. Horses that win slow paced races (in relation to the final time) are dangerous despite the speed figure earned.

CJ,

This is one of my absolute favorite plays, especially when its an off pace horse. Often these end up in NW1 on the next start and improve their figures by 10 -15 points. They look slow figure wise on paper, but the truth is it was an easy race that hardly tested the abilities of the horse.