Gurus, Help Me

[PlanB]

In reading Brohammer & Quirin recently, to better know pace & speed & TVs,
my racing buddy & me came across Bill Quirin's epic opus --- and what a great
read, like a mystery unravelling --- in which the IV that the FAV in a sprint
vs the FAV in a route shows NO stat difference. We both kinda looked at
each other & said in unison "SPRINTS favs are more likely to win."
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Has speed become more predictable?

[Overlay]

I can't recall what data Quirin came up with in Thoroughbred Handicapping: State of the Art, but in Winning at the Races, his study of how favorites performed in 3,409 sprints and 1,391 routes showed a winning percentage of 32.4% for sprints with an impact value of 2.92, and a winning percentage of 33.1% for routes with an impact value of 3.16. His comment on the subject (before presenting those findings) was, "It would seem logical that favorites win more frequently at route distances than at sprint distances. There are fewer horses in the average route, and more time for the favorite (or any other horse) to overcome trouble encountered during the running of the race." However, he then interpreted the values given above as indicating that, contrary to that "common-sense" opinion, there was "essentially no difference" in how favorites performed in sprints versus routes.

[Robert Fischer]

I don't know. Overall among all sprints vs. all routes there may be one group that is "most predictable".

When you have a sprint with a lot of breakneck early pace, it can be very unpredictable. Five or six horses are gunning early. Maybe a couple of the cheaper ones fire today... Maybe a closing sprinter gets an opportunity today?...

In a route with a dominant horse that is capable of rating off-the-pace, the outcome is very certain if everyone comes home safe.

^It would seem that I am opposing the theory, but I am speaking of situations with one truely dominant horse. A favorite (the lowest priced horse), may be a different story. Maybe sprint form is better established and more predictable, than a route race which could contain more variables within the race (a sprinter-to-route, wire-to-wire form from a different track, evenly matched quality with different running styles, jockeys, distance limitations... ). Among all favorites the public may be most accurate with sprints.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Isn't routes where losers go to try to win?

[JPinMaryland]

wouldnt it be more logical to assume that the shorter the distance the less likely to find trouble and hence the more likely the better horse will win?

Of course one problem with this reasoning is that perhaps it is simply harder to identify the best horse at such shorter distances? Not sure what the reason would be but like the other guy said, perhaps a long shot fires on this one day...

Hmm. But getting back to the original pt. if you have less distance there would be less trouble. Imagine two races: a 50 yard dash in a straight line vs a 500 yd. run over an obstacle course, like the superstars competition. Darryl Green or whomever might win every time over the dash, but the obstacle course might make things much more unpredictable because there are more variables involved, jumping, climbing, etc.

Okay but obviously the empirical evidence says it makes no difference, perhaps the ability to identify the best horse at shorter distances balances out the effect of running a simple flat out dash?

[Valuist]

wouldnt it be more logical to assume that the shorter the distance the less likely to find trouble and hence the more likely the better horse will win?

Of course one problem with this reasoning is that perhaps it is simply harder to identify the best horse at such shorter distances? Not sure what the reason would be but like the other guy said, perhaps a long shot fires on this one day...

Hmm. But getting back to the original pt. if you have less distance there would be less trouble. Imagine two races: a 50 yard dash in a straight line vs a 500 yd. run over an obstacle course, like the superstars competition. Darryl Green or whomever might win every time over the dash, but the obstacle course might make things much more unpredictable because there are more variables involved, jumping, climbing, etc.

Okay but obviously the empirical evidence says it makes no difference, perhaps the ability to identify the best horse at shorter distances balances out the effect of running a simple flat out dash?

The shorter the distance, the more difficult it is to overcome trouble.

[JPinMaryland]

but the shorter the distance the less trouble there in the first place. So these effects would cancel one another out. ANd thus the quote from Quirin seems to be off the mark, he's emphasizing one aspect: time to overcome, but not mentioning the other aspect that there might be less trouble in the first place..

[skate]

but the shorter the distance the less trouble there in the first place. So these effects would cancel one another out. ANd thus the quote from Quirin seems to be off the mark, he's emphasizing one aspect: time to overcome, but not mentioning the other aspect that there might be less trouble in the first place..

if you are looking for ONE effect to cancel another, then this is the busness for You.

to me, that is why, it is all about Odds.

and, it would be "Stupitity" at the utmost, to think that odds are the ONLY point of interest, as others seem to think about this point


by the way, its right outta my book

[Valuist]

but the shorter the distance the less trouble there in the first place. So these effects would cancel one another out. ANd thus the quote from Quirin seems to be off the mark, he's emphasizing one aspect: time to overcome, but not mentioning the other aspect that there might be less trouble in the first place..

The shorter the race, the greater the bumping and other problems at the break.

Look at a dog race. Most are what, 3/16 of a mile or so? Dog races are loaded with trouble and rough trips.

[kenwoodallpromos]

The shorter the race, the less chance of 2 turns, shifting leads, bad legs going in a semi-circle, legs tiring.

[Valuist]

1 1/2 mile races on the turf are often run around 3 turns and they often are some of the most trouble free races of all. The horses gallop around together for 10 furlongs then try to sprint the final two.

[formula_2002]

In reading Brohammer & Quirin recently, to better know pace & speed & TVs,
my racing buddy & me came across Bill Quirin's epic opus --- and what a great
read, like a mystery unravelling --- in which the IV that the FAV in a sprint
vs the FAV in a route shows NO stat difference. We both kinda looked at
each other & said in unison "SPRINTS favs are more likely to win."
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Has speed become more predictable?

As a mater of fact, I went to bed with Quirns book again last night..ok,ok..lets get over that.
I applied my 8000+play study, race covering 2005 to 2006, to all of the charts in the book, some of which are 1970.. and got pretty much the same results as the 2005 to 2006 study..

Come to think of it I have an entire years worth of microfice that includes all North American tracks for a year in the 1980's..got to look at that too.

[formula_2002]

Wonderful, I found the mircofice, 1985. but I seem to remember giving the reader to my library.. :bang:

[highnote]

In reading Brohammer & Quirin recently, to better know pace & speed & TVs,
my racing buddy & me came across Bill Quirin's epic opus --- and what a great
read, like a mystery unravelling --- in which the IV that the FAV in a sprint
vs the FAV in a route shows NO stat difference. We both kinda looked at
each other & said in unison "SPRINTS favs are more likely to win."
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Has speed become more predictable?


Speed is predictable to the extent you can tell who will get the lead. Question is, can the speed hang on to the end. From what I'm hearing about polytrack, it is rare. Although, I'd still think lone speed has an edge on any surface.

[46zilzal]

on dirt, speed is the universal track bias