Post position study

[highnote]

Surely, Post Positions have been discussed before on PA. But I'd like to bring it up again.

Has anyone done any Post Pos studies?

For example, some races only have 4 horses. Other races have 12. So I would think you'd have to segment your post position studies by number of horses in the race.

Thoughts?

[Turfday]

Every racetrack in North America and Canada. Every distance each individual track uses (both turf and dirt). Every race at that track since Jan. 1, 1995. Broken down by field size for each post position, wins, average odds per starter, average odds per winner, in-the-money finishes for each post, etc.

[twindouble]

Every racetrack in North America and Canada. Every distance each individual track uses (both turf and dirt). Every race at that track since Jan. 1, 1995. Broken down by field size for each post position, wins, average odds per starter, average odds per winner, in-the-money finishes for each post, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the numbers people don't take post position into concederation including Beyer.

[Valuist]

I think you're referring to what kind of effect does post position have when you take into account field size. If you don't take field size into account, the inner posts will invariably come out better. The 1-4 posts get to run against 4 and 5 horse fields while the 11 and 12 are only in large fields. So you need to track not only the winning post and payoff but field size for each race. I also would track how the outer post does as well.

Besides ROI, you want to find out how many EXPECTED winners a post should have. Lets say in your study of a particular distance, their were 15 races with 12 horses, 20 with 11 horses, 25 with 10 horses, 30 with 9 horses, 30 with 8 horses, 30 with 7 horses, 20 with 6 horses and 10 with 5 runners. There were no races with more than 12 runners. 180 races in all.

Expected number of winners and % for each post:
Post 12: 1/12 x 15= 1.25 winners (8.3%)
Post 11: (1/12 x 15) + (1/11 x 20)= 3.07 expected winners (8.8%)
Post 10: (1/12 x 15) + (1/11 x 20) + (1/10 x 25)= 5.57 expected winners (9.3%)
Post 9: (1/12 x 15) + (1/11 x 20) + (1/10 x 25) + (1/9 x 30)= 8.9 expected winners (9.9%)

And so on, up thru post 5. Oftentimes, even with no bias at all there often is one "hot" post. I like to look at how posts 1-3 perform vs expectations, 4-6 etc, etc.

[twindouble]

I think you're referring to what kind of effect does post position have when you take into account field size. If you don't take field size into account, the inner posts will invariably come out better. The 1-4 posts get to run against 4 and 5 horse fields while the 11 and 12 are only in large fields. So you need to track not only the winning post and payoff but field size for each race. I also would track how the outer post does as well.

Besides ROI, you want to find out how many EXPECTED winners a post should have. Lets say in your study of a particular distance, their were 15 races with 12 horses, 20 with 11 horses, 25 with 10 horses, 30 with 9 horses, 30 with 8 horses, 30 with 7 horses, 20 with 6 horses and 10 with 5 runners. There were no races with more than 12 runners. 180 races in all.

Expected number of winners and % for each post:
Post 12: 1/12 x 15= 1.25 winners (8.3%)
Post 11: (1/12 x 15) + (1/11 x 20)= 3.07 expected winners (8.8%)
Post 10: (1/12 x 15) + (1/11 x 20) + (1/10 x 25)= 5.57 expected winners (9.3%)
Post 9: (1/12 x 15) + (1/11 x 20) + (1/10 x 25) + (1/9 x 30)= 8.9 expected winners (9.9%)

And so on, up thru post 5. Oftentimes, even with no bias at all there often is one "hot" post. I like to look at how posts 1-3 perform vs expectations, 4-6 etc, etc.

Nothing to disagee with there, I just pay more attention to who's going to be where when they come out of the gate and hit that first turn. Each track, depending on the location of the gate, realitive to the first turn and the configuration of the track "size", 5/8, 7/8, mile and so on. As you know, I'm not big on stats.


T.D.

[Turfday]

We chart the number of races for each post, the expected win percentage, expected in-the-money percentage and, in addition, the average odds per starter and average odds per winner.

We then come up with a "betting value average" for each post position which includes closing odds, win and in-the-money finishes (of course, using each individual field size as one). Then a rolling average is factored in giving what has happened lately is more important than what happened in the past.

[ratpack]

When it rains don't some tracks just move the post positions out a few stalls and do not mention it and call that new one #1 when yesterday that was #3.

[thebeacondeacon]

I've never understood the value of post position analysis.

1) What does the post position have to do with the performance potentials of the horses placed there, i.e. class, form, etc.?

2) Horses never stay in their starting paths through the course of a race. They swing to the outside, drop to the rail, or generally take holes where they can find them.

3) Why wouldn't some other "numbers" factor or astrology or numerology be just as accurate?


thebeacondeacon

[Valuist]

I've never understood the value of post position analysis.

1) What does the post position have to do with the performance potentials of the horses placed there, i.e. class, form, etc.?

2) Horses never stay in their starting paths through the course of a race. They swing to the outside, drop to the rail, or generally take holes where they can find them.

3) Why wouldn't some other "numbers" factor or astrology or numerology be just as accurate?


thebeacondeacon

1. Quite a bit, especially over a biased racetrack. Lets say the rail is good. Do you want to bet on a horse from the 10 or 11 hole? Or bet one of the inside posts when the rail is terrible? How about on the turf where there is a short run to the first turn? The outer posts are likely doomed to a wide trip.

2. They NEVER do? I strongly disagree, and they need both time and energy to alter paths. You must be watching a lot of races with very small fields where everyone can pick their own path. The majority of the time that isn't the case.

3. If you don't believe in ground loss, or biases, or that certain posts can help or hamper running style, then its probably true.

[twindouble]

I've never understood the value of post position analysis.

1) What does the post position have to do with the performance potentials of the horses placed there, i.e. class, form, etc.?

2) Horses never stay in their starting paths through the course of a race. They swing to the outside, drop to the rail, or generally take holes where they can find them.

3) Why wouldn't some other "numbers" factor or astrology or numerology be just as accurate?


thebeacondeacon

It's crucial at some tracks like I said, getting position to that first turn can decide the race, ESP if the turns are sharp. Depending how the race shapes up from the gate and where the gate is placed, in other words good breaking horse could very well keep that 1-9 chalk to wide on that turn, then it's all trouble from being fanned out. Just one example.

[Overlay]

I've never understood the value of post position analysis.

1) What does the post position have to do with the performance potentials of the horses placed there, i.e. class, form, etc.?

Sometimes, starting on the rail and having the shortest way home can provide the added edge that makes the difference between victory and defeat. I agree that the conditions at a given time at a particular track may dictate staying off the rail, but (as far as I know) the number one post position in races with a relatively short run to the turn (sprints of 6 furlongs or less, and two-turn routes of 1 to 1-1/8 miles) at large tracks (where the main dirt oval is 1 mile or more in circumference) is the only one that has been statistically shown to consistently win at a rate that is higher than expected on dirt, due solely to the influence of the post position factor. (Post positions 1-3 statistically benefit in two-turn routes of 1 to 1-1/8 miles run on turf courses at those same large tracks, due to the tighter turns on those courses.)

[gurulj]

If you want an honest answer "Yes" I have charted post positions and the wins at several tracks and found a surprise at a number of tracks it works. But not to be called names and hooted at I'll just suggest the easy way; Do it for yourself just as I do, if you're not too lazy or too dumb. Don't take anyone's word as no one can be trusted and we're all idiots! Right. Write your own book and software if you're so smart; but expect a few idiots to post crap about you. It's the price of success at what you do. That's probably because they won't lay winners in your hands, shame on them! Or ask someone who kept the material and studied and applied the data what happened...

Buy a years worth of data downloads or DRF's and chart the post positions for a number of wins (say 50) for each post or group and see what the average payout was for each. You will be surprised. Oh but I forgot; it's just numbers! But only a fool would play any horse in any position without first checking if it's properly placed as to surface and distance; and if it is in conditon to win this race; baring any bad racing luck. Laugh on men and we appreciate the nice mutuels you leave for us! Thanks.

Or you can ask me for the downloads free if you can bring yourself to it...

Jerry

[FUGITIVE77]

My post position data uses the 1,2nd and 3rd finishes for a more accurate look, broken up seperately for each distance, I don't loop distances together. Also I keep two studies one for fast tracks the other for for off tracks.

[twindouble]

My post position data uses the 1,2nd and 3rd finishes for a more accurate look, broken up seperately for each distance, I don't loop distances together. Also I keep two studies one for fast tracks the other for for off tracks.

Am I right, you are talking just post position and the results of the race? I'm talking who's going to break where, when, and why realitive to their post position and how it can effect the running of the race, position, pace and out come. Not what stats are on winning posts.

T.D.

[Bala]

Quote
<<<Most post position studies at each track LUMP together individually all sprints, all routes and all turf races. That, of course, is invalid since field size is not factored in and the dynamics of any given race and probability of winning change depending on the field size. And notwithstanding field size, a 6-furlong race is NOT run the same as a 7-furlong race. Most studies don't take this into account.

The BVA's™ for post position separate each individual distance run at a given track and then, UNIQUELY, those races by FIELD SIZE. So when considering the BVA's™ for post position at any given track at any given distance (depending on the field size you are handicapping), you are COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES. >>>Quote

http://turfday.com/BVA_FAQ.asp

[Bala]

Can this type of information analysis aid in the handicapping process?

Unlikely! What the handicapper is doing is looking back in time. If you think you see a pattern {bias} by the time you recognize a pattern – the situation has already changed. Even if you were to tie running styles of horses to post analysis – that would also change before you could draw any meaningful conclusions.

Been there, done that.


_________________
OutSource congress.

[twindouble]

Can this type of information analysis aid in the handicapping process?

Unlikely! What the handicapper is doing is looking back in time. If you think you see a pattern {bias} by the time you recognize a pattern – the situation has already changed. Even if you were to tie running styles of horses to post analysis – that would also change before you could draw any meaningful conclusions.

Been there, done that.


_________________
OutSource congress.

If your saying every race is different, that's a fact. If your saying one can't get anything from the past performances relative to post position and breaking ability, I disagree. In my opinion, getting postion in the race is important, ask any jock or trainer. If you can't find it in the form, your not reading it right, that don't mean every race is going to unfold EXACTLY as you think but you better be within reason some of the times. Here again, it's just one factor in handicapping and it shouldn't be ignored.

T.D.

[Turfday]

After careful thought about this and consulting with a few experts, including Andy Beyer, we have concluded that any previous post position and pace studies at any tracks that have switched to the artificial surface should be thrown out.

At Turfday, we are starting from scratch at every track that now has the new surface and will do as well after any other track installs it. We are throwing out all the pace and post position data accumulated since Jan. 1, 1995 on dirt tracks that switched to an artificial surface.

And thank you, Bala, for noting Turfday's criteria in your post. We believe in comparing apples to apples. It will take time and racing days to build up the post position and pace data at the tracks currently using the new artificial surfaces to gain relevant sample sizes for each separate distance and each separate post position and each separate field size.

But the end result will be far more accurate than combining the results on the artificial surfaces with previous dirt tracks.

[Tote Master]

In and of themselves I believe Post Positions (PP’s) mean absolutely nothing (unless of course you're just playing numbers). However, (as a few have already mentioned on this thread) there are 2 distinct conditions when PP’s should in fact be considered:
Track Bias and Race Distance
In either case, horses that are found to be located in a potentially favorable position should also posses some signs of life based on whatever selection process the player is using.

As an example of Track Bias take a look at all of the sprint races for first few weeks at Evangeline Downs this year. You’ll notice immediately that not only did the outside PP’s do exceptionally well, but the inside PP’s were definitely not the place to be. Contrary to what some believe, this type of bias can last a while. This particular bias had no impact on distance races at all. Of course changes in weather conditions can have an immediate effect on any track’s bias and also create a bias of it own.

As a simple example of Race Distance, most knowledgeable handicappers (and players alike) realize that in all 2-turn races the entries with some decent early speed and an inside PP will inevitably try get to the rail first when they hit the first turn. There is an obvious running advantage to being on the inside on the turn, especially if it’s a sharp turn. I don’t think its necessary to explain why, but the inside PP's are certainly the place to be for those with some early speed.

While the first condition may never occur on a synthetic (unnatural) running surface the second will apply to all tracks.

Best of Luck!