Field Size

[OverlayHunter]

It seems to me that, on average and all else being equal, the in-the-money horses in a large field should theoretically be more likely to perform better in their next out(s) than those who beat small fields in that, on average, the larger fields are more likely to have more true contenders.

I know there can be truly awful large fields comprised of proven losers where the winner inherits the victory rather than earns it. I also understand that there are exceptionally competitive small fields of highly determined animals where most of the horses would rather die than lose. In either of these 2 cases, the field size of the race from which a horse comes is irrelevant in predicting the competitiveness of a horse in its next start. But I'm talking about the general premise, not the exceptions.

I understand that figures of various types quantify a lot of what I stated above but they don't easily quantify things like the more subjective aspects of racing such as competitive spirit (each horse's individual racing record gives some insight into this). I also know that the key race methodology gives some insights into this but it doesn't deal (at least in my understanding) directly with the concept of field size as an indicator.

Do any of you give field size much consideration when looking at a horse's pp's?

What kind of context should in-the-money finishes be placed in when they are from fields of 10, 11 or 12 horses vs. 5,6, or 7 horses?

What about the last place finisher that lost by 8 in a 6 horse field vs the last place finisher that lost by 8 in a 12 horse field?

[kenwoodallpromos]

I look at field size of horses that have won a few recently to see if it does much worse in larger fields. I also look at field size more when a horse is usually not on or close to the pace.

[robert99]

Field size is very important in assessing whether the form from a race has real value or not. Even if there are poor horses within a race, they are often contending at some stage which tends to make a race competitive throughout - a true test for the worth of form - this does apply more for non sprint races. Also, the more horses there are, the more difficult it is to get past the slow ones which gives a form+ to those that do well in such races.

In my opinion "highly determined animals where most of the horses would rather die than lose" and similar thoughts of jockeys controlling pace, as if they were driving a powerful automobile responding to every cue are complete myths, as any horse whisperer will tell you. The horse has no idea of what winning means, but still controls the race. It usually wants to cooperate and run to please, but if it does not, there is absolutely nothing the jockey can do.

[OverlayHunter]

Thanks "K" and "R", those are the kinds of insights I'm looking for. Greatly appreciate your input.

R - "are complete myths" - While I believe your observation that horses don't really know what winning means is to likely be true and I believe that jockeys don't have anything remotely like the control of a car with the vast majority of horses, I'd have to say I fall into the camp of believing that some horses want to lead the pack and sure make a determined effort to get there by the wire. It's hard for me to believe that horses like John Henry and many others wouldn't run through significant pain to get to the lead if that's what it took. They have dominant personalities and a strong internal drive to take the lead.

[Robert Fischer]

horse..finish..beatenLengths... fieldSize
A......... 3rd............6.............5......
B...........4th...........6..............13
C...........4..............4...............8


Horses b and c may have run the better race last out. More factors (pace,class.....) must be considered.

[classhandicapper]

Field size is very important in assessing whether the form from a race has real value or not. Even if there are poor horses within a race, they are often contending at some stage which tends to make a race competitive throughout - a true test for the worth of form - this does apply more for non sprint races. Also, the more horses there are, the more difficult it is to get past the slow ones which gives a form+ to those that do well in such races.

I agree.

IMO the inter-relationship between pace, final time, field quality and race development is very complex.

[cj]

Field size is certainly a big factor in pace and speed figures. Ask any handicapper that backed Henny Hughes or Bernardini off big figure scores in miniscule fields.

[Handiman]

"Total Victory at the Track", was basically concieved around 'field size', with added form and ability times. I think a classic to be honest.


Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Handi

[Turfday]

A computerized formula that I use takes into consideration.... finish position, field size and closing odds. I then use this output to rate trainers, jockeys, sires, trainer-jockey combinations and even POST POSITIONS using this same formula to come up with a number that resembles a baseball batting average.

This allows me to compare...any of the above...by value, consistency or overall (value + consistency).

The other "kicker" is that a rolling average that takes into consideration "what have you done for me lately" is more important than "what have you done for me in the past" enable me to identify current trends (hot trainer, hot jockey, etc.) but also takes into account a broader view (using three different search features...last 365 days, last 1,095 days or since Jan. 1, 1995) that incorporates enough of a sample size to make the output relevant.

In theory, it's actually much more like a slugging percentage in baseball. A trainer saddling a horse that finishes second in a 12-horse field at high odds will get more credit than a trainer saddling a winner in a 6-horse field at short odds.

A baseball player gets a bloop single and it counts as one hit. Another player hits one out of the park and it counts as one hit. But in a slugging percentage (as per the idea of my formula), that bloop single counts as "one" and that homerun counts as "four."

And yes, the dynamics of a race can change dramatically depending on field size and have a direct outcome on how the race is run, pace and final time.

[Kelso]

A trainer saddling a horse that finishes second in a 12-horse field at high odds will get more credit than a trainer saddling a winner in a 6-horse field at short odds.


I have read others who consider final odds ... and/or morning line odds ... in their handicapping. I don't understand why. Aren't odds entirely a function of public opinion ... which is demonstrably wrong most of the time? Why do handicappers factor the public into their analyses of a horse's prospects?

Thank you.

[OverlayHunter]

Thanks for the replies.

The consensus is clear that field size does matter. Can someone share some examples of how you would use that in handicapping?

CJ indicates that is a factor in fig making. Is it used merely for confirmation (do large fields merely by their size lend more weight to a figure?) or to actually adjust the figures up or down?

robert99 mentions how field size can contribute to the running of a race. How do you take that fact and apply it to the next starts of those horses? Or does the field size of the next start trump the field size of the last start?

classhandicapper and Robert Fischer speak to the complexity of interrelationships the factors. Is there any way to sort through that complexity of the race with a large field size last time out to reach conclusions about "today's" race?

[skate]

Thanks for the replies.

The consensus is clear that field size does matter. Can someone share some examples of how you would use that in handicapping?

CJ indicates that is a factor in fig making. Is it used merely for confirmation (do large fields merely by their size lend more weight to a figure?) or to actually adjust the figures up or down?

robert99 mentions how field size can contribute to the running of a race. How do you take that fact and apply it to the next starts of those horses? Or does the field size of the next start trump the field size of the last start?

classhandicapper and Robert Fischer speak to the complexity of interrelationships the factors. Is there any way to sort through that complexity of the race with a large field size last time out to reach conclusions about "today's" race?

did you take a look at turday postr.
i thought he , although left things for you to figure, explained .

and that explanation says "it is not black and white".

figures from a four horse field might not count as much (as in the home run)as would the figures in a ten horse field.

you bring together good points, thanks.

[skate]

I have read others who consider final odds ... and/or morning line odds ... in their handicapping. I don't understand why. Aren't odds entirely a function of public opinion ... which is demonstrably wrong most of the time? Why do handicappers factor the public into their analyses of a horse's prospects?

Thank you.

i would see final odds as the "money i would receive". nothing more. they would have no connection to "the way the public bet".

of coarse the connection is there, but to consider that someone responds the the chalks final odds and then plays the chalk, imo, would be wrong.

if you consider final odds (you should, really), that does not say you want to bet the chalk.

odds are the most important function, b efore the race.

[Overlay]

I have read others who consider final odds ... and/or morning line odds ... in their handicapping. I don't understand why. Aren't odds entirely a function of public opinion ... which is demonstrably wrong most of the time? Why do handicappers factor the public into their analyses of a horse's prospects?

To me, final odds are important with respect to how they compare to my estimate of the horse's winning chances, to determine if I'm getting betting value. However, I don't get into questioning why the odds on any particular horse are what they are, or becoming suspicious when a horse that I assign low odds to is "dead on the board". I've seen the public make too many errors in judgment by overbetting horses based on a single isolated factor or figure, or by handicapping through a process of elimination where they focus entirely on narrowing a field down to "the winner" (without regard to its odds), while treating the other horses in the race as if they have absolutely no chance of victory.

[Robert Fischer]

final odds also occasionaly hold clues to the "class" of the previous race.

alw40000nx1
This guy broke maiden last time out by a neck, and he was $3.00/1. First two races he showed nothing! There was no change in class level, equipment, jockey etc... last out- which leads me to believe that the quality of that maiden race last out came up very poor...

[Kelso]

final odds also occasionaly hold clues to the "class" of the previous race.

alw40000nx1
This guy broke maiden last time out by a neck, and he was $3.00/1. First two races he showed nothing! There was no change in class level, equipment, jockey etc... last out- which leads me to believe that the quality of that maiden race last out came up very poor...


Thanks very much, Robert. I understand how odds factor into (in fact, determine) betting. What has puzzled me is what a handicapper can learn ... if anything ... about a horse's prospects from the public's collective view. This "clue" as to class of a recent race is the type of insight I would not come close to spotting on my own.