PDA

View Full Version : Creating speed and pace figures?


twindouble
09-09-2006, 08:23 AM
I hope you number guys don't mind me asking a question or two on this subject because you know I'm skeptical about betting just numbers and I have no clue how many factors go into creating them. Plus it's been a hot topic here more than once that I know off. If it's top secrete I'll understand.

I stated in another thread that with some tracks moving to Polly material I thought the Beyer figures would go by the wayside, primarly because it would screw up what ever method he uses to factor in track variants. So my first question is, how important is track variants to your numbers? Plus have you adjusted to the new material and times?


Thanks,

T.D.

cj
09-09-2006, 08:39 AM
Polytrack has not eliminated the need for daily track variants. The surface still changes speeds from day to day, and even within the same day on occasion.

A person who makes figures isn't betting just numbers, any more than a trainer handicapper is betting just trainers.

twindouble
09-09-2006, 08:47 AM
Polytrack has not eliminated the need for daily track variants. The surface still changes speeds from day to day, and even within the same day on occasion.

A person who makes figures isn't betting just numbers, any more than a trainer handicapper is betting just trainers.

It's answers like this that flustrate me. I didn't infer the guys that make numbers just bet numbers, I asked what other factors go into them. Nowhere did I say the pollytrack eliminated daily variants, I asked how you and others have adjusted to them.


T.D.

sjk
09-09-2006, 09:00 AM
TD,


I'm not sure what you mean by other factors. Everyone who makes numbers probably does it a bit differently so I don't know if they would all agree with this.

It is all about comparing times of horses running on the day in question with projections of how fast they ought to run based on (same surface) past races in an effort to determine how fast the track was.

How you handle outliers and race-to-race differences play into the final figure but the main thing you have to work with are today's times and horse's past performances.

I have treated Polytrack as dirt with good results.

twindouble
09-09-2006, 09:14 AM
TD,


I'm not sure what you mean by other factors. Everyone who makes numbers probably does it a bit differently so I don't know if they would all agree with this.

It is all about comparing times of horses running on the day in question with projections of how fast they ought to run based on (same surface) past races in an effort to determine how fast the track was.

How you handle outliers and race-to-race differences play into the final figure but the main thing you have to work with are today's times and horse's past performances.

I have treated Polytrack as dirt with good results.

Thanks, you at least answered my question on the Polly. So your saying I'm wrong thinking the Polly effected the variants and it's no different than a dirt track creating numbers.

By other factors I mean, bias, loss of ground, trouble in the race, quality of horses that ran that day or any other day when it comes to variants and so on. Is it all just raw numbers?

T.D.

sjk
09-09-2006, 09:26 AM
If you had the point of view that polytrack was not interchangeable with dirt then making numbers would be much more troublesome at the beginning of a meet where all of the horses were suddenly changing surfaces. Many races would be unplayable or would be played based on very limited data.

As I said above I treat poly as dirt which allows me to play the poly meets from the beginning. Of course if I am wrong and this is mixing apples and oranges I will pay a price in time. Last winter at TP seemed to go well so I hope I am on the right track.

As to the other factors you mentioned, the quality of horses that ran on a given day is reflected in the time data. I make a small bias adjustment in my program but it is separate from the figure calculation. I don't have any way of measuring ground loss or trouble so I ignore those items.

twindouble
09-09-2006, 09:36 AM
Thanks, sjk. I have to run, I'll continue tonight.

cj
09-09-2006, 11:35 AM
[/b]

Thanks, you at least answered my question on the Polly. So your saying I'm wrong thinking the Polly effected the variants and it's no different than a dirt track creating numbers.

By other factors I mean, bias, loss of ground, trouble in the race, quality of horses that ran that day or any other day when it comes to variants and so on. Is it all just raw numbers?

T.D.

Dirt and Turf are two totally different surfaces, yet you make figures pretty much the same way. You look at how fast the horses ran according to the clock, then you look at how fast you think they should have run. The difference is a projected "variant" for that race. You do every race on the card, and try to determine an overall daily variant, or see if there is maybe a split somewhere in the day. Why would polytrack be any different?

I personally don't really use bias, except as a possible factor in projecting how fast the winner should have run. I definitely do not use ground loss. The only people I know that do are Thorograph and The Sheets. Personally I think that provides more distortion than it does better figures, but that is a personal choice. Many agree, many others disagree. The quality of the horses running that day is of course a huge part of my projection of how fast the horses should have run.

I factor in the pace of the race a bunch as well. It often clearly indicates why the vast majority of variants that don't seem to fit with the day occur. Let's say there are five sprints run on the day, and they look like this: 10 fast, 10 fast, 5 slow, 9 fast, 11 fast. The 5 slow seems to stick out and looks crazy. Most times, I will look and see the horses in that race ran extremely fast or extremely slow to the pace call. This is especially useful in turf races.

I'm sorry I didn't answer your question better the first time. I was obviously mistaken thinking you understood at the very least the basics of making a speed figure. Since you obviously don't, it is probably wise that you don't use them. Instead of giving me a bunch of shit, at least give the benefit of the doubt that I tried to answer. Perhaps your questions could have been phrased better?

RXB
09-09-2006, 11:39 AM
If anything, Polytrack will enhance the performance of speed figures because it removes some of the early pace bias.

BIG49010
09-09-2006, 12:10 PM
I am making Poly figs for the first time, and was wondering how close I am on the first 3 days. I had Wed. and Thur. the same, with Friday being a full second faster. It was hard to tell, but I thought it was raining last night, and my assumption was the track got faster.

Thanks for comments.

sjk
09-09-2006, 01:03 PM
I am guessing you are talking about TP since you mention night racing.
I have all three days between 24 and 26 fast. New material must be making things faster than last year.

DATE TRACK VAR
9/6/2006 TP -25.0415010916118
9/7/2006 TP -23.6846652013384
9/8/2006 TP -25.7855028831288

twindouble
09-09-2006, 01:20 PM
I'm sorry I didn't answer your question better the first time. I was obviously mistaken thinking you understood at the very least the basics of making a speed figure. Since you obviously don't, it is probably wise that you don't use them. Instead of giving me a bunch of shit, at least give the benefit of the doubt that I tried to answer. Perhaps your questions could have been phrased better?

cj; Thanks for responding in the manor I knew you are capable of but if you think that was a bunch of shit, you don't know me. :D Yes your right, I could use an editor, just concider that next time.:ThmbUp: hand shake.


T.D.

twindouble
09-09-2006, 09:00 PM
Dirt and Turf are two totally different surfaces, yet you make figures pretty much the same way. You look at how fast the horses ran according to the clock, then you look at how fast you think they should have run. The difference is a projected "variant" for that race. You do every race on the card, and try to determine an overall daily variant, or see if there is maybe a split somewhere in the day. Why would polytrack be any different?

I personally don't really use bias, except as a possible factor in projecting how fast the winner should have run. I definitely do not use ground loss. The only people I know that do are Thorograph and The Sheets. Personally I think that provides more distortion than it does better figures, but that is a personal choice. Many agree, many others disagree. The quality of the horses running that day is of course a huge part of my projection of how fast the horses should have run.

I factor in the pace of the race a bunch as well. It often clearly indicates why the vast majority of variants that don't seem to fit with the day occur. Let's say there are five sprints run on the day, and they look like this: 10 fast, 10 fast, 5 slow, 9 fast, 11 fast. The 5 slow seems to stick out and looks crazy. Most times, I will look and see the horses in that race ran extremely fast or extremely slow to the pace call. This is especially useful in turf races.

I'm sorry didn't answer your question better the first time. I was obviously mistaken thinking you understood at the very least the basics of making a speed figure. Since you obviously don't, it is probably wise that you don't use them. Instead of giving me a bunch of shit, at least give the benefit of the doubt that I tried to answer. Perhaps your questions could have been phrased better?



What came after "I'm sorry" kind of got whipped away with the rest of the paragraph on second thought.

To suggest I don't understand the "basics" by inquiring how these figures are made with you knowing I've been playing he horses for almost 5 decades now is a hit below the belt. Perhaps you could have phrased that whole paragraph better.

The first three paragraphs covered what I was looking for, I also could have been given the benefit of doubt. Works both ways.

I made a joke of the whole deal but believe me, when it comes to many posts that I think are off the wall, I could have thrown out more shit than this board could handle. I chouse not to do that for obvious reasons.

Anyway, do I dare inquire any further? Yes I will, it can get rather booring here now and then.


T.D.

twindouble
09-09-2006, 10:42 PM
If anything, Polytrack will enhance the performance of speed figures because it removes some of the early pace bias.

RXB, why would you conceder early speed a "bias". A bias to me has more to do with the track condition, inside, outside bias favoring speed or closers.

Are you saying the Polly tracks favor closers, speed tires on that material?


T.D.

RXB
09-10-2006, 10:39 AM
Frontrunners dominate on most dirt courses. Closers are more dangerous on grass. If two horses are running the same speed figures, the horse with the higher early pace rating is the more likely dirt winner. On grass, it's the horse with the superior closing fraction.

Poly, from what I've studied so far, doesn't really promote any style of runner. It's less favourable to early speed than dirt, but more favourable than grass. Pace matters from an internal dynamics standpoint in each individual race but speed figures by themselves seem to be more important on Poly than on the other surfaces.

twindouble
09-10-2006, 10:56 AM
Frontrunners dominate on most dirt courses. Closers are more dangerous on grass. If two horses are running the same speed figures, the horse with the higher early pace rating is the more likely dirt winner. On grass, it's the horse with the superior closing fraction.

Poly, from what I've studied so far, doesn't really promote any style of runner. It's less favourable to early speed than dirt, but more favourable than grass. Pace matters from an internal dynamics standpoint in each individual race but speed figures by themselves seem to be more important on Poly than on the other surfaces.

Can't argue with that. I haven't been betting the polly tracks, been at Mountaineer. I was tempted to play them for the simple reason any radical change in track conditions can offer up opertunity but I'm happy where I'm at.

T.D.

RonTiller
09-10-2006, 12:51 PM
TwinDouble,

I'll answer you original questions directly.
...how important is track variants to your numbers?
I've answered this in other threads, so I'll just recap. Our speed ratings essentially come from 4 components:
1) track to track adjustments (this includes 6f Aqu to 8f Aqu, so perhaps it is better referred to as track-course-distance to track-course-distance). This incorporates track configuration, turn radius and course run up distances.
2) speed point per length equations (how many points does 4 lengths back equal at 6f, 7f, 9g, 14f, etc. - bad decisions here can inflate or deflate speed numbers for various distances)
3) daily variants (many use pars, many use projections)
4) scaling (0 to 126 - higher = faster; 0 to 30 - lower = faster; 3.14159 to 3.15237 - these would suck to use!)

Scaling is relative to one's tastes, unless one's scale has so few increments that it becomes hard to do anything with them. 1 to 10, in integer increments, would be a less helpful scale than 1 to 126. 1 to 100,000 would imply a phony degree of precision.

Speed Points per length are an empirical issue that can be optimized with math and lots of data.

Track-course-distance to track-course-distance has the biggest impact on the final number. This is not a guess. One can measure 1) raw speed numbers with no track to track or daily variant, 2) raw speed ratings with track to track but no daily variant and 3) the full fledged numbers. The biggest gains, by far are from raw to raw + track to track. Adding daily variant is important in the final number but much less than track to track.
Don't quote me on this but I believe the ratio of importance is 4 or 5 to 1.

...have you adjusted to the new material and times?
As CJ points out, polytrack has no bearing on the underlying methodology, absolutely none. There are now 3 surfaces to deal with rather than 2. Track-course-distance to track-course-distance is calculated the same way, without missing a beat. A new surface that produces much fewer wire to wire winners, as does polytrack, MIGHT make a difference in one's projections for individual horses, DEPENDING ON HOW ONE MAKES PROJECTIONS. But it all comes out in the wash, so in the end, we've found, after analyzing the data, that it is business as usual. It just doesn't affect the way we make numbers AT ALL.

Might the resulting numbers be more or less predictive on dirt or polytrack? That is another question. TP on dirt, WTW win % is 29.3%; on poly, 21.7%. That might make me handicap differently - perhaps put MORE emphasis speed ratings in some cases - given the less frequent success of early flash in the pan horses with poor speed ratings. But this is speculation only. Others have better insights on this than me.

An interesting aside is dealing with the 1st week or 2 of TP, where there is no historical polytrack data. Since there was no data from which to build good track to track adjustments, one had to use the dirt numbers. But what we found was that because it is much slower than dirt, the daily variants were quite large (since horses were shipping from faster dirt tracks). In other words, the daily variant took up the slack from the lack of well established track to track adjustments. From these, we got a good 1st approximation and it turned out to be quite close to the settled on numbers arrived at after we had enough data to do it the right way.

Regarding "BIAS", this is charged word if there ever was one. "Bias" is usually the counterpoint of "fair" or "objective". I find it interesting that many people believe that it takes an artificial material, layed on top of porous asphalt and trucked in rocks, supported by state of the art artificial drainage and meticulous grooming, to create an "unbiased" surface for horses to run on. Heaven help those poor wild horses in New Mexico and Colorado, running on biased plains and hills of natural dirt, grass and rocks.

Ron Tiller
HDW

twindouble
09-10-2006, 01:26 PM
Ron Tiller
HDW

I'll have to take some time to absorb all that. How do you handle a track like Mountaineer where the speed and track variants can swing to extremes?


Thanks,

T.D.

RonTiller
09-10-2006, 04:47 PM
How do you handle a track like Mountaineer where the speed and track variants can swing to extremes?
I don't mean to be flip in my answer but the answer is: we give them variants that reflect the extreme swings. The methodology is the same for Hollywood summer meet (where daily swings in track variants are at a minimum) to midwest tracks in the winter, where swings can be hideous (but well supported by the data). As CJ hinted at, when you see race 1 at -40, race 2 at -37, race 3 at -25, race 4 at -42, etc. you gotta start thinking that this day has a really fast variant.

A few outliers complicate things. The relative strength one assigns to each race projection is also a factor. That is, some races have less data from which to make a reliable projection; some races have to use inherently less reliable data; some races have no data (all or mostly 1st starters). So making the daily variants with projections involves 1) the actual methodology to make the projections (there's a lot of ways to do it and get different results) and 2) the methodology to convert the projections versus actual for each race to a variant for the race or race card or distance/surface category (1 variant for dirt sprints, 1 for dirt routes).

The point is, when one is developing these methodologies and endlessly testing them, one encounters wild swings, outliers, inconsistencies and the like and one tries 1) to minimize them, if possible and 2) to deal with them when they crop up. I can tell you that Jim Cramer spent more time on TP (pre-polytrack) than on probably any other track, because of the wild variant swings. But one can only do so much when they really do appear to have the swings. Once the methodology is in place to deal with them and one has adequetly tested and measured the results, one doesn't agonize every day over them, unless the method IS to agonize over them every day until an intuitively acceptable variant manifests itself. In our case, we have chosen not to get involved in such intuitive agonizing+jiggling, primarily for methodological reasons but also for the simple reason that we don't have the time.

Ron Tiller
HDW

Tom
09-10-2006, 06:18 PM
You have to realize nobody makes true figures - some make better estimates, but none area 100%. You, as the handicapper, have to look at the numbers befreo you bet them and see if they make sense.
For example, a horse earns pace figs of 101,100,102,99,123,101.
do you really believe the 123 is a good fig? I throw it out faster than old pork unwrapped by mistake.
I have yet to see anyone who really does a great job of Keenland figs - I will never, ever, use a pace line from Keenland for any reason whatsoever, and I hve stayed away from betting KEE races as well. Just too many bad figs come out of Kee races. No idea why, but I suspect the KEE times are not accurate.
Whatever the reason, I know that 123 pace fig example crops up a lot, and the horose never run back to it.

Tee
09-10-2006, 06:36 PM
I hope you number guys don't mind me asking a question or two on this subject because you know I'm skeptical about betting just numbers and I have no clue how many factors go into creating them.

I'm sorry I didn't answer your question better the first time. I was obviously mistaken thinking you understood at the very least the basics of making a speed figure. Since you obviously don't, it is probably wise that you don't use them. Instead of giving me a bunch of shit, at least give the benefit of the doubt that I tried to answer. Perhaps your questions could have been phrased better?

Anyone confused as to how one led to the other? :lol:

I have no idea how spd & pace figures are put together, even though Craig showed me a few times. :D

Point is if one is successful playing the horses w/o knowing why, but how to use - why the big concern?

twindouble
09-10-2006, 08:07 PM
Ron Tiller;
HDW

Am I mistaken, sounds like you Tom and cj do a lot work creating the numbers. How many tracks are included? Once you get set up is it a lot easier?

My curiosity on how you all come about the numbers was sparked by the fact some here speak so strongly about their benefit. Not that I need to bail out, had a reasonably good year so far. It's interesting that some make their own numbers and not hang their hat on one methodology.

Adjusted speed an pace figures does make sense to me, ESP when it comes to track variants. I'm some what inclined to think that along with traditional handicapping thrown in could be an additional edge. When I handicap, I can visulize how the race is going to run based on how I see those raw numbers on the form, including variants, who's going to be where, start to finish. I supose I could assign numbers to those horses and include other factors I mentioned. One track would be more than enough for me.

Maybe you could do better by assigning a traditional handicapper to the strength of your numbers at each track.

T.D.

delayjf
09-11-2006, 03:50 PM
Ron,

I've heard a lot of people voice their distrust of Keeneland figures, I know you and Jim really dig into any anomilies - do you have an explaination as to why keeneland figures are so unreliable? Assuming that you agree with Tom.

bobphilo
09-11-2006, 05:01 PM
Regarding "BIAS", this is charged word if there ever was one. "Bias" is usually the counterpoint of "fair" or "objective". I find it interesting that many people believe that it takes an artificial material, layed on top of porous asphalt and trucked in rocks, supported by state of the art artificial drainage and meticulous grooming, to create an "unbiased" surface for horses to run on. Heaven help those poor wild horses in New Mexico and Colorado, running on biased plains and hills of natural dirt, grass and rocks.

Ron Tiller
HDW[/QUOTE]

Ron, Brilliantly put. I feel that what people call "speed biases" are really sef-fullfilling phrophacies that say a lot more about how horses are ridden than about any properties of the track.

Bob

twindouble
09-11-2006, 06:26 PM
Regarding "BIAS", this is charged word if there ever was one. "Bias" is usually the counterpoint of "fair" or "objective". I find it interesting that many people believe that it takes an artificial material, layed on top of porous asphalt and trucked in rocks, supported by state of the art artificial drainage and meticulous grooming, to create an "unbiased" surface for horses to run on. Heaven help those poor wild horses in New Mexico and Colorado, running on biased plains and hills of natural dirt, grass and rocks.

Ron Tiller
HDW

Ron, Brilliantly put. I feel that what people call "speed biases" are really sef-fullfilling phrophacies that say a lot more about how horses are ridden than about any properties of the track.

Bob[/QUOTE]

Hello Bob; Do you think, mud, sly, slow,soft, fst, good, sly sealed, dug up, drilled and watered, inside deep, outside good, fm and so on are just figments of my emagination??

T.D.

RonTiller
09-11-2006, 07:33 PM
I've heard a lot of people voice their distrust of Keeneland figures, I know you and Jim really dig into any anomilies - do you have an explaination as to why keeneland figures are so unreliable? Assuming that you agree with Tom.
Well, I don't have any readily available data concerning win %s of horses whose speed ratings came from Keeneland as opposed to other tracks, so I'll have to pass on this question. I know Jim has in the past used this exact type of information as an analytical tool.

Regarding the bias issue, this is a big can of worms that may not be appropriate for this thread. I'm just kind of responding to the general idea I've seen concerning what a fair, or unbiased track is, namely, one that gives horses of all running styles an equal (or some ill defined sense of "fair") shot at winning. It just stikes me as interesting that such an artificially constructed environment made from artificial materials maintained artificially (via sophisticated drainage systems) is required to achieve a properly normal distribution of winning running styles and a bias-free seal of approval.

Different tracks and conditions do have certain tendencies. Whether this means they are biased is, I guess, a bit pedantic, but by labelling any phenomenon as "biased", this carries with it the connotation that it must be "fixed" because it is unfair or not right or not normal or not the way it shoud be.

Year after year, certain tracks have a substantially higher percentage of wtw winners than others. Track that are drying after a rain have a demonstrably different percentages of wtw winners than the same track not immediately following a rain. I don't deny changing track tendencies (or biases if you prefer); but I always compare the bias hypothesis versus the null hypothesis, namely, that of randomness of results. It is very easy to conclude a bias exists when the data is consistent with randomness. I've been at craps tables where 7 has been thrown 4 times in a row, but I don't buy into the biased table hypothesis - 4 7s in a row happen when you throw enough dice randomly. Likewise, 3 wtw winners in a row doesn't in and of itself constitute an early speed bias. On the other hand, 3 crappy early speed quitters in a row winning might mean something. Post position 3 showing no winners after 20 races is perfectly consistent with 12.5% in the long term, so I don't conclude anti-post-3-bias. If a gate is placed at some ridiculous angle on a turn and the ouside posts never win, I'm more inclined to conclude outside posts are very bad places to be and it is not just random.

This means, to me, that one must be very very careful in attributing a string of winners or losers to a bias; it doesn't mean that such bias never exists, nor that some thoughtful handicapper can't or hasn't come up with a good methodology for distinguishing a real bias from random clumpings of winners. I haven't done any work on this but I believe others on this bbs have, so they are the experts here, not me.

I should point out that this really hit home in a database I created a while back, where I created a random number for each horse and then ranked them. I then created a random number from 1 to 5 for each race. With several thousand races, I then started looking for patterns in #1 ranked random number horses. And I found them. Lots of them! I recall I had a few weeks of Aqueduct and on a day by day basis, I could invent bias for or against the random number as a way to explain the curious results. 3 days in a row it had 4 winners with huge mutuels, then 1 winner in a week, then another great 2 days, then a more random pattern. I know these results were based on a random number so I know the clumpings were not the result of a bias. Yet, similar clumpings occur every day for various factors we all track. Are they REAL, hang-your-handicapping-hat-on biases or just random clumping, like 4 7s in a row at a craps table?

BTW, #1 ranked randon number horses at Thistledown in random race type 5 showed a huge profit, but they were a throwout in Woodbine random race type 3 (no winners whatsoever). Too bad this reversed in the next sample. But then again, this could have been due to a bias.

Ron Tiller
HDW

bobphilo
09-11-2006, 07:47 PM
Hello Bob; Do you think, mud, sly, slow,soft, fst, good, sly sealed, dug up, drilled and watered, inside deep, outside good, fm and so on are just figments of my emagination??

T.D.[/QUOTE]

Twin,

Those are examples of track conditions, not so called speed or closer biases, which is what I was talking about. Of course track conditions vary and some horses prefer them or hate them, but it has nothing to do with favoring early or late speed. There are legitimate rail biases like golden or dead rails, which indirectly favor or hinder front runners because they can get to the rail. That is not what is meant by those that believe in speed favoring or closer's track biases. They seem to believe that a track surface can magically distinguish between a front-runner's or closer's hooves and favor one over the other regardless of what part of the track they race over.

The so-called evidence for this is that some tracks have a higher percentage of front-running winners than other. This has more to do with the jockeys' beliefs than with the track. At tracks believed to be speed-favoring most of the horses are ridden hard early so that horses that are off the pace are back there because they are just plain slow rather then being rated. Slow horses rarely win and thus the myth that the track is speed favoring begins. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bob

twindouble
09-11-2006, 08:05 PM
Bob, A bias Is created by the condition of the track. What do think, the horses are creating the bias or the jock?

T.D.

bobphilo
09-11-2006, 08:28 PM
Twin, There are true biases and there are illusory biases. I have no problem with biases that make sense such as rail biases, because the condition of the rail can vary from the rest of the track due to drainage issues. I believe so-called “speed biases” have no such explanation and are not true biases at all but mostly a refection of riding strategy and only supported by improper interpretation of the statistics.



Bob

twindouble
09-11-2006, 08:38 PM
Twin, There are true biases and there are illusory biases. I have no problem with biases that make sense such as rail biases, because the condition of the rail can vary from the rest of the track due to drainage issues. I believe so-called “speed biases” have no such explanation and are not true biases at all but mostly a refection of riding strategy and only supported by improper interpretation of the statistics.



Bob

Would you agree that west coast tracks run faster times than the east coast tracks and would you conceder that comparison a speed bias on the west coast? I'm talking the same class of horses.

bobphilo
09-11-2006, 11:20 PM
Yes, west coast tracks tend to run faster times than east coast tracks (at least until they switch to Polytrack) but there are fast tracks which are not considered early speed biased and slower tracks that are considered speed biased so speed bias is not just a factor of track speed. A so called early speed "bias" is said to exist if more frontrunners win, regardless of the what the final race time is, as i said before, as if some magical force recognized them and made them run faster than their rivals

At the risk of repeating myself, what's true about western tracks as well as Keeneland is that they they are believed to be early speed favoring so horses with any kind of speed will be ridden forwardly. Most closers are far back, not because they are being rated but because they are too slow to race close to the pace. The closers often end up losing because they're slow. Not due to the effect of the track.
I know it goes against a lot of people's sacred handcapping traditions, that are accepted without question, but the more you think about it, the more it makes sense.

Bob

twindouble
09-11-2006, 11:47 PM
Yes, west coast tracks tend to run faster times than east coast tracks (at least until they switch to Polytrack) but there are fast tracks which are not considered early speed biased and slower tracks that are considered speed biased so speed bias is not just a factor of track speed. A so called early speed "bias" is said to exist if more frontrunners win, regardless of the what the final race time is, as i said before, as if some magical force recognized them and made them run faster than their rivals

At the risk of repeating myself, what's true about western tracks as well as Keeneland is that they they are believed to be early speed favoring so horses with any kind of speed will be ridden forwardly. Most closers are far back, not because they are being rated but because they are too slow to race close to the pace. The closers often end up losing because they're slow. Not due to the effect of the track.
I know it goes against a lot of people's sacred handcapping traditions, that are accepted without question, but the more you think about it, the more it makes sense.

Bob

I don't know where your coming from, if a track favors speed there's a track bias. Closers are aways further back, that's why we call them "Closers" They hit their best stride late. When speed can carry further at one track over another, the bias exists. Take a sly sealed track, front running speed horses moves up in my opinon, they are less apt to caught, a bias exists. Those same horses would get caught on a good track, that would favor closers, another bias exists. I can go on and on. You already admited to an inside bias, why not an outside bias? If the rail is dead, that means there will be an out side bias. All your saying is fast horses run fast on a fast track, everyone gets rich. Sounds like a real break through.

cj
09-12-2006, 12:16 AM
I think what he was saying is that the time of the races is irrelevant in relation to a bias.

You could have 8 6f races for 10k claimers at Delmar all go in 1:10, but every horse won with a wide, late move to the front.

At Thistledown, you could have 8 6f races for 10k claimers all go in 1:14, and every winner was a front running rail skimmer.

That was the point, nothing else.

bobphilo
09-12-2006, 12:21 AM
You're assuming what you're trying to prove, that early and late speed biases exist and they are determined by track conditions. I've already explained how what can appear to be a speed bias can really be caused by something else.

I've already said that rail biases exist, both positive and negative and while live rails favor inside horses, dead rails, of course favor outside horses. They get different trips because they are running over different surfaces on different parts of the track.
If there is no rail bias how can you assume a speed bias when, regardless of track condition, the frontrunners and closers are running on the same track. Unless the closer doesn't like the surface, why coudn't he catch the fruntrunner if he is the better horse. Why would the horse that runs over it first get an advantage - is he dropping bombs at the horses that follow him? You are simply giving no explanation why certain tracks are early speed favoring, aside from just stating and assuming it. Like I said, you can't assume what you're trying to prove. Where's the evidence?

Bob

rastajenk
09-12-2006, 12:43 AM
I think Keeneland numbers can get squirrelly because the meets are so short, and the class range is so broad, that determining pars involves much more guess work than at tracks with longer meets and large sample sizes. Toss in at least a couple good-sized weather systems that move through the area during each of April and October, and your data is even more corrupted.

I agree with Bob on the anti-bias concerning front or late speed. I've never seen a good explanation concerning the physics of dirt that would support the kinds of claims you hear everybody, including supposedly knowledgeable folks like Randy Moss on ESPN, make. The tractors that work a track go around and around; they don't go up and down the backstretch 10 times doing one thing, and then go up and down the front part only five times doing something else. At least not in broad daylight. :eek:

bobphilo
09-12-2006, 02:47 AM
Thanks CJ, That's basically what my point was. Even those that believe in speed biases do not consider them identical to fast tracks. Beyond that trackspeed those not affect speed biases because they are mainly a fiction, as traditionally defined. That does not mean I think that a fast pace in relation to a slow final time is not a bias against front runners or a slow pace in relation to a fast final time is not a type of bias against closers, but these are the result of pace, not track propertities. That is why your pace figures are so valuable since they reflect thiese relationships.

By the way, your Al Swearingin avatar is great. I assume his handicapping style would consist of having someone shot the opposing horses. :rolleyes:

Bob

bobphilo
09-12-2006, 03:00 AM
I agree with Bob on the anti-bias concerning front or late speed. I've never seen a good explanation concerning the physics of dirt that would support the kinds of claims you hear everybody, including supposedly knowledgeable folks like Randy Moss on ESPN, make. The tractors that work a track go around and around; they don't go up and down the backstretch 10 times doing one thing, and then go up and down the front part only five times doing something else. At least not in broad daylight. :eek:[/QUOTE]

Thanks Rastajenk, what a pleasure to find a handicapper that realizes that "speed biases" are a myth from a theoretical and physics point of view and the numbers that support them are bad statistics. I have studied and thought physics and stats for years and it's just bad science all around.
I too, am surprised that Randy Moss, who I have a lot of respect for in general, has been taken in by this myth as well.

Bob

twindouble
09-12-2006, 09:09 AM
You're assuming what you're trying to prove, that early and late speed biases exist and they are determined by track conditions. I've already explained how what can appear to be a speed bias can really be caused by something else.

I've already said that rail biases exist, both positive and negative and while live rails favor inside horses, dead rails, of course favor outside horses. They get different trips because they are running over different surfaces on different parts of the track.
If there is no rail bias how can you assume a speed bias when, regardless of track condition, the frontrunners and closers are running on the same track. Unless the closer doesn't like the surface, why coudn't he catch the fruntrunner if he is the better horse. Why would the horse that runs over it first get an advantage - is he dropping bombs at the horses that follow him? You are simply giving no explanation why certain tracks are early speed favoring, aside from just stating and assuming it. Like I said, you can't assume what you're trying to prove. Where's the evidence?

Bob This is what you said;

I feel that what people call "speed biases" are really sef-fullfilling phrophacies that say a lot more about how horses are ridden than about any properties of the track.

This sentence threw me off, ESP where you say "properties" of the track. Properties are all inclusive meaning the make up of the material and condition of it and how it's maintained. Most of what you said in this post I agree with as I've stated. Even the geography of the tracks come in to play.

I don't think it's self-fullfilling when a front runner from the west coast hammers out 21's and 108's, comes to NY and I know those 22's and 109's are as good if not better weighing the variants and different track conditions. You explain that to me.

Under ideal conditions that don't change, I may agree that a bias may not exist but ideal conditions only show up in computers not in racing.

T.D.

Show Me the Wire
09-12-2006, 09:12 AM
FWIW, I agree the only bias is inside to outside as the track surface is not uniform across the entire width and breadth of the track.

It may seem there is a front running bias, because the quickest horse gets to the best path first and exploits the path's advantage.

twindouble
09-12-2006, 09:28 AM
FWIW, I agree the only bias is inside to outside as the track surface is not uniform across the entire width and breadth of the track.

It may seem there is a front running bias, because the quickest horse gets to the best path first and exploits the path's advantage.

Sure, a good jock can move a horse up getting him out of the gate for position, I've seen chop chop put horses on the lead that never had it before then it was whip whip all the way home, got finded for abusing horses. At one point some owners wouldn't allow whipping, just show it. I think they lost more than the won. I'vd also seen him die in the stretch when the inside was off.

I will say this, tracks of today are geared to speed but bias still exist just not to the extent they did prior.

T.D.

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 09:42 AM
There are legitimate rail biases like golden or dead rails, which indirectly favor or hinder front runners because they can get to the rail. That is not what is meant by those that believe in speed favoring or closer's track biases. They seem to believe that a track surface can magically distinguish between a front-runner's or closer's hooves and favor one over the other regardless of what part of the track they race over.

The so-called evidence for this is that some tracks have a higher percentage of front-running winners than other. This has more to do with the jockeys' beliefs than with the track. At tracks believed to be speed-favoring most of the horses are ridden hard early so that horses that are off the pace are back there because they are just plain slow rather then being rated. Slow horses rarely win and thus the myth that the track is speed favoring begins. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bob


Hi Bob,

I think we are extremely close in our views about pace and final time not being linear (even though it appears like it is to many pace handicappers that create formulas to measure the impact). I think this insight is very related to bias.

IMHO, there ARE speed and closer biases. They are related to how tiring the surface is. One might say that the non-linear relationship between pace and final time isn't frozen at one point. It's a sliding scale that is partly dependent on how tiring the surface is.

A more tiring surface (like at a sandy beach) would tend to hurt the horses on the front end more than usual if they ran their typical fractions (adjusted for speed of surface). A concrete hard surface would tend to be less tiring and hurt the front runners less even if they ran the same fractions.

What happens over time is that the smartest jockeys adjust their riding to the surface by getting more or less aggressive. Hence, on the most speed favoring tracks, the jocks get extremely aggressive and cut very fast fractions. Those faster than typical fractions would normally kill the front runners. However, on a speed favoring surface, they have a similar negative impact as racing slower early on a more average track. On the tiring surfaces, they get less aggressive. What the jocks are doing is sort of matching their riding style to the sliding scale of pace by going just fast enough to not offset the advantages of being up front and saving ground etc....

(The best trainers also adjust their training methods. Look at the differences between work out times in CA vs. NY)

There are exceptions though. On some "DAYS" a surface can be more or less tiring that USUAL because of maintenace work, moisture content, cushion depth etc... Then the track will appear to become very speed/closer favoring because the smartest jockeys we need at least 1/2 dozen races or so to figure it out and adjust their aggressiveness. You can actually both visually see and numerically measure those adjustments sometimes.

Show Me the Wire
09-12-2006, 10:00 AM
classhandicapper:

What I think you are talking about is energy expenditure. If a surface is hard more energy can be expended to gain an advantageous positon without paying too big of a penalty in the latter stages.

If a surface is deep and soft the same energy expended on the hard surface will be costly on the deep and soft surface in the latter stages.

So really a bias based on the general track cushion is less tiring or more tiring, giving the illusion of a speed bias or closing bias track. In reality a front running horse will win on both surfaces as long as the energy is expended appropriately on each type of surface.

The real basis is exception to the general track cushion as it is not uniform across the width and breadth of the track surface.

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 10:04 AM
(The best trainers also adjust their training methods. Look at the differences between work out times in CA vs. NY)


To clarify this slightly, everything I am talking about is adjusted for track speed. Trainers out west train their horses to run faster and harder early. (some are actually starting to complain about this because they believe it leads to more physical problems)l

They train this way is because there are advantages to being on the front end or close up. The horses can save some ground and avoid other bad trips. However, to achieve the front end in CA, you have to run faster fractions (relative to the final time) than in some other places around the country. The reason they can get away with running faster fractions relative to the final times without collapsing from the pace like they do elsewhere is because the tracks are less tiring. The net result is that CA racing is not all that more speed favoring than other parts of the country based on wire to wire results etc..., but that's because the trainers and jockeys are adjusting to the less tiring surface by running harder early to get that favorable position.

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 10:09 AM
classhandicapper:

What I think you are talking about is energy expenditure. If a surface is hard more energy can be expended to gain an advantageous positon without paying too big of a penalty in the latter stages.

If a surface is deep and soft the same energy expended on the hard surface will be costly on the deep and soft surface in the latter stages.

So really a bias based on the general track cushion is less tiring or more tiring, giving the illusion of a speed bias or closing bias track. In reality a front running horse will win on both surfaces as long as the energy is expended appropriately on each type of surface.

The real basis is exception to the general track cushion as it is not uniform across the width and breadth of the track surface.

Exactly!!!

My point is that the "energy relationship" is not constant from track to track or even from day to day at the same track. I call those sorts of things biases because until the jocks figure it out, the results can be influenced relative to what is typical at the races or that track. It's not so much the term that is important as is understanding what's happening out there. I think we are in total agreement!

twindouble
09-12-2006, 10:15 AM
Exacty?? What your talking about is PACE! :bang:

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 10:33 AM
Exacty?? What your talking about is PACE! :bang:

No it isn't.

I am talking about the varying relationship between pace and final time from track to track and day to day that can lead to very scewed results until the jockeys and trainers understand what's going on.

If horses typically run 47 113 at a certain track, it might produce "X %" wire to wire winners. On another day a 47 might produce a final time of 113.2 and a much lower % of wire to wire winners. On a 3rd day, a 47 might produce 112.3 and a higher percentage of wire to wire winners. (adjusted for track speed).

These relationships change and give the appearance of what we call speed or closer biases.

twindouble
09-12-2006, 10:45 AM
No it isn't.

I am talking about the varying relationship between pace and final time from track to track and day to day that can lead to very scewed results until the jockeys and trainers understand what's going on.

If horses typically run 47 113 at a certain track, it might produce "X %" wire to wire winners. On another day a 47 might produce a final time of 113.2 and a much lower % of wire to wire winners. On a 3rd day, a 47 might produce 112.3 and a higher percentage of wire to wire winners. (adjusted for track speed).

These relationships change and give the appearance of what we call speed or closer biases.

Ok, here I go again; This is what was said and what you agreed with.

So really a bias based on the general track cushion is less tiring or more tiring, giving the illusion of a speed bias or closing bias track. In reality a front running horse will win on both surfaces as long as the energy is expended appropriately on each type of surface.

If that' not a discription of pace, what is?

What I will agree with is the trainers that train their horses for speed, some do races these horses all over the country, that topic was discussed browdly here a few times, including breeding. I'll except things have changed over the years.

T.D.

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 12:16 PM
WE may be talking about the same things, but we are categorizing them differently.

To me, pace handicapping is typically about the fractions of a race and how they effect the final times of the horses and outcomes of races when extreme in either direction.

I guess a discussion of how the relationships between pace and final time can vary from day to day and/or track to track can be considered a sub topic within pace, but for me it's more about the bias of the surface. Different energy distributions are required by the jocks/trainers or else the results will be scewed relative to the norm (more or less wire to wire winners). To me that is a track bias issue even if energy distribution is the underlying reason.

I'm not from a branch of the Sartin school that thinks in terms of energy. That may be why we are categoriziong these things differently. As I said before, it doesn't matter what you call it as long as you understand what's going on.

JPinMaryland
09-12-2006, 12:32 PM
I agree with Bob on the anti-bias concerning front or late speed. I've never seen a good explanation concerning the physics of dirt that would support the kinds of claims you hear everybody, including supposedly knowledgeable folks like Randy Moss on ESPN, make.

I wish you would elaborate on this passage; sometimes we write stuff and we know what we are thinking but the rest of us do not.

I guess you are talking about kickback and you dont think it is having an effect. But this is where I start to lose you...Certainly dirt is kicked up, are you saying it has no effect? BUt what about turf races they seem run, in general, quite different than dirt races and some of this may have something to do with kickback. The same effect/lack of effect has been noted on polytrack at least according to a few early reports with horses being able to close better on polytrack and then not closing well when they go back to dirt.

Are you saying all this is an illusion?

JPinMaryland
09-12-2006, 01:01 PM
classhandicapper:

What I think you are talking about is energy expenditure. If a surface is hard more energy can be expended to gain an advantageous positon without paying too big of a penalty in the latter stages.

If a surface is deep and soft the same energy expended on the hard surface will be costly on the deep and soft surface in the latter stages.

So really a bias based on the general track cushion is less tiring or more tiring, giving the illusion of a speed bias or closing bias track. In reality a front running horse will win on both surfaces as long as the energy is expended appropriately on each type of surface....

Why do you insist on calling this an "illusion of speed bias" when in fact you admit that such an effect really does exist? I think I was in agreement with you up to the pt. where you call this an illusion.

If class handicapper were to label this a "less tiring track" or "more tiring track" would you then be in agreement with him? But why? The effect on closers and front runners would still be there would it not?

Here is where I think you hanging your entire argument on:

"...a front running horse will win on both surfaces as long as the energy is expended appropriately on each type of surface."

BUt is this really as simple as a jockey strategy? OR are certain horses better at closing than others?

In human bodies it seems well established that there are fast muscle and slow muscle types. Certain physiologies are better at quickness and others are better at endurance. It seems likely that horses have varied muscle types as well.

Given that, imagine we have a Frank Shorter (marathoner) type of runner running against a Carl Lewis. Imagine the track is straight and we've tilted it to make it a downhill; Lewis gets a great jump out of the blocks and in the closing stages Shorter's closing kick is diminished because the course is not so tiring. Then of course we tilt the track upward and make it more tiring; Lewis' jump out of the blocks is no longer so pronounced and of course Shorter closes better because track is suited for stamina types. Even if the track distance was the same in both cases.

It is not a simple response to say that they just have to expend their energy differently. Their bodies are not that adaptable.

Why is this so hard to understand that Bob insists that this is an illusion? It is not hard to theorize such an event via the example above; and there are lots of example of this happening at the track often due to mud or wind or perhaps extreme humidity.

Wind is often a good example. I was AQU when Bellamy Road won the Wood, there was a strong head wind on the back side. Throughout the day early fractions were fast, then got even faster. A horse named Lively Up Yourself won in one of the early races. A huge longshot, but he was also the lone speed in the race and won by open lengths. It was a strange day, front runners were winning all the races until late in the day when jocks just pushed the envelope too far.

bobphilo
09-12-2006, 01:01 PM
I don't think it's self-fullfilling when a front runner from the west coast hammers out 21's and 108's, comes to NY and I know those 22's and 109's are as good if not better weighing the variants and different track conditions. You explain that to me.

T.D.
[/QUOTE]

TD, I think a large portion of our disagreement comes from the fact that we are using the terms differently. It seems that you are defining speed bias as a tendency for horses at a track to run fast final times, and yes, that is determined by the physical properties of the track and is the basis for the variant. However the variant is applied to both front-runners and closers equally and this is not what is generally meant by a speed bias. Speed bias, as usually used, refers to the apparent tendency of a track to favor front-runners and improving their final times over those of closers. Even those that believe in these front-running speed biases admit that this is not identical to just saying that a track tends to produce fast final times, though they feel that the 2 may be related. In other words, just to say a track is fast is not identical to saying it favors early speed.



Bob

rastajenk
09-12-2006, 01:07 PM
I don't think that Shorter/Lewis analogy works at all. I have to assume Shorter's late kick on the downhill won't be enough to get the win, and I have to assume that Lewis's early burst on the uphill won't be enough, but I don't have any reason whatsoever to make those assumptions.

bobphilo
09-12-2006, 01:29 PM
I wish you would elaborate on this passage; sometimes we write stuff and we know what we are thinking but the rest of us do not.

I guess you are talking about kickback and you dont think it is having an effect. But this is where I start to lose you...Certainly dirt is kicked up, are you saying it has no effect? BUt what about turf races they seem run, in general, quite different than dirt races and some of this may have something to do with kickback. The same effect/lack of effect has been noted on polytrack at least according to a few early reports with horses being able to close better on polytrack and then not closing well when they go back to dirt.

Are you saying all this is an illusion?

JPin,



The fact that some tracks have a higher percentage of front-running winners than others is not the illusion. The illusion lies in the belief that this is because some track surfaces can magically differentiate between a front runner and a closer and make one go faster and the other slower when they're running over the same track.

I must say that at least your suggestion of kickback is at least plausible; though it's not clear to what extent most closers are affected by kickback.

However, there are other plausible explanations for apparent speed biases. For example, if a track has a live rail, front-runners have a better chance of getting to it first, but this is a rail bias and not a speed bias.

As I've explained before, many so-called speed biases may be self-fulfilling prophecies due more to riding tactics than to a true bias. If jockeys believe a track is biased towards speed they will all try to race forwardly. Horses that lag are more likely to be just slow rather than being rated. Slow horses tend to lose races, at any distance, and when the obvious happens and one of the front runners wins, the illusion is perpetrated that this is due to some kind of speed bias when it’s really due to the way the horses are ridden.



Bob

JPinMaryland
09-12-2006, 01:33 PM
I don't think that Shorter/Lewis analogy works at all. I have to assume Shorter's late kick on the downhill won't be enough to get the win, and I have to assume that Lewis's early burst on the uphill won't be enough, but I don't have any reason whatsoever to make those assumptions.

they are not unreasonable assumptions. They happen in real life all the time.

A horse can catch a man quite easily. But a man can catch horse too. Given he has enough distance to catch him. Now it is simply a matter of making the course the same distance but uphill, or adding mud or wind or whatever and one can see that one type is better suited than another under certain conditions.

Or what about this? Did you ever pedal your bike in fast gear? How much faster can you go in that same gear on a downhill? Not much faster. But the effect of an uphill is pronounced in fast gear. This is like Shorter's late kick in the downhill; it is still there, he may even be faster, but in relative terms its effect is diminished.

Imagine on a flat course Shorter runs 25 mph in the last stages or a race; and say Lews only runs 22 mph. Now imagine a downhill, Shorter may run 30 but Lews may run 29. The effect is no unlike pedaling your bike downhill you can only go so much faster. ANd the fat kid that can never catch you might be doing allright.

It is all a question of degrees. These effects diminish slightly or enhance slightly whatever strengths/weaknesses these runners have. But it is enough to make a difference when horses are closely matched.

Or take a bear and a deer. The deer is faster on a flat course. Going downhill he is probably more so. But going uphill? The bear is probably much closer, he has more power.

JPinMaryland
09-12-2006, 01:46 PM
JPin,




I must say that at least your suggestion of kickback is at least plausible; though it's not clear to what extent most closers are affected by kickback.




Bob

Well you started out talking about kickback and then you wandered back into speed bias. Which is okay, but I will stay on the kick back thread for a while longer.

You seemed to say earlier that the effect of dirt was an illusion. ANd you mentioned Randy Moss in particular. I assume you are talking about kickback.

Do you deny that turf races in general play differently than dirt? This seems to be the widespread consensus on this board as well as others.

I was not talking about kickback in relation to closers, because it is a subset of the more general principle. ANd I'm trying to see where you are coming on that. Obviously closers win despite these problems, they've learned to overcome them. BUt isnt it obvious that ther are more successful closers on turf than on dirt? IS there a reason for this?

bobphilo
09-12-2006, 03:13 PM
Well you started out talking about kickback and then you wandered back into speed bias. Which is okay, but I will stay on the kick back thread for a while longer.

You seemed to say earlier that the effect of dirt was an illusion. ANd you mentioned Randy Moss in particular. I assume you are talking about kickback.

Do you deny that turf races in general play differently than dirt? This seems to be the widespread consensus on this board as well as others.

I was not talking about kickback in relation to closers, because it is a subset of the more general principle. ANd I'm trying to see where you are coming on that. Obviously closers win despite these problems, they've learned to overcome them. BUt isnt it obvious that ther are more successful closers on turf than on dirt? IS there a reason for this?

JPin,
Kickback is not only related to speed bias. It is the only reasonable explantion for arguing that it exists at all as a product of the track surface. My point was that there are other possible explanations for what appears to be a bias in the track.

I have great respect for for Randy Moss but have serious disagreements with him with regard to speed biases. If he attriibuted it to kickback his position would make more sense, but if you listen to his comments, he, like many believers in speed biases, doesn't attribute it to kickback as much as to some mysterious force in the track that favors front runners but not closers. He never really explains how some tracks improve the times of front runners without helping closers as well. He just seems to take it for granted.

Yes, closers do seem to do better on turf than on dirt (I'd have to be delusional to deny that), but the explanation for this brings us back to the self-fulfilling prophacy again. The riders in turf races think the closers have the advantage and therefore are not afraid to settle towards the rear of the pack when they have a strong contender, whereas on dirt they would keep this horse much closer to the lead. Horses that race from off the pace by choice (as they do on grass) tend to be better than horses who lag because they are slow (most often the case in dirt), so, of course, they will win a higher proportion of races on grass. Again, it's not a question of true surface bias but of riding strategy based on the perception of surface bias.

Bob

twindouble
09-12-2006, 03:17 PM
I don't think it's self-fullfilling when a front runner from the west coast hammers out 21's and 108's, comes to NY and I know those 22's and 109's are as good if not better weighing the variants and different track conditions. You explain that to me.

T.D.


TD, I think a large portion of our disagreement comes from the fact that we are using the terms differently. It seems that you are defining speed bias as a tendency for horses at a track to run fast final times, and yes, that is determined by the physical properties of the track and is the basis for the variant. However the variant is applied to both front-runners and closers equally and this is not what is generally meant by a speed bias. Speed bias, as usually used, refers to the apparent tendency of a track to favor front-runners and improving their final times over those of closers. Even those that believe in these front-running speed biases admit that this is not identical to just saying that a track tends to produce fast final times, though they feel that the 2 may be related. In other words, just to say a track is fast is not identical to saying it favors early speed.



Bob[/QUOTE]

I agree on the large portion, I have trouble keeping in tune to you modern day handicappers, ESP when they are coming up with new terminologies on horse racing, it upsets me. Heck we've used one language (terms) for over a 100 years, why confuse things now.

Good luck Bob

T.D.

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 04:13 PM
Yes, closers do seem to do better on turf than on dirt (I'd have to be delusional to deny that), but the explanation for this brings us back to the self-fulfilling prophacy again. The riders in turf races think the closers have the advantage and therefore are not afraid to settle towards the rear of the pack when they have a strong contender, whereas on dirt they would keep this horse much closer to the lead. Horses that race from off the pace by choice (as they do on grass) tend to be better than horses who lag because they are slow (most often the case in dirt), so, of course, they will win a higher proportion of races on grass. Again, it's not a question of true surface bias but of riding strategy based on the perception of surface bias.
Bob

Bob,

I can't agree with this.

First, I think you are missing the potential for dirt courses to be more or less tiring on any given day (or from track to track) much as various sections of a beach might be depending on the moisture content, depth of sand etc....

But beyond that, turf horses are trained and ridden to go slower earlier than dirt horses because the greatest trainers and riders in the world believe that's the way to get the best results on turf. It's hard for me to believe that all the greatest trainers and riders in the world are delusional in that belief. I am almost certain they came to that conclusion over the decades by training and riding horses in a variety of ways.

If that wasn't so, I can assure you that Frankel, Pletcher, the great Europeans trainers and the best riders etc.... (at least someone) would be training and riding for early speed to take advantage of all the foolish people out there that are supposedly training and riding improperly.

Turf and dirt racing are different. They have different energy distribution requirements (or biases depending on which term you prefer) in order to produce optimal times and results. There is less of a penalty for running too fast early on the typical dirt course, but dirt courses vary from track to track and day to day also.

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 04:16 PM
BUt is this really as simple as a jockey strategy? OR are certain horses better at closing than others?

In human bodies it seems well established that there are fast muscle and slow muscle types. Certain physiologies are better at quickness and others are better at endurance. It seems likely that horses have varied muscle types as well.


These are very good points also. Not all horses are alike. You can't always just flip a switch to get the appropriate energy distribution to match the track.

I do think (as you said also) that jocks and trainers do try to adjust though - at least as soon as they figure out what's going on.

bobphilo
09-12-2006, 04:31 PM
Hi Bob,

I think we are extremely close in our views about pace and final time not being linear (even though it appears like it is to many pace handicappers that create formulas to measure the impact). I think this insight is very related to bias.

IMHO, there ARE speed and closer biases. They are related to how tiring the surface is. One might say that the non-linear relationship between pace and final time isn't frozen at one point. It's a sliding scale that is partly dependent on how tiring the surface is.

A more tiring surface (like at a sandy beach) would tend to hurt the horses on the front end more than usual if they ran their typical fractions (adjusted for speed of surface). A concrete hard surface would tend to be less tiring and hurt the front runners less even if they ran the same fractions.

What happens over time is that the smartest jockeys adjust their riding to the surface by getting more or less aggressive. Hence, on the most speed favoring tracks, the jocks get extremely aggressive and cut very fast fractions. Those faster than typical fractions would normally kill the front runners. However, on a speed favoring surface, they have a similar negative impact as racing slower early on a more average track. On the tiring surfaces, they get less aggressive. What the jocks are doing is sort of matching their riding style to the sliding scale of pace by going just fast enough to not offset the advantages of being up front and saving ground etc....

(The best trainers also adjust their training methods. Look at the differences between work out times in CA vs. NY)

There are exceptions though. On some "DAYS" a surface can be more or less tiring that USUAL because of maintenace work, moisture content, cushion depth etc... Then the track will appear to become very speed/closer favoring because the smartest jockeys we need at least 1/2 dozen races or so to figure it out and adjust their aggressiveness. You can actually both visually see and numerically measure those adjustments sometimes.

Hi Class,

What you are describing is more an issue of riders' adjusting pace to track speed rather than what is generally considered to be a speed bias. As I understand it you are saying that if a track has sped up and a horse goes to the lead with fractions that what would ordinarily be a normal or quick pace is actually doing so with minimal energy expenture and is in effect stealing the race. The proof of this would be seen after the race when the fractions actually will be rather moderate relative to the fast final time. It's a temporary situation resulting from one jockey judging track speed better than the rest of the field. It's not that the track was biased towrds front runners so much as the track favoring a horse stealling an easy early lead - something all tracks do.
What is usually meant by speed bias is that horses setting a fast pace are not tired by it any more than those rating off of it, making the front runner hard to catch. It's almost as if there was some mysterious force that selectively makes front runners immune to the laws of excercise physiology while simultaneously still appying them to the closers. Futhermore, this force is thought to continue throughout the entire meet for some "speed favoring tracks". Horses winning an occasional race through clever pacing, as in the example you cite would not be said to win because of the bias.
Actually, the situation you describe, in addition to the possible effects of kickback, may well be the closest thing that can exist to a true speed bias, and since "a rose by any other name..etc", can be played just as profitably as a "speed bias" if you can predict the situations when it will occur.

Bob

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 04:48 PM
I'm 47 and only in decent shape. So forget the actual times. ;)

Would anyone argue with this:

If I went to my local high school and ran 1/4 mile on an asphalt track in as even a pace as possible I think I could probably finish in a little over a 1 minute (give or take a little).

If I did the same thing except that I ran the first 100 yards almost as fast as I could, I would definitely finish in a slower final time because I expended my energy less efficiently, but I think I'd still be able to finish the race in a reasonable time.

If I conducted the same exact experiment, but this time on the sandiest and deepest part of Jones/Rockaway beach, I think the results would be a lot different. I'm not sure what my final time would be when I tried to distribute my energy evenly, but I am close to certain that if I ran the first 100 yards on sand almost as fast as I could it would have a dramatically worst effect on my ability to run the full 1/4 mile in a decent time relative to running on asphalt.

Just to make up some numbers, if on asphalt running too fast early slowed me down 15%, the same effort on sand might cost me 50%.

Whether you call this a track bias or the energy distrubution requirements of the surface, I think this is the phenomenon we are debating.

witchdoctor
09-12-2006, 04:51 PM
I'm 47 and only in decent shape. So forget the actual times.

Would anyone argue with this:

If I went to my local high school and ran 1/4 mile on an asphalt track in as even a pace as possible I think I could probably finish in a little over a 1 minute (give or take a little).

If I did the same thing except that I ran the first 100 yards almost as fast as I could, I would definitely finish in a slower final time because I expended my energy less efficiently, but I think I'd still be able to finish the race in a reasonable time.

If I conducted the same exact experiment, but this time on the sandiest and deepest part of Jones/Rockaway beach, I think the results would be a lot different. I'm not sure what my final time would be when I tried to distribute my energy evenly, but I am close to certain that if I ran the first 100 yards on sand almost as fast as I could it would have a dramatically worst effect on my ability to run the full 1/4 mile in a decent time relative to running on asphalt.

Just to make up some numbers, if on asphalt running too fast early slowed me down 15%, the same effort on sand might cost me 50%.

Whether you call this a track bias or the energy distrubution requirements of the surface, I think this is the phenomenon we are debating.



But what would happen if we gelded you? :lol: :lol:

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 04:53 PM
But what would happen if we gelded you? :lol: :lol:

I'm not sure, but I'd run a lot faster on either surface when you came to do it.

:lol:

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 04:57 PM
Bob,

If you look at my earlier posts in this thread (one to you) it will explain what I am saying.

In short, I believe that "adjusted for track speed" not only is the relationship between pace and final time not linear (as you have often argued), it's not fixed either. Given adjusted fractional times, a 45 might be devastating on one day and only mildly depleting on the next. The same is true from track to track (all adjusted for track speed etc...)

cj
09-12-2006, 05:08 PM
I think you guys are greatly overestimating the differences between fast and slow tracks. The differences are very minimal in the overall scheme of things. I've investigaed this very heavily, especially in regards to beaten lengths and adjusting final times.

The difference between adding time for a horse beaten 10 lengths in a 1:14 6f race and a 1:10 6f race is so small that a constant number works just as well. I don't know of many tracks in the country that are so far apart.

If last year, a top horse like Lost in the Fog ran on the fastest and slowest tracks in the country, how much difference would there be? The difference is nowhere near running on asphalt or a deep sandy beach. And, it is over a much greater distance. Most biases I see are not related at all to how fast in terms of time a track happens to be.

bobphilo
09-12-2006, 05:17 PM
Bob,

I can't agree with this.

First, I think you are missing the potential for dirt courses to be more or less tiring on any given day (or from track to track) much as various sections of a beach might be depending on the moisture content, depth of sand etc....

But beyond that, turf horses are trained and ridden to go slower earlier than dirt horses because the greatest trainers and riders in the world believe that's the way to get the best results on turf. It's hard for me to believe that all the greatest trainers and riders in the world are delusional in that belief. I am almost certain they came to that conclusion over the decades by training and riding horses in a variety of ways.

If that wasn't so, I can assure you that Frankel, Pletcher, the great Europeans trainers and the best riders etc.... (at least someone) would be training and riding for early speed to take advantage of all the foolish people out there that are supposedly training and riding improperly.

Turf and dirt racing are different. They have different energy distribution requirements (or biases depending on which term you prefer) in order to produce optimal times and results. There is less of a penalty for running too fast early on the typical dirt course, but dirt courses vary from track to track and day to day also.

Class,

Hero worship aside, just because something is widely believed does not make it true. For decades it was universally believed that weight training was bad for athletes becuse it would make them slow and "muscle-bound". Now the top atheletes in all sports lift for strength. Myths will be be perpetuated as long as everyone buys into them and acts accordingly.
If there is some scientific reason for your supposition that optimal energy distribution is radically different from dirt to grass, I've yet to hear it.
You are familiar with my pace analysis and I do exactly the same for turf and dirt and they both explain performances equally well. I can think of just as many cases of one horse beating a better horse by running a more even paced raced than his rival on grass as on dirt.
The error in your suppostion is shown by the contradiction that speed allegedly holds up better on turf than on dirt when dirt is a more tiring surface. Logic dictates that contradictions come either from flaws in ones basic premises or reasoning proceses.

Bob

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 06:23 PM
If last year, a top horse like Lost in the Fog ran on the fastest and slowest tracks in the country, how much difference would there be? The difference is nowhere near running on asphalt or a deep sandy beach. And, it is over a much greater distance. Most biases I see are not related at all to how fast in terms of time a track happens to be.

CJ,

I agree with you.

My own points have absolutely nothing to do with fast or slow tracks. It's entirely about how tiring the track happens to be. IMO, there probably is some small relationship between how fast a track is playing and how tiring it happens to be, but I don't really care about that. I only care about how tiring it is. If it is more tiring, horses will react worse to the same fast fractions (adjusted for the speed of the track) than if it is less tiring.

I used the asphalt to sand comparison because it screams the point I am trying to make. There is nothing about the speed of sand that should make it so difficult for me to run 1/4 mile after sprinting hard for the first 100 yards. It's the fact that I will burn up a lot more energy fighting the deeper texture of the surface trying to run fast that will cause me to collapse worse than on asphalt.

This is a rather extreme scenario compared to what we see in racing, but most biases are only worth a few lengths one way or the other to begin with. So smaller differences in the relationship between pace and final time are easily explained by this kind of thing conceptually and IMO fully supported by racing results.

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 06:50 PM
Class,

Hero worship aside, just because something is widely believed does not make it true......If there is some scientific reason for your supposition that optimal energy distribution is radically different from dirt to grass, I've yet to hear it.....The error in your suppostion is shown by the contradiction that speed allegedly holds up better on turf than on dirt when dirt is a more tiring surface. Logic dictates that contradictions come either from flaws in ones basic premises or reasoning proceses.Bob

Bob,

All the experts could all be wrong about training and racing on turf, but I see little evidence to support that conclusion either. I think it is much more likely that the greatest trainers and jockeys on multiple continents came to these conclusions about training and riding via experience and are right. If anything, I think the evidence from racing supports the conclusion that if a good turf horses tries to wire a turf race in dirt type fractions he will collapse worse than an equal horse on dirt (all adjusted for speed of track).

Personally, I can't think of anyone I know at the track that thinks speed holds up better on turf than dirt. I'm not sure where you are getting that from, but I definitely don't believe that. Many people believe that horses often go wire to wire on turf because the horses are often choked back to such slow fractions, the front runners have an advantage over the closers because it becomes physically impossible for the closers to make up the ground. As we agree, the jockeys and trainers adjust the styles of the horses. Sometimes the they overdo it or more often than on dirt the field will be lacking in early speed because everyone trains their horses to be more even paced. However, those horses wiring has little to do with running style. It is also about energy distribution.

Somehow I think if Angel Cordero was riding today and started trying to steal races on the turf by opening huge leads and bottoming out fields with lively fractions he'd finish last a lot more often than he did on dirt. ;)

twindouble
09-12-2006, 06:57 PM
CJ,

I agree with you.

My own points have absolutely nothing to do with fast or slow tracks. It's entirely about how tiring the track happens to be. IMO, there probably is some small relationship between how fast a track is playing and how tiring it happens to be, but I don't really care about that. I only care about how tiring it is. If it is more tiring, horses will react worse to the same fast fractions (adjusted for the speed of the track) than if it is less tiring.

I used the asphalt to sand comparison because it screams the point I am trying to make. There is nothing about the speed of sand that should make it so difficult for me to run 1/4 mile after sprinting hard for the first 100 yards. It's the fact that I will burn up a lot more energy fighting the deeper texture of the surface trying to run fast that will cause me to collapse worse than on asphalt.

This is a rather extreme scenario compared to what we see in racing, but most biases are only worth a few lengths one way or the other to begin with. So smaller differences in the relationship between pace and final time are easily explained by this kind of thing conceptually and IMO fully supported by racing results.

The obvious question is, what makes the track tiring in your opinion?

classhandicapper
09-12-2006, 07:24 PM
The obvious question is, what makes the track tiring in your opinion?

I haven't seen any scientific studies of this kind of thing either. I just feel certain I have seen tracks that are either more or less tiring than average and have watched jockeys adjust to it. I also believe the evidence that CA trainers gear their horses up for more for early speed is evident.

It probably has something to do how deep the surface is and how much of a struggle it is to run on it (like my sand and asphalt analogy). However, there could be many other factors that I have no idea about.

If you really want to muddy up the waters further I can. In one of my conversations with Jerry Brown, he conceded that it was possible that the typical final time relationships between distances that we see in most time charts (like Beyer's etc...) might change from day to day depending on how tiring the surface was. So if the chart says that 6F in 113 is equal to 7F in somewhere between 126.1 and 126.2, that may be true on average, but on some days it might be 125.4 or 126.4. This would have nothing to do with the speed of the surface, wind, gate placement etc.... It would be purely about how tiring the track was. I agree with him. I believe I have seen evidence of that, but not enough to say I am certain.

Obviously, all this stuff is theoretical, but this is how I view it. I think the Sartin guys that use energy etc.. are definitely on the right path related to this kind of thing.

delayjf
09-12-2006, 07:29 PM
If you consider the differences between turf and dirt, I think you see pretty strong empirical evidense that there is a difference between the effects both surfaces have on how races are won.

For one thing, the turf is more of a natural surface for a horse as they are able to accelarate better on turf than on dirt. I've seen many a slow paced turf race won by a closer but I've seen very few turf races that are stolen or won by horses that cannot run a decent final fraction - even on the lead.

On dirt, it's not at all uncommon for a horse to steal a early lead in fast fractions and hang on at the end of slow final fraction. If a track is not as tiring, then there is less emphasis on a horse's stamina with regard to conditioning. Closers on the turf run into the same obsacles as those on the dirt (minus the kick back) and yet they more consistantly are able to overcome those obstacles to win.

the_fat_man
09-12-2006, 08:11 PM
I haven't seen any scientific studies of this kind of thing either. I just feel certain I have seen tracks that are either more or less tiring than average and have watched jockeys adjust to it. I also believe the evidence that CA trainers gear their horses up for more for early speed is evident.



'scientific' and 'jockeys' don't quite belong together in the same passage.

Wanna see a real scientific thus, rational, rider in action? check out some of the rides by Cornelio Velasquez these past few weeks. One can argue he's lost 3 grade I's cause he's ALWAYS IN A HURRY. In some cases it's obvious; in others, very subtle.

The jocks (and their connections) must buy into this pseudo speed thing being disseminated on PA land cause they all absolutely MUST have the lead mid turn--so, in most races, half the field is in a drive entering the turn.

Every so often we're treated to a patient ride and it's a beautiful thing. Like cycling, the horse doing the least bit of running throughout the race is in the best position to run at the end. Needless to say, horses can actually win without having to put forth all the extra effort that jockeys insist on getting out of them. Hit 'm again!!!

I write 'pseudo' cause all the 'running type' methods out there focus on the 4f call for sprints and 6f call for routes; which would put the SPEED/chaser on or near the lead right around late turn. Which, of course, allows for the biconditional, as the pace/figure people thus accept the typical hurried trips of the present jocks
as not only standard but correct. So the whole thing is misguided ---from the jock, to the figure maker, to the trainer, etc. (Why does Tagg put blinkers on that 2 year old fillie Sunday? She goes from finishing very well at 6F at the spa to pushing it at the front and collapsing on the turn going a Mile. Sucks for those giving him enough credit to assume that the blinkers are meant to get her to relax, as she ran erratically the previous race.)
Very infrequently do I watch a race where I'm not yelling for the jock to SLOW DOWN ---don't MAKE THAT MOVE; DON't ASK IT HERE, etc.

The point is not that horses win with these trips but rather that they're used needlessly, even when best, and could win with much less effort.

And we're here, today, arguing about what?

the_fat_man
09-12-2006, 08:18 PM
If you consider the differences between turf and dirt, I think you see pretty strong empirical evidense that there is a difference between the effects both surfaces have on how races are won.

For one thing, the turf is more of a natural surface for a horse as they are able to accelarate better on turf than on dirt. I've seen many a slow paced turf race won by a closer but I've seen very few turf races that are stolen or won by horses that cannot run a decent final fraction - even on the lead.

On dirt, it's not at all uncommon for a horse to steal a early lead in fast fractions and hang on at the end of slow final fraction. If a track is not as tiring, then there is less emphasis on a horse's stamina with regard to conditioning. Closers on the turf run into the same obsacles as those on the dirt (minus the kick back) and yet they more consistantly are able to overcome those obstacles to win.

Might we want to say a few words about the DRAFTING (especially inside) on the turf?


The result being a seemingly very impressive performance; witness Cacique's race on Saturday.

Tom
09-12-2006, 09:12 PM
What does either of the last two posts have to do with speed figures and track variants?

keilan
09-12-2006, 09:25 PM
Might we want to say a few words about the DRAFTING (especially inside) on the turf?


The result being a seemingly very impressive performance; witness Cacique's race on Saturday.


I brought this up a year or two ago but no one here thought it worthy of discussion, I think most thought I had lost my marbles :p

Sorry Tom, make that the last 3 posts -- now back to regular programing

p.s. -- fats didn't get chance to download race result from one of NY tracks, maybe you would be so kind to pass them on to him :)

Tom
09-12-2006, 09:35 PM
:lol:

twindouble
09-12-2006, 09:58 PM
Ok guys, hold onto your chair. I think your on to something by adjusting your speed and pace figures to include adjusted variants. :faint: Did I say that?

I don't know if it's been part of your figures right along but it does make sense to me. I've always use the DRF speed and track variant in my handicapping along with those raw numbers in the Past performances. Not that I leaned on them but those times and variants are the clue to the quality of horses that have competed including determing how fast the race really was. Now if your telling me you can improve on those numbers to a more realistic figure, you've sold me. Whereas I didn't think the Beyer numbers achieved that in my opinion.

I won't just agree, I'll put it to the test. I can't see beating up on you guys if your on to something but You better be right. :lol:

T.D.

the_fat_man
09-12-2006, 10:10 PM
I brought this up a year or two ago but no one here thought it worthy of discussion, I think most thought I had lost my marbles :p

Sorry Tom, make that the last 3 posts -- now back to regular programing

p.s. -- fats didn't get chance to download race result from one of NY tracks, maybe you would be so kind to pass them on to him :)

If you mean charts, you're out of luck. I haven't downloaded a chart since late May.

JPinMaryland
09-13-2006, 12:03 AM
I think you guys are greatly overestimating the differences between fast and slow tracks. The differences are very minimal in the overall scheme of things. I've investigaed this very heavily, especially in regards to beaten lengths and adjusting final times..


CJ: is it possible that much of the difference in times is due to the turns? For instance you could investigate this empirically by comparing times at two tracks in one turn races vs two turn races and see if there is a greater disparity in two turn races.

One example that comes to mind is 10f at CD vs HOL say for example. There's a fairly large disparity there in my opinion, or maybe not...but I wonder if much of this difference has to do with the turns at CD and perhaps on the straightaways there is not that much difference.

I just wonder if you have ever looked at it this way, since you said you had put some effort into researching this.

The Judge
09-13-2006, 01:11 AM
I have made some of my biggest scores with horses moving from one track to another. The same horses with the same running style just a different track. Not in some other state not Northern California to Southern California no! Only moving a few miles away; the Summer Fairs in Northern California.

These tracks are only a few miles apart yet completly different running styles win when the tracks move on. Some of those tracks outside horses run well others inside horses run well.

I know there are some slow horses but most races are very competitive and most horses in that race can be competitive. Go thru a race and give a "slow horse" a good number then give the contenders not so good number but one that this horse has run more then once and see how close these horses are to each other.

Remember these are the numbers that these horses ran we just think they won't, can 't or shouldn't run them today. This is our little predjuice.
With all that the best winner handicapper (the public) is only right around 33% of the time.

The Judge
09-13-2006, 01:30 AM
The top 3 betting choices win about 67% of the time that leaves 33% for "slow horses" the same % as the favorites. All I'm saying is make sure its a slow horse that you are kicking out and you are at the right track.

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 02:00 AM
Bob,
Personally, I can't think of anyone I know at the track that thinks speed holds up better on turf than dirt. I'm not sure where you are getting that from, but I definitely don't believe that. .. ;)

Class, if you read my post carefully you will see that I never claimed you said that speed holds up better on turf than on dirt. What i said is that this is a condradiction that follows from the premise that less tiring tracks lead to a front running bias. I will show you how find yourself in this unwanted contradictory conclusion. I know from my own experience as a runner that when I wanted a hard tiring workout I, would work on a sandy surface or plowed dirt. If I wanted a more gentle energy saving workout I'd train on grass. This distinction goes double for horses who have evolved to run on grass over thousands of years on grass. If you are to be consistent with your premise that less tiring surfaces should favor early speed you cannot escape the conclusion that turf should favor early speed over dirt. Since this is both absurd and contradicts the very thing you are trying to prove you are ensnaring yourself in a Reductio ad Adsurdum argument, which is proof of an incorrect premise.
As you know, a central tenet of my pace analysis, which you have praised and used profitably in the past, is that whatever differences there are between turf and dirt courses, they are irrelavant to energy distribution and ideal pace scenarios. That does not mean that trainers and riders don't continue to use outdated paced strategies pace strategies. Yes there are clear differences in the way turf and dirt races are ridden as well as differences in how different dirt races are riden but I can assure you as someone that you know has devoted years of study to the application of scientific and statistical principles to handicapping that many of the scared cows of handicapping just do not stand up to rigorish cold eye of analysis. My experience working on the backstretch combined with communucation with some top figure makers and owners, coupled with my academic training in medicine and sports physiology desciplines related to racing confirms that what passes for handicapping dogma is often "a tale full of sound and fury and signifying nothing". :bang:

JPinMaryland
09-13-2006, 02:51 AM
so tell me again why turf races are run differently...This is all due to some sort of mass delusion on the part of jockeys??

twindouble
09-13-2006, 09:11 AM
Here's another question for the guys that make their own numbers. From what I've gathered here you start out by using other peoples numbers, mainly Equibase- DRF correct? You had to at sometime along the way conclude that their numbers were lacking, like I did with the Beyer figures. Where Thoro-Graph fits in, I don't know. If there's others who are they?


Thanks,

T.D.

keilan
09-13-2006, 09:56 AM
As you know, a central tenet of my pace analysis, which you have praised and used profitably in the past, is that whatever differences there are between turf and dirt courses, they are irrelavant to energy distribution and ideal pace scenarios.

Can you elaborate, possibiliy give an example of the above. If you are saying what I think you are saying this could get interesting. :)

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 11:50 AM
Can you elaborate, possibiliy give an example of the above. If you are saying what I think you are saying this could get interesting. :)

Be glad too. Keep posted and I'll explain the basis for my pace analysis. Glad to see that someone is interested in listening to a new idea rather than burning the heretic. LOL. Actually this is only new to handcappers, it's been known to physicists and excercise physiologisits for some time.

Bob

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 12:13 PM
TD,

Most handicappers are loyal to one service or the other. Since all services have their strengths and weaknesses, when I do the 3 or 4 races of the week at my Yahoo racing group and try to provide figures from several services for the members to analyse, TG, Beyer, Brisnet, PaceFigures and sometimes Equibase. I mainly look at TG and Beyer, and look for points of agreement with the other services, among other things. if a figure looks suspect I will do a pace analysis to see how the figure was earned. For example, in last Sat's Man o War, Showing Up had run the faster race and earned the biggest figure with most services. However, a pace analysis of Cacique's last race showed that his slower time was hindered by an incredibly slow pace. I expected Cacique's figure to improve and it did and he beat Showing Up. One has to interprete the figures.
I used to make my own figures from scratch and they worked great, but with all the shipping that goes on today I couldn't keep up with all the circuits. It can be an incredibly laborious process.

Hope this helps,
Bob

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 12:36 PM
so tell me again why turf races are run differently...This is all due to some sort of mass delusion on the part of jockeys??

I'd say it was an example of riding in accordance with popular belief. It happens all the time, and not just in sports. I don't know if you follow international racing, but in Europe and South Africa the early pace of grass races is even slower than U.S grass races. Same surface, different traditions. In S. Africa it's called the Capetown Crawl and a S.A member of my Yahoo group has done very well betting with that in mind there.
Aside from lack of kickback, I'm still waiting for a better explanation for the differences in the way the races are run between grass and dirt. Something relating to how differential energy return between grass and dirt could possibly be connected to differences in ideal energy distribution. Something other than tradition and popular belief.

Bob

classhandicapper
09-13-2006, 12:37 PM
If you are to be consistent with your premise that less tiring surfaces should favor early speed you cannot escape the conclusion that turf should favor early speed over dirt. Since this is both absurd and contradicts the very thing you are trying to prove you are ensnaring yourself in a Reductio ad Adsurdum argument, which is proof of an incorrect premise. :bang:

Bob,

You are simply saying that turf is less tiring and then telling me I am being inconsistent because a less tiring surface means the track should be more speed favoring. Just saying it does not make it so.

I obviously believe turf is more tiring despite your belief and personal track experience.

I have seen almost no evidence from my observations of racing over the last 30 years that leads me to believe that turf is the less tiring surface. There are occasionally very dry, rock hard, grass surfaces that can be less tiring than usual, but they are the exception. Typically, horses are fighting softer surfaces that sometimes contain a little moisture. They are digging up divets here or there etc... and tiring worse than their counterparts on dirt when they run paces comparable to dirt races (all adjusted for track speed).

I believe that turf is "more tiring" based on analyzing the results of many stakes races (fairly consistent horses) over those 30 years. They were run with a variety of paces and I gave full consideration to the abilities of the horses going in. I am also saying that given that all the greatest jockeys and trainers in world apparently have independently come to the same conclusion and have adjusted their training methods and riding styles to suit that conclusion, at the very least it is supporting evidence that is better than nothing.

We don't have to agree, but I am being very consistent based on what my handicapping, personal pace figures, observation of race results, and trainers/jockey behavior tells me.

classhandicapper
09-13-2006, 01:00 PM
Might we want to say a few words about the DRAFTING (especially inside) on the turf? The result being a seemingly very impressive performance; witness Cacique's race on Saturday.

Fat_man,

I believe that drafting is a factor in both dirt and turf racing, but probably more so on turf because the horses are often all bunched up from front to back.

I would just add this thought/question.

Given that drafting is probably a fairly big factor on turf, can you explain why the riders of front runners (and the trainers and owners that give them instructions) allow the horses behind them to draft so easily and remain so close. Why not just get a little more aggressive the way they do on dirt, spread the field out further, reduce the extent of drafting, and put a few more lengths between themselves and their toughest competitors (I'm thinking about the way Angel Cordero masterfully rode front runners on the dirt).

I think the reason is that the negative effects of being more aggressive on the turf pace-wise MORE than offsets the disadvantage of giving your opponents the benefit of drafting.

Honestly, race riding is not so complicated that it should take decades of scientific study and stratospheric IQs to understand. I can't tell you the perfect way to ride, but I have complete faith that Bailey, Cordero, Pincay, John Velasquez, Shoemaker, etc... and all the greats from Europe must have tried lot of things before concluding that this is the right way to ride the turf in order to maximize their chances.

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 01:23 PM
Bob,

You are simply saying that turf is less tiring and then telling me I am being inconsistent because a less tiring surface means the track should be more speed favoring. Just saying it does not make it so.

I obviously believe turf is more tiring despite your belief and personal track experience.

I have seen almost no evidence from my observations of racing over the last 30 years that leads me to believe that turf is the less tiring surface. There are occasionally very dry, rock hard, grass surfaces that can be less tiring than usual, but they are the exception. Typically, horses are fighting softer surfaces that sometimes contain a little moisture. They are digging up divets here or there etc... and tiring worse than their counterparts on dirt when they run paces comparable to dirt races (all adjusted for track speed).

I believe that turf is "more tiring" based on analyzing the results of many stakes races (fairly consistent horses) over those 30 years. They were run with a variety of paces and I gave full consideration to the abilities of the horses going in. I am also saying that given that all the greatest jockeys and trainers in world apparently have independently come to the same conclusion and have adjusted their training methods and riding styles to suit that conclusion, at the very least it is supporting evidence that is better than nothing.

We don't have to agree, but I am being very consistent based on what my handicapping, personal pace figures, observation of race results, and trainers/jockey behavior tells me.

Class,

Sorry if I implied that you are inconsistent in your beliefs. However if you believe that grass (the surface horses evolved to run on) is more tiring than dirt, you are not being inconsistent but are, nonetheless, incorrect.
If you ever get the chance to walk and run on typical dirt and turf course at a track you will see what I mean.
Obviously tiring courses result in slower times. If you've noticed the times of similar class turf and dirt races, you will see that the turf times are usually faster - despite the fact the tighter and more frequent turns in grass races.
The occasional exception being soft or yeilding turf courses where the grass is slippery as well as heavy.
Yes your beliefs are consistent with the historical views of the sport but handicapping is not anthropology. My concern is consistency with proven scientific principles. In returning to my previous example, for over 100 years all the great heavyweight boxing champions never lifted weights. That is just a historical artifact and irrelevent to newer scientific findings that do not support the myth.
Federico Tesio, possibly the greatest breeder in the 20 th century who bred the great Ribot, wrote that racing changes a horse's DNA in his sperm cells. Genetics has shown this to be nonsense. Even the "greats" can be totally wrong on an issue. History is not science.

Bob

classhandicapper
09-13-2006, 01:55 PM
Bob,

I believe you have a theory.

To be consisent with your theory, you would prefer to assume that the greatest athletes and trainers in the sport have all been foolish for many decades about something that isn't particularly complicated. It probably wouldn't even require much more than minor experimentation for them to understand what's best. You don't seem to even want to consider the possibility that these great trainers and riders may have already studied this to death via trial and error as a part of their own learning. Perhaps many of them didn't just wrongly assume things about turf training and riding because that's the way it has always been done.

Sometimes, it's enough to know the right answer even if you don't know and understand all the reasons. That may very well be the case here.

All I can suggest is that you observe the results of more high caliber turf races when the rider of one of the high quality front runners decides to cut dirt quality fractions and open up a big lead on the field. Perhaps you will change your view and perhaps not.

cj
09-13-2006, 02:14 PM
I think Bob makes an interesting point. How can turf be more tiring if the times on tighter courses at similar distances are almost always faster on turf?

It is just that on turf, it is a lot more beneficial to distribute your energy in a more even manner than it is on dirt. Why? I would think because horses tire more on dirt, and thus are unable to make up ground late.

I'm certainly not saying the jockeys and trainers are wrong, it is best to rate more on turf than on dirt. However, I don't see how that means turf is more tiring than dirt. The clock says just the opposite.

the_fat_man
09-13-2006, 02:19 PM
TD,

For example, in last Sat's Man o War, Showing Up had run the faster race and earned the biggest figure with most services. However, a pace analysis of Cacique's last race showed that his slower time was hindered by an incredibly slow pace. I expected Cacique's figure to improve and it did and he beat Showing Up. One has to interprete the figures.


Hope this helps,
Bob

You're KIDDING, right?

Showing Up gets taken OFF the RAIL by his IDIOT JOCK
goes WITHOUT COVER the entire race, out side the speed, NEEDLESSLY
and holds 2nd gamely to a horse that had sucked up behind COSMONAUT the entire race and needed the length of the stretch to get by him

and LOSES to a HORSE that SUCKED UP

INSIDE the ENTIRE RACE, Got THROUGH on the HEDGE Entering the stretch

and actually NEEDED to change back to the wrong lead LATE to maintain his advantage


Is this what you mean by EXPECTING CACIQUE's FIGURE TO IMPROVE

hell, if the 2nd horse has Cacique's TRIP, inside, rather than 3 path around the track and widest entering the stretch, HE WINS the race

so, basically, you get an incredibly good trip

a fortuitous trip
and you're hear beating on your chest
all at 2:1

gee, I could learn MUCH from you

yeah, to 'interprete' the figures

Here's something to take to the bank

even trips: SHOWING UP BURIES CACIQUE ---or anything else that was in the race

you're done

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 02:51 PM
Bob,

I believe you have a theory.

To be consisent with your theory, you would prefer to assume that the greatest athletes and trainers in the sport have all been foolish for many decades about something that isn't particularly complicated. It probably wouldn't even require much more than minor experimentation for them to understand what's best. You don't seem to even want to consider the possibility that these great trainers and riders may have already studied this to death via trial and error as a part of their own learning. Perhaps many of them didn't just wrongly assume things about turf training and riding because that's the way it has always been done.

Sometimes, it's enough to know the right answer even if you don't know and understand all the reasons. That may very well be the case here.



All I can suggest is that you observe the results of more high caliber turf races when the rider of one of the high quality front runners decides to cut dirt quality fractions and open up a big lead on the field. Perhaps you will change your view and perhaps not.

Class,



It is unfair of you to say that I "prefer to think that great athletes and trainers have been foolish for decades". I have no vested interest in what racing strategy riders employ. I am merely reporting the results of my research and observations so please do not question my objectivity. Like most beginning handicappers I once believed the traditional tenets of racing until I began to question whether they had any validity other than their being widely believed and traditional. My training and studies in physics, medicine and exercise physiology have shown me that there is no basis for some of the traditional thinking on energy distribution. Furthermore, my statistical training has shown me that the pseudo-statistical methods used to support the notion of speed biases is wrong - ask any statistician or published researcher.

The history of sports, as well as medicine is filled with long periods of mistaken beliefs. That does not make the greats in these fields foolish. However, it is just plain wrong to go on believing something just because it has been believed for so long.
As a handicapper you must realize that the whole point of this game is to find widely held beliefs with no scientific basis and to bet against them.
With regard to your suggestion that I observe more high quality turf races, i have been observing high quality turf races both in the U.S and even higher quality turf races internationally for nearly 50 years and doing pace analysis of these races as well. Lately, I have been this them without viewing them through the blinkers of tradition and seeing them more clearly.
The results of the example you gave of a rider setting "dirt quality" fractions are obvious. The horse would burn out, but not because of the grass. Dirt fractions tend to be too fast (due the speed bias myth) and he would be dusted by any comparable horse running more even fractions, regardless of surface. You've seen enough of my pace analyses to know that.

Bob

classhandicapper
09-13-2006, 02:51 PM
I think Bob makes an interesting point. How can turf be more tiring if the times on tighter courses at similar distances are almost always faster on turf?

It is just that on turf, it is a lot more beneficial to distribute your energy in a more even manner than it is on dirt. Why? I would think because horses tire more on dirt, and thus are unable to make up ground late.

I'm certainly not saying the jockeys and trainers are wrong, it is best to rate more on turf than on dirt. However, I don't see how that means turf is more tiring than dirt. The clock says just the opposite.

On the flip side, I'm not sure why there "has to be" a very close correlation between final times and how tiring a track is. There may be some correlation, but not perfect. Perhaps you can study your track variants relative to the Klein bias ratings to see how closely they are correlated. I would also expect some correlation.

Perhaps final times are faster on turf because the horses are generally distributing their energy more efficiently by running slower relative paces. Perhaps there are other things at work. I do not know.

I think it runs counter to common sense (at least to me) to assume that horses can't close as well on dirt because it's more tiring and at the same time believe the front runners that are running the fastest paces on dirt aren't at an even bigger disadvantage.

The real problem is that if the jockeys and trainers aren't altering their riding and training methods for the turf because running faster paces to get better position would be a disadvantage (tire them out worse) then why are they doing it?

If you believe what Bob believes (that they are basically being stupid) then it becomes difficult to also believe that rating seems to work better when you observe races.

Personally, I don't think this is an all or nothing thing.

Kickback, drafting, and who knows what else may also be factors that explain the results of races and the strategies of jockeys and trainers.

However, I can't seem to find a logical way that turf could be less tiring and it still make more sense to be behind the leaders running closer to even splits (or slower) and then coping with ground loss and traffic issues than just using your horse a little harder (but LESS than on dirt) to get clear lengths or better position, save ground etc....

That, plus observing the results when a rider does get very aggressive is why I have concluded that course must be more tiring. If it's not that (and I am simply wrong about the reason) and instead it's a combination of other things, so be it, but I refuse to believe that everyone is an idiot about such a simple thing.

classhandicapper
09-13-2006, 02:57 PM
"It is unfair of you to say that I "prefer to think that great athletes and trainers have been foolish for decades". "

Bob,

That's why I suggested that you observe a lot of high quality turf races where the rider got aggressive, opened up the lead, and cut fractions more similar to what you would see in the average dirt race. See how they do relative to similar dirt horses. Then look at the rarer very fast paced turf races and see how those horses do.

If you conclude they all do the same, fine.

If you conclude the turf speedsters are tiring worse, we need an explanation.

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 04:19 PM
"It is unfair of you to say that I "prefer to think that great athletes and trainers have been foolish for decades". "

Bob,

That's why I suggested that you observe a lot of high quality turf races where the rider got aggressive, opened up the lead, and cut fractions more similar to what you would see in the average dirt race. See how they do relative to similar dirt horses. Then look at the rarer very fast paced turf races and see how those horses do.

If you conclude they all do the same, fine.

If you conclude the turf speedsters are tiring worse, we need an explanation.

Class,

Please stop mistating my arguement and saying that I am calling all jockeys idiots and all the all-time greats in the sport fools. I am simply saying that widely held notions about so called speed biases on dirt and closers biases on turf have absolutely no scientific justification.
Does it follow that that someone who says that boxing was wrong about the effects of weight training in the past is a calling all the past champs and their trainers idiots?
As for the example you give, if you read my last post again you will see I answered that question, but let me explain it again. If a jockey in a turf race rides a horse as fast early in a turf race as the average dirt race he will probably pay for it more severly because the other turfers are more likely to be running closer to even pace than they would in a dirt race and be better able to put him away when he tires. He would be more likely to get away with it on dirt because more of his opponents will likey to be running too fast early relative to their final times (the whole field frequently does this on dirt).
My pace analyses consistently show the effects of wide deviation from even pace are equally detrimental to the horses final time, regardless of surface.

Bob

classhandicapper
09-13-2006, 05:21 PM
Bob,

I apologize for saying you are calling them idiots. ;)

This is not rocket science though. Just because there's no scientific justification to train turf horses the way it's typically done (or similar to dirt for that matter) doesn't mean that at various times people haven't been smart enough to simply experiment and come to independent conclusions without being overly worried about understanding it all scientifically. Most people try things. When they work, they repeat them. When they fail they change back.

Personally, if I was lucky enough to have a conversation with Frankel, Pletcher, Drysdale, Motion, Mott, Fabre, Obrien, Cumani, etc.. and Bailey, Cordero, John Velasquez, Valenzuela, etc.... and they all told me that at no time in their careers had they ever experimented with their training or tried various riding styles for turf I would be shocked.

I won't say you are calling them idiots anymore, but if "I" ever find out that they haven't given this kind of simple but important thing a lot of thought and experimentation I'll call them idiots. ;)

>>>If a jockey in a turf race rides a horse as fast early in a turf race as the average dirt race he will probably pay for it more severly because the other turfers are more likely to be running closer to even pace than they would in a dirt race and be better able to put him away when he tires. He would be more likely to get away with it on dirt because more of his opponents will likey to be running too fast early relative to their final times (the whole field frequently does this on dirt).>>

The problem with this explanation is that you then have to explain why the riders in dirt races are so willing to be aggressive and set much faster paces and the closers are silly enough to stay so close to them when they could easily rate more evenly and gain a bigger advantage.

I think there are many things at work here and I certainly do not understand them all. One of the factors is that the most efficient way to run is even paced or close. Most people agree about that. However, IMO, when you deviate from even pace, I think the impact is not constant from track to track or surface to surface. The energy studies done by Sartin advocates support that and so does some independent observation (my own included).

IMHO, the best riders are in a constant struggle between the negative impact from deviating from an even pace by going too fast and the offsetting gain of superior position, saving ground, less likely trouble etc..... Those that are running more evenly gain the pace advantage, but then have to cope with ground loss, possible trouble, potentially slower than expected paces etc....

Within this strategic struggle, I believe the jocks are also coping with changes in the track from day to day and surface to surface that make aggressiveness more or less desirable than usual.

I believe this because I've seen too many days where the first 5-6 races were dominated by speed (inside and outside) from a few inferior horses in honest/lively paces. That was followed by extreme battles for the lead in the next few races as the jockeys realized that the pace/position tradeoff was more weighted towards speed on that particular day.

I've seen the same thing in reverse where everyone decided to crawl early late in the card because quality speed had been dying all day. Even if you disagree with their logic and adjustments, I think it demonstrates that some of these guys are pretty darn sharp and willing to adjust to what works best over time. I think they would have changed their strategy on either turf or dirt by now if one of them was not the right way to ride.

Anyway, lets drop this. It's not important that we agree as long as we understand each other's positions and respect each other. I apologized for saying you called the best riders/trainers idiots. ;)

Tom
09-13-2006, 05:54 PM
In reply to CJ's post yesterday, the Speedball Groovy ran at Finger Lakes just prior to his BC sprint race, and his times were almost the same he posted at Belmont. I agree that there is not that much diiferences amoung the tracks as everyone would think.


And as far as idiot riders, I will agree tha the slow pace had far more to do with the races in questions than any rider did. O a daily basis, I excuse paelines where the pace was slow and often get vastly improved races when they face a more realistic pace - with the same rider.

I don't but the drafting thing in t-breds. I thinkg in harness it is a big factor, becasue they do not run all out and expend the energy the tbreds do. Tbreds use too much energy drafting or not to make it matter later, IMHO.
But prove me wrong - I am interested in that stuff....NOT the bad ride old song and dance. I wanna hear what winners are thinking.

keilan
09-13-2006, 06:19 PM
Can you elaborate, possibiliy give an example of the above. If you are saying what I think you are saying this could get interesting. :)


So Bob have you got around to an example yet or are you gonna talk all day with class who isn't an idiot :)

robert99
09-13-2006, 06:34 PM
From the UK turf point of view the majority of trainers from what they say and do have no understanding of biomechanics, science nor pace. One notable exception was Martin Pipe (recently retired) who set records in season winners that may never be equalled. His horses were trained scientifically fit to lead early in the race and then keep improving their position. The name trainer is generally a misnomer - they used to be called grooms and that is basically what they do - feed and condition a horse in the same way as was done a hundred or more years ago. They have no clue as to how their horse will actually do in any particular race - they do their limited best and hope for the best. Some refuse to use new fangled methods as limited as timing gallops or daily weighing horse body weights.

If you ask a horse vet in UK or USA about drafting, aerodynamic drag coefficients, energy production rates they would look at you bewildered. They are not fools, but totally ignorant of the subjects, as no one has ever expected them to know these basics. Some USA horse racing books even refer to speed in feet per second as energy - it is not, energy is work done per second. School boy stuff.

It is not true that European turf races are run as a crawl, then a sprint.
All that does is make the result of a race a random event and if you have a good horse you are going to use its superior pace to defeat the lesser horses, not gift them an equal chance.

We have two types of dirt tracks - one is testing like USA dirt and requires stamina and there is huge kickback (ie hooves going deep and lifting large weights of sand each stride - hard work and wasted effort). The horses cannot accelerate on a surface which is continually slifding away from them so keep going at an even pace. On the equitrack, the rubber components of which restores kinetic energy back into the legs each stride, the bound surface behaves similar to turf ie there is enough resistance supplied by the rooted grass to change speed and direction at will.

There was an experiment at Newmarket, UK where the leading jockeys were asked to ride a few furlongs at an even 12 second pace. Not one could get anywhere near it. Perhaps in dirt racing the only way they get such a good regular pace is keep pushing the horse throughout ie the horse, as always, sets the racing pace not the jockey.

For a horse to achieve its best overall time it breaks fast and runs each furlong so that energy expended is just less than energy produced. It is not an even time per furlong as each horse has its own variable and reducing energy production rate during the race. It varies to achieve between 11 and 13.5 seconds per furlong on good or faster going. The world record for speed remains on Epsom turf over 5 furlongs.

twindouble
09-13-2006, 06:39 PM
Excelent post Robert. Keep them coming.


T.D.

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 07:08 PM
Apology accepted. I agree with ending these discussions as it is going nowhere and I’m sure people are getting sick of it, anyway. I’m glad to have had it since I think it shows that people should not just blindly accept things merely because they are tradition and widely believed. If the concept of speed bias was only held by leading trainers and jockeys and not by less successful ones, that could be an argument in its favor. However the fact that it’s just as much believed by losers refutes that argument. Top trainers and jocks are not infallible and can get away with false beliefs as long as their competition also falls for them. It’s a sport wide myth which sports history is filled with.

I’m not surprised that trainers and riders have not experimented with the theory I propose since horse racing is one of the most conservative tradition bound sports there is and the prevailing philosophy amongst big trainers is, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. However, the conservatism of a sport is not a good reason to not question its beliefs – just the opposite.

By contrast, track and field that is mainly contested by students at universities where they are ideal “guinea pigs” for researchers in sports medicine whose goal is getting at the truth, has demonstrated the myth of the speed bias surface specific energy distribution on both human and animal subjects. Physicists have even shown it applies to inanimate objects like cars – anything that moves obeys the laws of physics and kinetics.



Bob

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 07:26 PM
Great post Robert.

This is precisely what I've been trying to say. Trainers are neither scientists nor excersise physiologists and their belief in speed biases is not to be blindly accepted as gospel. The same applies to many handicappers.
The early speed cult is the American version of the late speed cult in the U.K.
Neither one has much to do with scientific fact.
Class, sorry to bring this up again but the trainer Pipe is just the example you were asking for of someone who defied the traditional "wisdom" and succeded.

Bob

twindouble
09-13-2006, 07:36 PM
Great post Robert.

This is precisely what I've been trying to say. Trainers are neither scientists nor excersise physiologists and their belief in speed biases is not to be blindly accepted as gospel. The same applies to many handicappers.
The early speed cult is the American version of the late speed cult in the U.K.
Neither one has much to do with scientific fact.
Class, sorry to bring this up again but the trainer Pipe is just the example you were asking for of someone who defied the traditional "wisdom" and succeded.

Bob

I think some of us here have defied the traditional wisdom, we have and continue to make money playing the horses. What my elders taught me, the greater percentage of it still holds up today, ESP when it comes to handicapping and gambling.

Good luck Bob, enjoyed the thread, including our little banter. Your a real gentleman.

T.D.

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 07:41 PM
So Bob have you got around to an example yet or are you gonna talk all day with class who isn't an idiot :)

I don't consider Class an idiot. I don't waste time talking to idiots. He's actually a friend with whom I've been talking handicapping for a long time. Now that that discussion has run it's course, I'll get around to explaining my pace analysis theory when I get a chance tomorrow.

Bob

keilan
09-13-2006, 07:47 PM
I don't consider Class an idiot. I don't waste time talking to idiots. He's actually a friend with whom I've been talking handicapping for a long time. Now that that discussion has run it's course, I'll get around to explaining my pace analysis theory when I get a chance tomorrow.

Bob


I know you don't consider class an idiot -- some humor doesn't translate well on the net.

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 07:47 PM
I think some of us here have defied the traditional wisdom, we have and continue to make money playing the horses. What my elders taught me, the greater percentage of it still holds up today, ESP when it comes to handicapping and gambling.

Good luck Bob, enjoyed the thread, including our little banter. Your a real gentleman.

T.D.

Thanks TD,

It's been a pleasure. The essence of handicapping lies in going against widely help but false beleifs of most of the betting public.

Bob

Tom
09-13-2006, 10:47 PM
The myth of early speed?
I can't wait to hear this one!

keilan
09-13-2006, 10:55 PM
The myth of early speed?
I can't wait to hear this one!


Anyone ever watch a race at the 61/2 turf course at SA ;)

bobphilo
09-13-2006, 11:47 PM
The myth of early speed?
I can't wait to hear this one!

It's going to be the sequel to - or perhaps the counter to - the Power of Early Speed. LOL ;)

Bob

robert99
09-14-2006, 08:37 AM
Great post Robert.

This is precisely what I've been trying to say. Trainers are neither scientists nor excersise physiologists and their belief in speed biases is not to be blindly accepted as gospel. The same applies to many handicappers.
The early speed cult is the American version of the late speed cult in the U.K.
Neither one has much to do with scientific fact.
Class, sorry to bring this up again but the trainer Pipe is just the example you were asking for of someone who defied the traditional "wisdom" and succeded.

Bob


Bob and Twindouble, thank you for the kind words.

I do support your case as thinking out of the box seems as much a heresy in UK as elsewhere. I have looked at a horse performance strictly on an biomechanical force / energy basis and the horse as an athlete. Practically every traditional fact becomes wanting under such scientific analysis. Horses do not love to come late, lead early or fight to win - they just obligingly to please their humans, run to their current comfort limits. No horses have "turns of foot" they can keep going faster than others but they are slowing as any sectional timing data will tell you. Trainer tactics, such as they are, assume all the above traditional thinking to be true and then can't explain why things have not worked out.

Martin Pipe was not born into training - his father was a bookmaker who set his son up as a trainer from scratch. Martin read every book going, asked every trainer and jockey their thoughts then came to his own conclusions, constantly learned and made adjustments. Life is so much easier going with the flow but is seldom competitively successful.

classhandicapper
09-14-2006, 09:01 AM
Great post Robert.

This is precisely what I've been trying to say. Trainers are neither scientists nor excersise physiologists and their belief in speed biases is not to be blindly accepted as gospel. The same applies to many handicappers.
The early speed cult is the American version of the late speed cult in the U.K.
Neither one has much to do with scientific fact.
Class, sorry to bring this up again but the trainer Pipe is just the example you were asking for of someone who defied the traditional "wisdom" and succeded.

Bob

Please let this go.

I know none of these guys are rocket scientists but this is not rocket science. You don't need an IQ of 180 to be successful as a trainer, jockey or most other things in life. In most cases you don't even have to understand why what you are doing works. All you have to do is do your job. If you get bad results you try something else. When you find something that works you stick with it. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can stumble on to superior ways to prepare horses for specific races by trial an error if they have a strong desire to improve and learn - even if they don't achieve scientific perfection. Something as basic as whether you should work your sprinter in CA the same at your turf router at CD is pretty basic stuff.

Again, I suggest you review things like Klein bias ratings, Sartin energy numbers and the related track profiles those handicappers build if you want to see more objective and scientific evidence of speed/closer biases from track to track and day to day.

It may be hard to subjectively or objectively measure these changes and exploit them as handicappers, but I honestly think it's almost impossible to think biases don't exist if you go into it with an open mind. IMO, the only real debate is whether you can exploit them profitably. I have, but it is a difficult task.

classhandicapper
09-14-2006, 09:47 AM
Interesting work for the Arc by Deep Impact preparing for the biggest turf race in the world (assuming it's not a misprint or a bad mistiming).

http://www.drf.com/news/article/78614.html

bobphilo
09-14-2006, 11:12 AM
Please let this go.

I know none of these guys are rocket scientists but this is not rocket science. You don't need an IQ of 180 to be successful as a trainer, jockey or most other things in life. In most cases you don't even have to understand why what you are doing works. All you have to do is do your job. If you get bad results you try something else. When you find something that works you stick with it. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can stumble on to superior ways to prepare horses for specific races by trial an error if they have a strong desire to improve and learn - even if they don't achieve scientific perfection. Something as basic as whether you should work your sprinter in CA the same at your turf router at CD is pretty basic stuff.

Again, I suggest you review things like Klein bias ratings, Sartin energy numbers and the related track profiles those handicappers build if you want to see more objective and scientific evidence of speed/closer biases from track to track and day to day.

It may be hard to subjectively or objectively measure these changes and exploit them as handicappers, but I honestly think it's almost impossible to think biases don't exist if you go into it with an open mind. IMO, the only real debate is whether you can exploit them profitably. I have, but it is a difficult task.

Class,



Please take your own advice and let this go. At least stop continually misstating my position. I wanted to let this go but you insist on continuing to misquote me so I must reply. I never said one had to be a rocket scientist or genius to understand a few basic principles of physics. If you are listening to trainers to learn about how energy is distributed, I suggest you spend some time studying the work of people who are trained in researching this rather than thinking, “well if that’s what trainers believe, it must be true”. How many more examples do you need of beliefs that were widely held in several sports that turned out to be bogus?

If you find it impossible to think that speed biases do not exist then I suggest that you’re the one that needs to open your mind. Throughout this entire discussion you have not given me a single piece of objective evidence that relates the properties of different surfaces to a speed bias. You have admitted in the past you have not studied statistics and yet you site the works of Klein and Sartin with no knowledge of their statistical flaws. There are so many confounding variables in these works that no peer reviewed scientific journal would publish them.

First you say my theory is so simple that you find it inconceivable that no trainer has experimented with it. Now you’re calling it too complex. Make up your mind.

Speaking of which, the fact that the work of Pipe Martin shows you are wrong about no one having experimented against the bias theory. Furthermore his success at doing so is something you conveniently ignore.

You obviously have no intention of opening your mind to anything that contradicts your beloved traditional beliefs so this discussion is now pointless. If you insist on dragging it on, e-mail me privately, bit please stop misquoting me on this board. Enough.



Bob

The Judge
09-14-2006, 12:21 PM
Bias tracks , bias races I assume are two different things. The first group that I heard talk about a bias track my not be bias at all were the Sartin group. They said with Doc. Sartin leading is that more then likely it was the match-up of the horses in the race and not a track bias. They didn't stop there they said that track bias did exist just not as often as people thought.

They also kept energy profiles of horses and enery profile of tracks based on what was winning at that track. From this it was said that some horses would be better off running at other tracks then the tracks that they are at.

I don't know of anyone that states that bias do not exist (track condition, surface dirt to turf speed favoring) all these things exist, they may not exist all the time. As far as a bias track goes the best way to telll is to look at the odds of the horses that are winning. If a bias exist then horses that are helped by the bias should be winning. Closers usually pay higher prices so that should be the reflexed in the price. If the horses are winning that should be winning then how can one say there is a bias? Look to the odds.

The person that is given credit for using the term bias in horse racing is Steve Daivdowitz. He was talking about track bias where something happens and the horses that shouldn't win, win at an above normal rate for a certain part of the track. It could be on the front in, behind, inside, outside. That is something happened to the track itself. The point is if you spot this track bias then handicapping should cease. Just bet the bias.

Even in turf races some horse takes the lead and very often at slow fractions they just can't stay there. The other horses run them down. Some times they don't run them down and they go wire to wire. It's a horse race.

What is Mike Pike doing and how is he proof of anything? Has he set some training record, is he breaking money records or is he just winning races like other trainers.

Everybody is lifting weights now! So what ! if I were picking a team of the best boxers, best baseball players, best runners, best golfers, there would be very few who lifted weights on them. You would have the modern and I would the olders players thats all that would mean.

classhandicapper
09-14-2006, 12:29 PM
BOB,

I'm not misquoting you.

You have continuously implied that because there is no scientific proof that biases exist they probably don't and are just ideas passed down by horseplayers that have little merit.

You have also implied that trainers and jockeys train/ride the way they do because that's the way it has always been done and not because they have learned from experience what works best. In other words, they are mistaken or training/riding improperly in some cases.

It doesn't matter who is right about that debate. I want to drop it because we have agreed to respectfully disagree.

I am simply suggesting that just because there is no scientific proof that biases exist does not mean they don't exist (there is no proof they don't exist either). Proof and total understanding is not a requirement for getting things right and achieving success.

I think your own high intellect and desire for scientific study is interfering with your analysis.

I'm going to give an example from pocket billiards.

I happened to be very good friends with the late Gene Nagy. He was one of the greatest pool players that ever lived. When people would ask him how he made the balls and controlled the cue ball so well they were typically looking for an aiming system, a deeper understanding of the physics, etc.. so they could do the same things. He answer was "I have no idea". He had very little understanding of what he was doing. He learned by trial and error. He practiced until he mastered the results without having much of an understanding of the whys.

Mike Sigel is arguably the greatest all around pool player ever (Efren Reyes might disagree). In an article a couple of years ago he explained how to play a certain pool shot. In it he proved he had no idea what he was talking about when it came to the reactions between balls. The physics guys that analyzed pool proved he was wrong about almost everything and trashed him relentlessly. The only problem was that he could make the shot. So it didn't matter if he misunderstood it or couldn't explain why he could make it. He could make it! Perhaps something was going on that they couldn't explain.

Great players in any game/sport aren't always right and often don't even understand what they are doing right and wrong. But I think it's probably not such a great idea to start with the assumption masters are wrong so that you can be consistent with your own ideas when there may be explanations that even an intellect like yours hasn't considered.

The evidence for biases does exist. It's no accident that Sartin energy profiles for various tracks and surfaces vary and sometimes shift during a meet. It also isn't necessary for handicappers to understand why these things occur or to have scientific proof that they could occur. It is only necessary to cash tickets or as Mike Sigel would say "make the damn shot".

keilan
09-15-2006, 12:08 AM
You still working on that example -- for a smart guy its taking awhile, tomorrows day #3.

46zilzal
09-15-2006, 12:13 AM
For a long time I did not believe in biases. Came internet wagering and I began following EASTERN courses where weather was a major factor, and BOOM, right there in the energy profiles: BIAS. On somedays it was so pronounced that the profiles of early horses stole many a race. Energy distribution was what brought that out, Sartin sytle.

46zilzal
09-15-2006, 12:50 AM
Fort Erie is one of the most consistently early biased courses I follow.

Results like this in the 9th on 9/12 with the 10 Pyrite Delight winning have a lot to do with EARLY biased energy distributions as this chart shows. Earlier the better on that course all the time.

bobphilo
09-15-2006, 01:09 AM
You still working on that example -- for a smart guy its taking awhile, tomorrows day #3.

Sorry for the delay. I've let myself get bogged down in in responding to Class and trying to get him to at least consider what the laws of physics say and look at the real research when all he is offering in return is " if the trainers think it's true it must be accepted without question."
If he would only bother to take some time so to familiarize himself with what fellow poster Robert refers to as basic "schoolboy stuff" rather than merely paying blind obiedience to popular tradition, he might see the errors in his assumptions and I would have time to put together an explantion of the rationale behind my pace analysis. Unlike some, I make sure I have solid evidence before putting forth a position.
Assuming your eagerness is based on a having an open mind and a desire to see if some traditional beliefs are myths, I commend you for your curiosity.

Bob

bobphilo
09-15-2006, 01:45 AM
Robert,

Thank you for your important contribution. It's truly a rare delight to find someone who has looked at this myth of speed biases with the intelligence and courage to say that "The emperor has no clothes".

Bob

classhandicapper
09-15-2006, 09:41 AM
Sorry for the delay. I've let myself get bogged down in in responding to Class and trying to get him to at least consider what the laws of physics say and look at the real research when all he is offering in return is " if the trainers think it's true it must be accepted without question."
If he would only bother to take some time so to familiarize himself with what fellow poster Robert refers to as basic "schoolboy stuff" rather than merely paying blind obiedience to popular tradition, he might see the errors in his assumptions and I would have time to put together an explantion of the rationale behind my pace analysis. Unlike some, I make sure I have solid evidence before putting forth a position.Bob

Bob,

Now you are the one that is misquoting and being borderline insulting.

This has nothing to do with tradition or what other people believe. I get ideas from other people, but I study things myself.

What I have done is studied race results for over 30 years and seen such overwhelming evidence that the energy distribution requirements (also known as biases by some) of tracks vary from surface to surface and day to day that I don't even believe the issue falls into the category of debatable. I wholeheartedly understand the argument that day to day bias changes are very difficult to detemine and exploit profitably. But that's a different issue.

Personally, I have been able to exploit my observations with profitable betting. I think that counts towards the quality of my opinion even if I misunderstand some of the whys! In fact, some of my primary opportunities these days come from betting against front runners that caught a track that wasn't tiring last out and on front runners where I could confidently throw out their last race because it occurred on a very tiring surface.

I have never even spoken to a trainer/jockey on this issue. However, I have observed how the very best trainers and jockeys seem to adjust their styles to my exact observations independently. So I do consider that further evidence in support of my conclusions.

I tried to suggest that you take a look at things like Klein bias rating and Sartin energy profiles. Despite whatever shortcomings and limitations they have statistcially (I prefer subjective analysis), at least they are objective and useful enough to provide evidence. No one has suggested they are perfect or that you can't tweak the data to improve on its usefulness for study.

You are correct, I do not understand the physics, but I don't need to. I only need to cash tickets on overlays. Other than intellectual curiousity, there is no reason to try to understand why everything works - just knowing it does is enough. I tried to explain that to you via my pool player example.

I don't have a complete theory as to why these things happen. I have some ideas. I'm only smart enough to see that changes in moisture content, mid day and overnight track maintenance, depth of cushion, length of grass, changes in the hardness/softness of grass, make up of the track surface (sand/clay etc..), and some things I can't observe all seem to change the energy distribution requirements of dirt and grass courses (sometimes in very predictable ways right in the middle of a racing card). I also assume polytrack will have it own unique tendencies that trainers and riders will make slight adjustments to and am looking forward to seeing some bias data that CJ compiles using Klein ratings.

I can't stop believing in things I have observed over 30 years and have exploited profitably because I don't understand the physics behind it or because people blessed with a few extra IQ points and a better education say I can't be winning this way because biases and energy variations doen't exist when my expereince suggests they are wrong!

Believe me, I'd be much more open to a change of view if I was losing money on these ideas. That would be evidence I was either wrong or couldn't exploit biases profitably.

If you need to get in the last word go ahead. I think my position and respect for your opinion is clear, we just disagree. It's no big deal.

The Judge
09-15-2006, 10:30 AM
On page 7 it takes a page from James Quinns Book "Figure Handicapping". "On the grass the real racing begins approaching the prestretch call and intensifies thereafter. Late speed or finishing power counts far more than early spee, stamina and determination are often decisive."

He then goes on to show a study of Santa Anita 1990 January 25-April 1st. It was using Sartin Energy numbers showing the energy expended by winners of sprints,dirt routes, and turf routes:

Sprints 52.72% Early Energy
Dirt Routes 51.72% Early Energy
Turf Routes 50.60% Early Energy

James Quinn 1992

Sartin went of to say that "in turf a percent early of 51% is "almost" always rings the death toll for any contender." Sartin sets the early energy level at 49%-50.8%.

He goes on "never mind that winners may go wire to wire. Position calls are not Energy percentage. Turf winners run sustained."

Howard Sartin 1984

Sartin had been saying this for some time ,his statement was what he introduced to the general public at Expo 84 in New York.

bobphilo
09-15-2006, 12:12 PM
Class,



I assure you mean no disrespect to you personally. We have had several handicapping discussions in the past and they were always respectful. I have defended you when you were vilified on another board and even banned a member from my forum for attacking you. It’s just that, as someone who has studied science and statistics, it dismays me to see people believe things, which when examined critically, are really pseudo-science – whether it’s astrology, voodoo or belief in speed biases. As with any pseudo-science it is almost impossible to prove it wrong to a “true believer”. The best reason to not believe in something is a lack of rational basis for its existence. Some bias theories have a very good theoretical basis. Rail bias is a very good one since if there is a difference in surfaces between the rail and the outside; the horse on the better surface has the advantage. Front running or closer biases have no such rational explanation. It assumes that that the same identical surface can somehow tell the difference between a front-runner and a closer and magically make one run better than the other. Nonsense.

Then how does one explain how some tracks “appear” to produce more front-running winners than others? The simple explanation is that due to the belief in this “speed bias”,

The horses are ridden hard early and the better and faster horses get to the front early. Faster horses usually win most races – period. Nothing to do with a mysterious track effect. No supernatural explanation needed.

You say that you have been successful in your betting the speed bias. I have been successful in betting as if it doesn’t exist. All that proves is that there are many factors involved in picking winners and one can still due well if they happen to be wrong about one of them. As you know, and have also stated yourself, my pace analysis describes the outcome of races very accurately. This analysis is based on the fact that speed bias is a myth. Hopefully with this thread finally laid to rest I hope I can get around to explaining how I do a pace analysis, which is firmly grounded in what is known about physics and the kinetic energy of bodies in motion. No mysterious forces involved.



Bob

46zilzal
09-15-2006, 12:15 PM
percent early is, quite frankly, OLD HAT and early is no longer expressed that way...

THE BIGGEST MISTAKE in attributing a track as being early or not is POSITIONAL evaluation of races.......

JPinMaryland
09-15-2006, 12:28 PM
"Front running or closer biases have no such rational explanation. It assumes that that the same identical surface can somehow tell the difference between a front-runner and a closer and magically make one run better than the other. Nonsense."

What if there was a head wind or a tail wind? Wouldnt this differeniate between those that are more effective/efficient in early stages vs those who are better runners late?

Moreover you still havent explained the phenomenon of why turf races are run differently than dirt. We must have what 2 million data pts of races to compare? Most everyone including yourself admit that turf seems to favor closers more than dirt.

SO what is going on here? YOU denigrate people for not having rational/logical basis for their contentions and yet all you have to offer is that all these jockeys are under some mass delusion. Where is your data to prove that this is an illusion?

46zilzal
09-15-2006, 12:34 PM
"Front running or closer biases have no such rational explanation. It assumes that that the same identical surface can somehow tell the difference between a front-runner and a closer and magically make one run better than the other. Nonsense."


I like this illusion since it works at many a racetrack. Not all, but the few I selected after considerable data collection.

I have NEVER seen a closer bias on dirt, EVER.

bobphilo
09-15-2006, 12:51 PM
On page 7 it takes a page from James Quinns Book "Figure Handicapping". "On the grass the real racing begins approaching the prestretch call and intensifies thereafter. Late speed or finishing power counts far more than early spee, stamina and determination are often decisive."

He then goes on to show a study of Santa Anita 1990 January 25-April 1st. It was using Sartin Energy numbers showing the energy expended by winners of sprints,dirt routes, and turf routes:

Sprints 52.72% Early Energy
Dirt Routes 51.72% Early Energy
Turf Routes 50.60% Early Energy

James Quinn 1992

Sartin went of to say that "in turf a percent early of 51% is "almost" always rings the death toll for any contender." Sartin sets the early energy level at 49%-50.8%.

He goes on "never mind that winners may go wire to wire. Position calls are not Energy percentage. Turf winners run sustained."

Howard Sartin 1984

Sartin had been saying this for some time ,his statement was what he introduced to the general public at Expo 84 in New York.

Judge,

I have read and am very familiar with Quinn’s “Figure Handicapping” as well as Sartin’s work and Brohamer’s “Modern Pace Handicapping”. I only wish that those that believe in speed biases spent at least half as much time familiarizing themselves with the basic principles of physics and bio-mechanics.

No one is questioning what these writers say about the how races on different surfaces are run. What does not follow is that the explanation lies in the racing surface.

In “Beyer on Speed” in the chapter on “The Mathematics of Pace”, Beyer reports a conversation he had with Quinn on the apparent speed bias of California tracks. Quinn says; “By the time the field hits the second call of a race, horses will move into whatever striking position they are going to be in”. Beyer adds; “In other words, if a horse is 3 or more lengths behind the leaders at this point, he is in that position because he has been outrun in the dash from the gate. His lack of speed makes him inferior to the front runners – not just a horse with a different but effective running style.”

It has nothing to do with the track surface – it’s an effect produced by the way the horses are ridden.



Bob

bobphilo
09-15-2006, 01:00 PM
"Front running or closer biases have no such rational explanation. It assumes that that the same identical surface can somehow tell the difference between a front-runner and a closer and magically make one run better than the other. Nonsense."

What if there was a head wind or a tail wind? Wouldnt this differeniate between those that are more effective/efficient in early stages vs those who are better runners late?

Moreover you still havent explained the phenomenon of why turf races are run differently than dirt. We must have what 2 million data pts of races to compare? Most everyone including yourself admit that turf seems to favor closers more than dirt.

SO what is going on here? YOU denigrate people for not having rational/logical basis for their contentions and yet all you have to offer is that all these jockeys are under some mass delusion. Where is your data to prove that this is an illusion?

Of course when there is a strong headwind on the backstretch the front-runners are at a distadvantage and vice-versa. That has nothing to do with the notion of speed biased tracks based on the surface, which is what we're discussing. I have already explained why turf races are run differently and will not waste my time doing it again. I've made my case - believe whatever you want to believe.

46zilzal
09-15-2006, 01:14 PM
the opener today at Monmouth showed how energy distribution (usually earlier in babies) proved to be a pivotal factor as 6-2 paid a nice exacta. Based on the UNIVERSAL bias of speed.

The Judge
09-15-2006, 02:05 PM
I am familiar with the works of Jim Cramer. I am familiar with his RS-POS running style and position handicapping. I know about his data base that is exhaustive. I know that he has stats on every jockey in the country and how they like to ride. I know that he says that jockey's that go to the front usually have the best horses (fastest) what I haven't heard him say was that there is no such time as a track bais. Cramer's point is that speed is a universal bias.

Why do I being up "Jim Cramer" ? Just thought I'd do it before you do. If you have any proof you must know and use his data in some form. This man has data on every race, how it was run, every track, every jocky that was run in North America going back to when Moby Dick was a minow. You are going to have to land in his yard at some point.

I know that track bias exist. I've seen horses with no chance on a fair track win same thing in the next race. Handicapping goes out the window I just play the bias and collect money. How often does it happen I can remember about 4-7 times where I was sure in about in about 15 years( I don't go to the track everyday weekends mostly and I didn't even know about track bias until Sartin and Davidowitz told me and they say its not often.

46zilzal
09-15-2006, 02:23 PM
Why do I being up "Jim Cramer" ?
what does that mean?

The Judge
09-15-2006, 02:26 PM
I read everything I can by Beyer as well as Davidowitz. Beyer credits Davidowitz with his development into a handicapper. Beyer would not acknowledge pace as a legitiment form of handicapping until around 2000.

He always said the speed figures were "the truth and the light". At Expo 2000 he made a small public concession and said that he might start making "pace figures" as they might explain races that speed figures can't explain. That is to his credit.

Daivdowitz, Andrew Beyer's friend who he met and handicapped races with as a young man at Suffork Downs while he was attending Harvard University, coined the term "track bias". Andrew Beyer has never said it doesn't exist why because he knows that it does ,he is forever talking about this bias or that bias.

Well you brought him up.

46zilzal
09-15-2006, 02:28 PM
ALL of these works should just be "jumping off" points. They are not gospel.

The Judge
09-15-2006, 02:34 PM
Because with all this physics and bio- machanics talk I think thats where 'Bobphilo" is heading.

classhandicapper
09-15-2006, 02:40 PM
" It assumes that that the same identical surface can somehow tell the difference between a front-runner and a closer and magically make one run better than the other. Nonsense."

Bob,

I believe you are still missing what I and others are saying. A track obviously cannot tell the difference between a horse that is a front runner or closer. However, a track can have a different impact on a horse that runs 45 for 4F (adjusted for track speed) one day vs. another day.

It's the relationship between pace and final time that changes. (most important point that I have repeated several times!)

I hope this example explains the idea better.

Assume we have 2 horses.

"A" typically runs 45 110 and "B" typically runs 45.4 110.1 on an average track. Essentially "A" is a front runner and "B" is a closer.

On an average day, "A" will win by 1/5 of a second if they both run the same fractions they normally do.

However, suppose on the next day the cushion and track condition are much different because of maintenance, less moisture, the addition of sand etc... and as a result the track is much more tiring.

On this new track, when "A" goes out in 45 he finishes in 110.3 instead. "B" again runs 45.4 and finishes in 110.2. (all adjusted for track speed)

This time "B" wins by a 1/5 of a second.

The track couldn't tell which of them was the front runner and which was the closer, but it tilted the results towards the closer in this case because faster fractions had a more negative effect on this track.

When a track changes like this, unless the jockeys recognize it and adjust the pace, it can create clusters of either front running winners or closers relative to the average. People refer to these as speed and closer biases, but it is more about energy distribution and the relationship between pace and final time

In reality, the very best jockeys often recognize this kind of thing after awhile and start holding horses like "A" back by a few fifths of a second early. That's allows them to win despite the change in the track condition.

The exact thing happens in reverse (actually more often).

When a 45 110.1 horse competes with a 45.4 110 horse and the track gets less tiring the opposite will hapen. All of a sudden that 45 110.1 becomes 45 109.4 and it creates a cluster of front running winners.

The best jockeys see what's happening and then start forcing the front runners to run 44.3 instead to neutralize the effect of the less tiring track.

This has nothing to do with styles. That's what's confusing you. It has to do with the relationship between pace and final time not being fixed and the fact that certain styles are generally associated with faster or slower fractions . That variation can cause clusters of certain styles winning, but it's not the style itself that is the issue.

IMO, this is very logical. It is supported by observation of results and actions, and it's supported by my silly example about running 1/4 mile on asphalt or the beach at the beginning of the thread.

This disagreement may all come down to communication.

46zilzal
09-15-2006, 02:44 PM
bottom line: there is NO right or wrong, just what works for you.

JPinMaryland
09-15-2006, 03:08 PM
Bob: I dont know why you are getting upset with me bringing up wind. I bring it up because a) it might be considered a "real" effect, not some illusion, there could be real physical reasons for it and b) no handicapper I know has made a correction factor for wind, so as to zero it out and establish a true pace number. If that is the case, then isnt possible there are races being run that really do favor one type of runner over another..?

Also wind can be considered a track condition, could it not? If handicappers do not "zero out" for wind then isnt it possible there could very well be true physical effects from a factor such as wind that would help or hinder front runnes/closers?

Classhand's post about surface condition is perhaps a better example of a track condition that could certainly be real and certainly be having different effects on different horses. His post seems spot on.

Finally, Bob if you say that wind is not the same as track bias, then would you admit there are conditions such as wind that could have a very real effect on differnt types of horses? Same question but for kick back, if kick back is not a true track condition, could it not still be having an effect on certain types of horses?

keilan
09-15-2006, 04:41 PM
You say that you have been successful in your betting the speed bias. I have been successful in betting as if it doesn’t exist.


Bob,

I really do want to hear what you have to say, so what are the chances that you could give us a couple examples of what you know and understand. Start anywhere you want though I and others are still waiting for your explanation of why dirt tracks are more tiring than turf.

Maybe you could address whether you believe in calculating track variants or if raw fractions are good enough.

I’m a patient man but soon we will be going on four days :cool:

Tom
09-15-2006, 05:10 PM
K...I think the Space Shuttle went up quicker than this guy is going to say anything. :D Be back home before he does, too.

Why am I suspecting a sales pitch is looming on the horizon. :bang:

46zilzal
09-15-2006, 05:28 PM
whatever the difference turf or dirt, a lot of people get the idea that performers on one surface can trade that style to the other surface...they don't

keilan
09-15-2006, 06:05 PM
whatever the difference turf or dirt, a lot of people get the idea that performers on one surface can trade that style to the other surface...they don't

Yes 46 I understand you have much to say but please can't you give Bob a chance to elaborate on his scientific studies.


Tom --- who knows where this thing is headed but so far "Moms' the word :)

Murph
09-15-2006, 06:10 PM
whatever the difference turf or dirt, a lot of people get the idea that performers on one surface can trade that style to the other surface...they don'tPoint Determined's effort in the Del Mar Derby may be an extreme example of this fact. I do believe that there are runners who can transfer their form to different surfaces. Storm Cat offspring come to mind as some who can do this. I will not often bet that they will though. ;)

Murph

robert99
09-15-2006, 06:21 PM
Bob: I dont know why you are getting upset with me bringing up wind. I bring it up because a) it might be considered a "real" effect, not some illusion, there could be real physical reasons for it and b) no handicapper I know has made a correction factor for wind, so as to zero it out and establish a true pace number. If that is the case, then isnt possible there are races being run that really do favor one type of runner over another..?

Also wind can be considered a track condition, could it not? If handicappers do not "zero out" for wind then isnt it possible there could very well be true physical effects from a factor such as wind that would help or hinder front runnes/closers?

Classhand's post about surface condition is perhaps a better example of a track condition that could certainly be real and certainly be having different effects on different horses. His post seems spot on.

Finally, Bob if you say that wind is not the same as track bias, then would you admit there are conditions such as wind that could have a very real effect on differnt types of horses? Same question but for kick back, if kick back is not a true track condition, could it not still be having an effect on certain types of horses?


JP,

Headwinds are a very real effect in expending additional energy each stride.
Jockeys have far more control in slowing horses than speeding them up so will try to cover their horse up as long as possible - their horse will not likely run its normal racing style, directly because of the headwind. Those at the back of a bunch have the same wind assisting them that is hampering the front runners. Those horses may hate it though when they make a break for the lead and come out into the wind at the stage of the race when they are tiring. It also effects the breathing of some horses. Side winds can help or hinder the negotiating of bends.

The final time correction needs to be adjusted for each individual race. There is a horse bias and a track condition allowance to resolve. Ragozin and Timeform have been adjusting for these factors for over half a century.

From the UK view, USA tracks are so flat and similar in layout and material we would not consider them to have biases. Every country though has horse biases and jockey biases, so what is being observed certainly does happen but the main cause of it happening is not due to the track but to the individual horse's varying energy production rates. It is a mistake to call a horse a 44/110 (corrected) when it has never actually run those times. If it actually ran 46/114 on a slow track that is what it ran, for that race distance, and that is how it produces its energy rate. Energy rate being properly defined as work done (foot pounds) per stride. In turn that energy rate profile defines the horse's racing capabilities and optimum style.

In UK, turf tracks have biases due to subsurface drainage pipe positions, hollows that retain moisture, poached ground on the racing rail, adverse cross falls, uphill finishes, sides of the track that miss out on watering, track side trees shading the turf and sucking moisture out of the ground, changes in the subsoil type and its depth along the length of track, depth of water table, short or long run-ins etc, etc. There is a clear physical reason for track biases which is wholly absent for properly maintained tracks in USA.

From the UK race results, the USA definition of biases also makes it "appear" that the track has somehow changed at a given meeting, but it has not - the races were run by different horses, diffrerent pace and energy profiles, and jockeys who largely copy what won the race before. The state of the going will change the result of the race because slower horses with more stamina can come into contention on a wet day but be left for dead when the going is fast. A fast ground horse will either lose traction or burn itself out in a few furlongs in those conditions.

keilan
09-15-2006, 07:41 PM
JP,

Headwinds are a very real effect in expending additional energy each stride.
Jockeys have far more control in slowing horses than speeding them up so will try to cover their horse up as long as possible - their horse will not likely run its normal racing style, directly because of the headwind. Those at the back of a bunch have the same wind assisting them that is hampering the front runners. Those horses may hate it though when they make a break for the lead and come out into the wind at the stage of the race when they are tiring. It also effects the breathing of some horses. Side winds can help or hinder the negotiating of bends.

The final time correction needs to be adjusted for each individual race. There is a horse bias and a track condition allowance to resolve. Ragozin and Timeform have been adjusting for these factors for over half a century.

From the UK view, USA tracks are so flat and similar in layout and material we would not consider them to have biases. Every country though has horse biases and jockey biases, so what is being observed certainly does happen but the main cause of it happening is not due to the track but to the individual horse's varying energy production rates. It is a mistake to call a horse a 44/110 (corrected) when it has never actually run those times. If it actually ran 46/114 on a slow track that is what it ran, for that race distance, and that is how it produces its energy rate. Energy rate being properly defined as work done (foot pounds) per stride. In turn that energy rate profile defines the horse's racing capabilities and optimum style.

In UK, turf tracks have biases due to subsurface drainage pipe positions, hollows that retain moisture, poached ground on the racing rail, adverse cross falls, uphill finishes, sides of the track that miss out on watering, track side trees shading the turf and sucking moisture out of the ground, changes in the subsoil type and its depth along the length of track, depth of water table, short or long run-ins etc, etc. There is a clear physical reason for track biases which is wholly absent for properly maintained tracks in USA.

From the UK race results, the USA definition of biases also makes it "appear" that the track has somehow changed at a given meeting, but it has not - the races were run by different horses, diffrerent pace and energy profiles, and jockeys who largely copy what won the race before. The state of the going will change the result of the race because slower horses with more stamina can come into contention on a wet day but be left for dead when the going is fast. A fast ground horse will either lose traction or burn itself out in a few furlongs in those conditions.


This post has left me almost speechless, where does one being.

Can you please explain the follow statements?

1)their horse will not likely run its normal racing style, directly because of the headwind.

2) Side winds can help or hinder the negotiating of bends.

3) There is a horse bias and a track condition allowance to resolve.

4) USA tracks are so flat and similar in layout and material we would not consider them to have biases. (ohhh really)

5) Every country though has horse biases and jockey biases, so what is being observed certainly does happen but the main cause of it happening is not due to the track but to the individual horse's varying energy production rates.

6) From the UK race results, the USA definition of biases also makes it "appear" that the track has somehow changed at a given meeting, but it has not - the races were run by different horses, diffrerent pace and energy profiles, and jockeys who largely copy what won the race before. The state of the going will change the result of the race because slower horses with more stamina can come into contention on a wet day but be left for dead when the going is fast. A fast ground horse will either lose traction or burn itself out in a few furlongs in those conditions.


Serious question -- do you play the horses? Again thank you for your time. I'm really hoping to learn someting here.

the_fat_man
09-15-2006, 07:46 PM
This post has left me almost speechless, where does one being.

Can you please explain the follow statements?

1)their horse will not likely run its normal racing style, directly because of the headwind.

2) Side winds can help or hinder the negotiating of bends.

3) There is a horse bias and a track condition allowance to resolve.

4) USA tracks are so flat and similar in layout and material we would not consider them to have biases. (ohhh really)

5) Every country though has horse biases and jockey biases, so what is being observed certainly does happen but the main cause of it happening is not due to the track but to the individual horse's varying energy production rates.

6) From the UK race results, the USA definition of biases also makes it "appear" that the track has somehow changed at a given meeting, but it has not - the races were run by different horses, diffrerent pace and energy profiles, and jockeys who largely copy what won the race before. The state of the going will change the result of the race because slower horses with more stamina can come into contention on a wet day but be left for dead when the going is fast. A fast ground horse will either lose traction or burn itself out in a few furlongs in those conditions.


Serious question -- do you play the horses? Again thank you for your time. I'm really hoping to learn someting here.

I quit at " Those at the back of a bunch have the same wind assisting them that is hampering the front runners. Those horses may hate it though when they make a break for the lead and come out into the wind at the stage of the race when they are tiring. "

:bang:

keilan
09-15-2006, 09:20 PM
I quit at " Those at the back of a bunch have the same wind assisting them that is hampering the front runners. Those horses may hate it though when they make a break for the lead and come out into the wind at the stage of the race when they are tiring. "

:bang:


Fats forgive me for not including that li'l jewel. I didn’t wanna go there, I’m sorta over my head on that one.

The scary thing is we all speak English as our first language - kinda

JPinMaryland
09-15-2006, 11:40 PM
I think I understand much of what Robert was trying to say however, I think he had so much to say that a lot oof it got truncated and got lost in the translation.

WHile his post was long, it actually might have been more clear if he had written it out in more detail. Like, in other words, he started out talking about head winds, and said something about it having the same effect on horses at both ends...And then he wandered off into cross winds, and then other issues.

I enjoy reading his posts, I think I know what he is saying, I didnt think he menat to come across as saying that the wind has the same effect, because of what he wrote in the last para. but...?

Robert, how about taking on this one simple question: Do you think there are real effects such as wind (or kick back or softer ground), that could hurt/help different types of runners (closers/front runners)?

Very simple question.

Same question to BobPhilo because Bob seems to say that there are no effects at all that are effectively track biasing. He admits there are path biases but denies there are track biases. BUt does that mean that mud/kickback/wind cannot possibly effect different horses in different ways?

JPinMaryland
09-15-2006, 11:45 PM
See you all (at least three of you) took it to mean that robert was denying that track biases exist. Let's call it a speed-bias to avoid a semantic debate with BobPhilo. By that I mean; some effect that is affecting closers or front runners so that one group is favored over another.

Now I think Robert agrees with me but he just worded it a little differently. Take this:


"...Those at the back of a bunch have the same wind assisting them that is hampering the front runners. Those horses may hate it though when they make a break for the lead and come out into the wind at the stage of the race when they are tiring..."

The key part is "Those horses may hate it though..." By that I think he means he in agreement with those of us who believe in the speed bias. It's just that he writes in a little different style.

At least that's what i think is going on.

twindouble
09-16-2006, 09:13 AM
This thread is having a good run, like I'm sure it has before. The thing is, what can I conclude after all is said and done? What stands out is one person commented on the enormous amount of work that goes into creating your own figures plus maintaining them, no one agreed or disagreed.

Second, I agreed there's a need to improve on the speed and variant figures, ESP the variants. That would be helpful to me but I don't want to spend my days and nights working on them, offer them up I'd be interested and like I said, I would put them to the test. Other than that, it's handicapping as usual.

T.D.

sjk
09-16-2006, 10:02 AM
This thread is having a good run, like I'm sure it has before. The thing is, what can I conclude after all is said and done? What stands out is one person commented on the enormous amount of work that goes into creating your own figures plus maintaining them, no one agreed or disagreed.


T.D.

There is always debate as to whether an automated process can deliver good figures or whether human intervention is required (above and beyond some simple error checking).

If you automate the process there is no work to it at all after the initial programming many yers ago.

RonTiller
09-16-2006, 03:04 PM
Back to the original thread topic? I'll guess I'll put in my last 2 cents worth.
There is always debate as to whether an automated process can deliver good figures or whether human intervention is required (above and beyond some simple error checking).

If you automate the process there is no work to it at all after the initial programming many yers ago.
This can be true if one wishes it to be this way. However, it is a mistake to think that doing speed figures (in an automated fashion) is a figure it out once, do some simple error corrections, and let it run for years almost unattended. That one is not agonizing over each individual figure does not mean there is no work to do. One needs to constantly check and measure the numbers, to make sure nothing is going awry; one needs to continuously reevaluate one's methodology to test for improvements; one needs to identify weaknesses and work to improve them; one needs to check a certain percentage that meet certain boundary criteria (not merely simple error checking); etc. etc. A few bad raw times or incorrect distances can infect the whole database like a virus when one is using projections, so much as we would like it to be, making speed numbers, even with an automated system, is not anywhere near a lights out operation (unless one is easily satisfied or unless one has interests other than handicapping and sleeping).

One can rest on one's laurels, there's no question about that. As a private individual making your own numbers, you want to handicap and bet at some point - that's why you're going to all the trouble in the first place. However, we have found that it is never ending job, even if one has developed an automated system to do variants and track to track (and that took years and years of research). How never ending it is is wholly a function of how much work you are willing to put in to get smaller and smaller gains, how vigilant you choose to be in chasing down the never ending anomalies, how serious you are about honestly measuring your numbers and most importantly, how much time you are willing and able to devote to thankless drudgery.

Ron Tiller
HDW

twindouble
09-16-2006, 04:02 PM
Thank you Ron Tiller, that settles it for me. I retired to have free time, also to enjoy my racing. The DRF has treated just fine over the years, who ever comes out on top creating numbers hat's off to them.





Good luck,

T.D.

robert99
09-16-2006, 04:07 PM
I think I understand much of what Robert was trying to say however, I think he had so much to say that a lot oof it got truncated and got lost in the translation.

WHile his post was long, it actually might have been more clear if he had written it out in more detail. Like, in other words, he started out talking about head winds, and said something about it having the same effect on horses at both ends...And then he wandered off into cross winds, and then other issues.

I enjoy reading his posts, I think I know what he is saying, I didnt think he menat to come across as saying that the wind has the same effect, because of what he wrote in the last para. but...?

Robert, how about taking on this one simple question: Do you think there are real effects such as wind (or kick back or softer ground), that could hurt/help different types of runners (closers/front runners)?

Very simple question.

Same question to BobPhilo because Bob seems to say that there are no effects at all that are effectively track biasing. He admits there are path biases but denies there are track biases. BUt does that mean that mud/kickback/wind cannot possibly effect different horses in different ways?


JP,

Apologies if not clear, it may be W. Churchill's
"Two Nations divided by a common language" thing.
We do write very precisely and hardly speak at all, what with the teeth and all that. :p
This thread has got to 11 pages without any definitions made so confusion reigns.

To answer your question, I do believe that wind, ground speed, kickback, traction etc effect the way a race is run and the result of a race because it effects each and every horse in the race in different ways ( I tried to give a few examples). I would define that as horse bias. A bias meaning to me some factor that prejudices the likely race result one way or the other. In my way of thinking there are 3 biases:

Horse bias - the pace shape, path and conditions a horse needs to run to produce its optimum performance when fully fit.

Track bias - mostly constant physical conditions, as listed in last post, that prejudice the race result towards favouring one type of horse or another.

Jockey bias - what the jockey believes or is told to believe or copies from other jockies to be necessary tactics to win a race.

All 3 are separate study areas but at the same time are happening to varying degrees together within a race. If you just lump the biases together as one bias it will only get you a "third" of the way to enlightenment. Unless one tries to understand the basic causes of events then statistics can tell many lies.

robert99
09-16-2006, 04:35 PM
keilan,

I will try to add something that may help.

"Can you please explain the follow statements?


1)their horse will not likely run its normal racing style, directly because of the headwind. [A normal front runner will likely be placed within the pack today]

2) Side winds can help or hinder the negotiating of bends. [Centripetal forces to enable horse and jockey to turn a curve]

3) There is a horse bias and a track condition allowance to resolve. [See later post on 3 bias components]

4) USA tracks are so flat and similar in layout and material we would not consider them to have biases. (ohhh really) [Have a look at the UK track layouts on www.racingpost.co.uk]

5) Every country though has horse biases and jockey biases, so what is being observed certainly does happen but the main cause of it happening is not due to the track but to the individual horse's varying energy production rates. [See earlier post - a horse has stored energy within its body it can process that energy into required mechanical running energy, at different rates. The rates can be reduced as toxins in the blood build up.]

6) From the UK race results, the USA definition of biases also makes it "appear" that the track has somehow changed at a given meeting, but it has not - the races were run by different horses, different pace and energy profiles, and jockeys who largely copy what won the race before. The state of the going will change the result of the race because slower horses with more stamina can come into contention on a wet day but be left for dead when the going is fast. A fast ground horse will either lose traction or burn itself out in a few furlongs in those conditions. [Should be clearer now but ask a specific question, if not]


Serious question -- do you play the horses? Again thank you for your time. I'm really hoping to learn someting here" [Full time in UK and Ireland only, apart from Breeders Cup, for the last 50 years. I am still learning too. ;) ]

keilan
09-16-2006, 06:58 PM
Thank you for posting a response, your explanation much clearer today.

I'm short on time but hope to contribute as this thread continues :)


p.s. -- only 50 years playing, heck the average age of PA members is close to 100. Consider yourself a newbie in these circles.

46zilzal
09-16-2006, 07:21 PM
I will try to add something that may help.

"Can you please explain the follow statements?
]
what a totally different understanding of racing. Guess it is what is more familiar to you applied to the "others" to come up with conclusions.

JPinMaryland
09-16-2006, 07:24 PM
See? I thought Robert agreed with many of us on speed-bias, it was just a stylistic issue.

Question for Robert, you said;

"Track bias - mostly constant physical conditions, as listed in last post, that prejudice the race result towards favouring one type of horse or another..."

Umm, not really sure what post you are referring to as the last post. Can you list what you think are the most important track biasing conditions?

I would say: track surface (damp/dry); kickback, wind. But you might be thinking of something different.

Second question. When you say this;

"Horse bias - the pace shape, path and conditions a horse needs to run.."

How are these different from track biasing conditions? I would guess the pace of the race would be one, but when you say "path" here I am confused. It seems to me that the shortest path to the finish line would always be the best path for any horse. So that might not change from horse to horse.

Although on the other hand there are horses who might need to be "covered up" and other horses that are good when they are in the lead. ANd "conditions" What other conditions that arent covered by "Track Bias?"

the_fat_man
09-16-2006, 07:48 PM
who'd have thunk that a thread started by someone who swears by the Racing Form exclusively (and claims to win)

would inspire what has turned into a RATIONALIST philosophy of figure making.

and given the prolix nature of many of the posts

one gets the sense that some of you actually think

that they're taken seriously or even read

most are banal at best

some of you guys really need to get out of the house; i.e.;

actually start watching races rather than thinking about how races are run given your theories

or better yet

get out there on a bike, rock it 20+ mph, and find out first hand about the

effects of wind, cover, pace, etc.

a couple of weeks ago I was driving to a job and

found myself listening to the Mike and the Mad Dog radio show

Mike was off and Russo was covering/commenting on Gary Sheffield's

press conference (where he said all the correct things)

Now, Russo is all over the place and my listening to him pointed to what an IDIOT I WAS.

But it got worse: Sweeney Murty (i?) came on and Russo wanted his take on the Sheffield thing.

At that point I realized it was time to bail

cause

if I had nothing better to do than listen to some simpleton critiquing an even bigger simpleton

then it really would suck being me

know what I mean, boys?

P.S. NOTHING PERSONAL

with all the great racing going on
and the opportunity to discuss these issue within the framework of actual races

I am constantly struck by the incredible dearth of those types of threads

one would think that frequenters of a pace forum would actually want to discuss pace (speed, trips, etc.) by reference to actual races

:ThmbUp:

sjk
09-16-2006, 07:56 PM
For some of us 1000 races come and go in a few months time. Whether or not you beat a certain race is meaningless.

You can't beat a race but you can beat the races.

twindouble
09-16-2006, 08:19 PM
who'd have thunk that a thread started by someone who swears by the Racing Form exclusively (and claims to win)

Hey Skinny, this is the Internet. Your diatribe applies to everyone here including yourself when it comes to "claims". The difference between you me is, at least I give others the benefit of doubt whereas you are sitting on an imaginary thrown you received through some genetic mutation I would assume.

For me to state the speed and track variants aren't that reliable, is in my opinion worthy of discussion. Maybe you just rely on the Beyer figures, after all you must be a very successful handicapper, aren't you? If not what do you "claim" to be, other than a pain in the ass. :D Well, even funny times, theres a fine line between the two as you know.

T.D.

the_fat_man
09-16-2006, 08:50 PM
who'd have thunk that a thread started by someone who swears by the Racing Form exclusively (and claims to win)

Hey Skinny, this is the Internet. Your diatribe applies to everyone here including yourself when it comes to "claims". The difference between you me is, at least I give others the benefit of doubt whereas you are sitting on an imaginary thrown you received through some genetic mutation I would assume.

For me to state the speed and track variants aren't that reliable, is in my opinion worthy of discussion. Maybe you just rely on the Beyer figures, after all you must be a very successful handicapper, aren't you? If not what do you "claim" to be, other than a pain in the ass. :D Well, even funny times, theres a fine line between the two as you know.

T.D.

Put down the JUG, boy.

I don't use Beyer's; never have; never will. Why would I rely on SOMEONE ELSE'S opinion when it comes to betting MY money?

To be like that that fool who liked Teammate last week cause her "BEYER's WERE Improving" cause I can't watch the races and tell on my own?

Let's go, TWIN

me and you

6 laps around the velodrome.

twindouble
09-16-2006, 09:11 PM
Put down the JUG, boy.

I don't use Beyer's; never have; never will. Why would I rely on SOMEONE ELSE'S opinion when it comes to betting MY money?

To be like that that fool who liked Teammate last week cause her "BEYER's WERE Improving" cause I can't watch the races and tell on my own?

Let's go, TWIN

me and you

6 laps around the velodrome.

I already gave my opinion on Teammate. I wouldn't have bet the horse to win for the reason I stated.

the_fat_man
09-16-2006, 09:39 PM
I already gave my opinion on Teammate. I wouldn't have bet the horse to win for the reason I stated.

Well, if your reason was that Velasquez was on the horse, it was a viable one.
(Anything else, I don't care to know about it --not like you actually watch races.)

As for me, it was a 2 horse race, so it didn't turn out that bad.

twindouble
09-16-2006, 09:45 PM
Well, if your reason was that Velasquez was on the horse, it was a viable one.
(Anything else, I don't care to know about it.)

As for me, it was a 2 horse race, so it didn't turn out that bad.

I didn't handicap the race but from what Tom said the horse had improved in four consecutive races, myself I wouldn't be looking for more improvement in his 5th race, that's all I said. Not handicapping the race I don't know how the horse fit it with the competition off those races. I would never toss a horse I like to win just because Velasquez is up.

the_fat_man
09-16-2006, 10:04 PM
I didn't handicap the race but from what Tom said the horse had improved in four consecutive races, myself I wouldn't be looking for more improvement in his 5th race, that's all I said. Not handicapping the race I don't know how the horse fit it with the competition off those races. I would never toss a horse I like to win just because Velasquez is up.

So you do follow the Beyer's. ;)

twindouble
09-16-2006, 10:07 PM
So you do follow the Beyer's. ;)

I laughed the day they come out and I'm still laughing today.

PaceAdvantage
09-16-2006, 10:30 PM
(Anything else, I don't care to know about it --not like you actually watch races.)

How do you know who or who doesn't watch races? What kind of an idiotic comment is that anyway?

Actually, don't answer this, cause I'm just going to delete it anyway, as it only serves to drive this thread further off topic.

Tom
09-16-2006, 11:27 PM
Since this thread is about speed and pace numbers, I used CJ's to identify Teammate as an improving horse. I guess nobody told Teammate I didn't watch the replays. He was lose at 7-1, and I will hit enough of these to make money. A lot more money that hitting a whole bunch of heavy favs. Any fool could have had the winner - and apparently, some did. He was a hell of a lot better horse/bet than the second fav, who was never a factor in the race. And I didn't watch his replay either.

46zilzal
09-16-2006, 11:31 PM
I laughed the day they come out and I'm still laughing today.
always hope that MORE followed the Beyer numbers.

the_fat_man
09-16-2006, 11:44 PM
I think the interesting thing in all this, which NO ONE has pointed out, and someone correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm going off memory, is that

per CJ's PUBLIC FIGURES

Teammate GOT a BETTER NUMBER in the ALABAMA than Pine Island (103 to 100 is what I remember)

it's a beautiful thing when the trip and the figure coincide


P.S. Twin has stated repeatedly that he relies exclusively on the form.

twindouble
09-17-2006, 12:01 AM
I think the interesting thing in all this, which NO ONE has pointed out, and someone correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm going off memory, is that

per CJ's PUBLIC FIGURES

Teammate GOT a BETTER NUMBER in the ALABAMA than Pine Island (103 to 100 is what I remember)

it's a beautiful thing when the trip and the figure coincide


P.S. Twin has stated repeatedly that he relies exclusively on the form.

Your not questioning that are you? On the other hand, I wouldn't say "exclusively", I do watch the races the best I can with the tools I have, plus any changes including track condition.

the_fat_man
09-17-2006, 12:09 AM
[/b]

Your not questioning that are you? On the other hand, I wouldn't say "exclusively", I do watch the races the best I can with the tools I have, plus any changes including track condition.

questioning what?

cj
09-17-2006, 01:14 AM
I laughed the day they come out and I'm still laughing today.

I cried the day they came out, but it all worked out in the end. It made me a better capper in the long run.

the little guy
09-17-2006, 04:13 AM
[/b]

Your not questioning that are you? On the other hand, I wouldn't say "exclusively", I do watch the races the best I can with the tools I have, plus any changes including track condition.


If nothing else Twin deserves credit for honesty ( and I actually do mean that as a compliment....I swear ).

the little guy
09-17-2006, 04:16 AM
I think the interesting thing in all this, which NO ONE has pointed out, and someone correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm going off memory, is that

per CJ's PUBLIC FIGURES

Teammate GOT a BETTER NUMBER in the ALABAMA than Pine Island (103 to 100 is what I remember)

it's a beautiful thing when the trip and the figure coincide


P.S. Twin has stated repeatedly that he relies exclusively on the form.

Duh! Obviously the trip and the figures coincided in this case because CJ's figs are pace inclusive and it was the pace that made Teamate's trip tougher than Pine Island's.

For a guy so quick to knock others you seem awfully proud of figuring out the obvious. Congratulations Dr. MOTO.

twindouble
09-17-2006, 09:55 AM
If nothing else Twin deserves credit for honesty ( and I actually do mean that as a compliment....I swear ).

Thanks for the swat in the head and the pat on the back. Coming from you, I treasure this moment, "honesty".

the little guy
09-17-2006, 11:18 AM
It was 100% meant as a compliment.

twindouble
09-17-2006, 11:31 AM
It was 100% meant as a compliment.

Your play with words has always impressed me, it's liken to grooming someone for the slaughter house. Take that as a compliment.

keilan
09-17-2006, 11:55 AM
Robert99 wrote
1) their horse will not likely run its normal racing style, directly because of the headwind. [A normal front runner will likely be placed within the pack today]
k wrote
I have never noticed that in North American racing – Horses that have a running style labelled “E” are generally found on the front-end regardless of wind conditions.

Robert99 wrote
2) Side winds can help or hinder the negotiating of bends. [Centripetal forces to enable horse and jockey to turn a curve]
k wrote
As a player it would be impossible to apply this principle, enuff said

Robert99 wrote
3) There is a horse bias and a track condition allowance to resolve. [See later post on 3 bias components]
k wrote
Agree on both your horse & track bias

Robert99 wrote
4) USA tracks are so flat and similar in layout and material we would not consider them to have biases. (ohhh really) [Have a look at the UK track layouts on www.racingpost.co.uk]
k wrote
USA tracks have both speed bias and inside/outside bias. You acknowledge speed biases in your own country but fail to believe they exist here. I can assure you that the track weight changes from day to day and sometimes during the same card. Further to that it is naďve to believe that the composition of all tracks is so similar that track-to-track adjustments are not necessary. Players handle this variable differently but in the end they are adjusting for the difference.

Robert99 wrote
5) Every country though has horse biases and jockey biases, so what is being observed certainly does happen but the main cause of it happening is not due to the track but to the individual horse's varying energy production rates. [See earlier post - a horse has stored energy within its body it can process that energy into required mechanical running energy, at different rates. The rates can be reduced as toxins in the blood build up.]
k wrote
Energy is one of the least understood variables among players. Horses are remarkably consistent and their energy rates fluctuate much less than most believe. Energy and pace are highly correlated and no conversation should take place without addressing the cause and effect which pace plays. I look forward to any discussion in this direction.

Robert99 wrote
6) From the UK race results, the USA definition of biases also makes it "appear" that the track has somehow changed at a given meeting, but it has not - the races were run by different horses, different pace and energy profiles, and jockeys who largely copy what won the race before. The state of the going will change the result of the race because slower horses with more stamina can come into contention on a wet day but be left for dead when the going is fast. A fast ground horse will either lose traction or burn itself out in a few furlongs in those conditions. [Should be clearer now but ask a specific question, if not]
k wrote
At this point we will agree to disagree that the track surface isn’t in constant change.

classhandicapper
09-17-2006, 01:24 PM
There is always debate as to whether an automated process can deliver good figures or whether human intervention is required (above and beyond some simple error checking).

If you automate the process there is no work to it at all after the initial programming many yers ago.

I'm in the middle on this one.

I've spent a lot of time analyzing the speed figure methodologies of TG, RAGs, Beyer, CJ, Logic Dictates, etc..... I honestly think there is not sure fire solution to these problems.

Once you realize that moisture is often being added or evaporating from the surface (effecting its speed), the wind is often blowing in a non consistent fashion, the maintenance crew often works on the track between races, the run up can be different from day to day or distance to distance, rails can be moved in or out, the track itself might not be uniform from inside to outside etc.... you start realizing how complex it is to come up with accurate speed and pace figures.

Then, once you start dragging in things like bias, the impact of pace on final time, drafting, other aspects of trip that can effect outcomes and times and it's obvious it can be almost a nightmare to interpret results and make super accurate figures some of the time.

That's why when you look at multiple sets of figures from highly competent people they often disagree by a wide margin.

I may be the most repetitive guy on these boards, but there's something to be said for supplementing numbers (pace and final time) with good old fashion analysis of the quality of fields in combination with trip (visual). It can sometimes clarify these complexities.

twindouble
09-17-2006, 01:30 PM
I may be the most repetitive guy on these boards, but there's something to be said for supplementing numbers (pace and final time) with good old fashion analysis of the quality of fields in combination with trip (visual). It can sometimes clarify these complexities. Quote; Class.

That's basically what I was eluding to, throwing in variants. The problem is, where the heck do you get the time to do it all. :bang:

T.D.

the_fat_man
09-17-2006, 02:17 PM
I'm in the middle on this one.

I've spent a lot of time analyzing the speed figure methodologies of TG, RAGs, Beyer, CJ, Logic Dictates, etc..... I honestly think there is not sure fire solution to these problems.

Once you realize that moisture is often being added or evaporating from the surface (effecting its speed), the wind is often blowing in a non consistent fashion, the maintenance crew often works on the track between races, the run up can be different from day to day or distance to distance, rails can be moved in or out, the track itself might not be uniform from inside to outside etc.... you start realizing how complex it is to come up with accurate speed and pace figures.

Then, once you start dragging in things like bias, the impact of pace on final time, drafting, other aspects of trip that can effect outcomes and times and it's obvious it can be almost a nightmare to interpret results and make super accurate figures some of the time.

That's why when you look at multiple sets of figures from highly competent people they often disagree by a wide margin.

I may be the most repetitive guy on these boards, but there's something to be said for supplementing numbers (pace and final time) with good old fashion analysis of the quality of fields in combination with trip (visual). It can sometimes clarify these complexities.

I'll bite.

To make good numbers one needs to incorporate all the factors mentioned above (and maybe a few more)

AND

one needs to KNOW the horses, and their tendencies, at a particular track

which means, IMO, watching alot of races (going to the track, seeing them i the paddock, galloping before the race, pulling up after the race, etc.)

The number then is just a representation of all these factors

The presentation (form) of the number is thus subjective

as is the content.

I ask "If I do all the work that would go into the accumulation and interpretation of the data that the number would be modeled after
THEN
why do I need the number? Other than representational (format) preference.

Sidebar: There are races where THE BEST or 'FASTEST" horse does not always win (trouble, pace, etc.). However, a pure SPEED number can only be of the WINNER'S time. So horse A gets into a ton of trouble and runs 3rd behind horse B and horse C AND gets the 3rd best number for the race.
See the problem?


As for CLASS:

I'm in the game over 30 years and class has always been this opaque concept which is consistently supported by the example of the horse previously running a slower time beating a horse that previously ran a faster time BECAUSE he has more class.

Now, 'class' in track bike racing would pick out someone who can push a particular gear faster than his competitors (or push a higher gear for comparable cadence ---which means he'd be faster). So, I wonder why a FASTER horse would run SLOWER TIME than a SLOWER horse.

My conclusion: as above, IT'S NOT ABOUT FINAL TIME but rather HOW YOU GET THERE. So, the CLASSIER horse faced some type of adversity which resulted in a slower time. But to know this one NEEDS TO WATCH THE RACES CLOSELY (and to really know the horses one follows very well).

So, I need to watch alot of races to do figures correctly (speed and pace, with wind, cover, and trips, etc. factored in) AND I need to watch alot of races to pick out the CLASSIER NAGS. Why? cause both of these methods depend on DATA from THE RACE.

I have argued previously that if I know the horses and their tendencies and watch races closely (this includes pace,wind,etc.) I will be able, to some level of competency, to have opinions as to who is better than who. I'll be able to see/know the improving and regressing horses.

Of course, like the fig maker or the class person, I would need to automate as much of the process as possible and I would need to settle on a method of representation.

The representation/presentation can be automated

a good deal of the data necessary for the automated process

can only be collected through hard work -- no shortcuts


which is why the game has to be beatable: shortcuts are the standard

Tom
09-17-2006, 03:20 PM
Automated speed figs = worthless.

BIG49010
09-17-2006, 04:28 PM
Automated process is very valuable, then make your adjustments.

I have been doing it this way with for years, and I would put my figs up against anybodys. If you don't make the figs, you don't know the week spots or strengths. You need feed back on future races, and make adjustments when you are wrong, they run too many crazy races that have nothing to do with making good numbers. NY cards 1 race on each of the turf courses, with 1 being a field of first starters, how do you make a fig? Guess and adjust later.

keilan
09-17-2006, 04:40 PM
Tom may have been taking a friendly jab at Fats, I could be wrong but Tom is also a fan of "Automated speed figs". :rolleyes:

Tom
09-17-2006, 04:49 PM
No, I'm talking about having a program run a card and spit out speed figs with nothing else. Like the DRF SR and TV. That's automated to me.
If you mean I like "automated" that I let CJ and HTR make them for me, YES!:D

I gave up making my own.

keilan
09-17-2006, 04:53 PM
Ahhh Tom --you are so complicated :)

the_fat_man
09-17-2006, 05:04 PM
All I can say is WOW

ZIPPY 17:1:jump:

$212 exacta

and the Giants win in OT

keilan
09-17-2006, 05:07 PM
That is a "good day" -- excuse me "good week" :cool:

sjk
09-17-2006, 06:44 PM
Automated process is very valuable, then make your adjustments.

You need feed back on future races. Guess and adjust later.

Lot of truth in this.

It seem like some are hung up on how good the number is the morning after the race. If you don't revise the numbers as new information becomes available you are missing a lot.

Of course this is also easily automated.

Perhaps your number is better than mine the morning after the race but by the time it is actually needed (the horse runs back) my revisions get me back to where I need to be.

To Ron:

Wrong distances, wrong times and grossly wrong lengths are the sorts of simple errors that would hope to catch. Happily you catch most of them for me as I am now using your raw data.

rastajenk
09-18-2006, 02:35 PM
I still haven't seen a good explanation of why a tiring track affects early frontrunners negatively on some days, and affects closers negatively on others. All the examples so far in this thread have been conveniently retrofitted to make the case that they're trying to make. There is pace, and there are jockey decisions, there are troubled trips and racing luck, and of course there is speed, but there is no "track bias." :bang:


:cool:

keilan
09-18-2006, 02:54 PM
rastajenk -- you want answers, I've been pleading with bobphilo going on 6 plus days. Heck all I wanted was a brief explanation and example

So you're another guy that doesn't believe in track bias eh?

sjk
09-18-2006, 03:00 PM
If you live in Lebanon you probably spent some time at TP back when the track had a lot of banking to it.

There would often be severe speed biases and a look at the track made it easy to see why. The track drained from the crown of the track down towards the rail. The moisture content of the 1 and 2 paths was often quite different from the middle of the track.

A closer would usually have to spend a good portion of the race out in the slower (drier) part of the track and trying to pass horses while running in the slower going would take all of the run out of these horses.

the_fat_man
09-18-2006, 03:07 PM
I still haven't seen a good explanation of why a tiring track affects early frontrunners negatively on some days, and affects closers negatively on others. All the examples so far in this thread have been conveniently retrofitted to make the case that they're trying to make. There is pace, and there are jockey decisions, there are troubled trips and racing luck, and of course there is speed, but there is no "track bias." :bang:


:cool:

By 'tiring track', as used, you're assuming UNIFORMLY tiring.

As such, there can never be an (internal) 'track bias'

since, by definition, the track is FAIR

but

only bias as a result of 'external' factors: rail trips, wide trips, jock

decisions, pace, wind, cover, etc.

rastajenk
09-18-2006, 03:08 PM
"You want answers?"

"I want the Truth! :bang:

the_fat_man
09-18-2006, 03:15 PM
"You want answers?"

"I want the Truth! :bang:

Yeah,

Roll up another one

and rethink the theory

rjacobson
11-08-2006, 03:02 PM
I also treated the polytrack as dirt with ok results. Has anyone made a set of Keeneland polytrack par times yet?

Bob

sjk
11-08-2006, 04:30 PM
dist 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH final
6f 23.01 46.94 59.23 71.77 71.77 71.77
6 1/2f 23.05 47.03 71.90 78.24 78.24 78.24
7 f 23.52 47.04 72.22 85.03 85.03 85.03
beard 23.75 47.68 73.12 89.07 89.07 89.07
1 1/16m 24.30 48.78 74.37 100.20 106.60 106.60
1 1/8m 25.30 50.64 76.23 101.58 114.18 114.18
1 3/16m 25.57 51.46 76.91 102.25 120.21 120.21

Very limited data for some of these

Tom
11-08-2006, 05:31 PM
You make pars for beards?

rjacobson
11-08-2006, 05:36 PM
Thanks so much for the prompt reply. I understand about the limited data.

Bob

sjk
11-08-2006, 05:48 PM
You make pars for beards?

Only if they are longer than 7 furlongs.

PlanB
11-08-2006, 06:10 PM
I'm confused. What are these laws of physics & biomechanics that bobphilo
mentions? Also, BobPhilo, I thought exercise gurus think the type of muscle
cells are different in sprinters than in long distance runners; same as in swimmers. If a horse likes to lag early & come on strong later, maybe he's
just rolling with his muscle type, and if the jockey urged him to fire early,
he'd finish last for sure.