Closers?

[Pell Mell]

I was wondering if anyone has ever checked to see what % of races that are won by a horse coming from off the pace were actually won by a horse that normally runs up front. Over the years I have observed that a lot of races with an abundance of speed are won by one of the speed horses coming from behind. I guess my question is; what % of winners that close are actually deep closers.

[classhandicapper]

I don't have any stats handy, but typically deep closers underperform their odds and speed figures on dirt. Unless the horse has a huge edge, typically they are too far behind to win. They usually make a big rally for a minor award unless the pace was fast enough to collapse all the better positioned horses of similar ability.

[Bill Olmsted]

The best study I've ever seen on the impact of early speed was published by Dr. William Quirin in his book, WINNING AT THE RACES, where he looked at a total of 15,348 races.

He found that horses running either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd at the pace call (1/4 mile in sprints; 1/2 mile in routes) won 19% of their races and the $NET was $2.56. Those that were 4th - 7th won 8.8% of their races and the $NET was $1.44. Finally, the horses that were 8th-12th at the pace call won only 3.5% and the NET was $0.56. When broken down according to distance, sprints outperformed routes and the shorter the sprint the better ($3.77 NET for 5-6 furlong races). Of course, the challenge is to predict which horse(s) will be leading early before the hammer drops. If you knew that, then you could quit your job and move to Monte Carlo.

[ryesteve]

I was wondering if anyone has ever checked to see what % of races that are won by a horse coming from off the pace were actually won by a horse that normally runs up front. Over the years I have observed that a lot of races with an abundance of speed are won by one of the speed horses coming from behind. I guess my question is; what % of winners that close are actually deep closers.
It sounds like what you're really asking is, what % of races are won by horses with an S running style going into the race. I'm not sure, but don't various versions the TSN or BRIS PPs give you this info?

[Pell Mell]

What I mean is what % of horses with an S style, if that means speed, win by coming from off the pace vs. those that normally close. As I said, I notice many races that have an abundance of speed horses, which most people say sets it up for a closer, are won by a speed hose that lays back and the normal closer just doesn't get there.:confused:

[classhandicapper]

This isn't the easiest thing to measure.

Some horses that look like they prefer racing on or near the lead can in fact rate and finish OK if the pace is very fast and collapses the front runners.

IMO, all you can do is look at the PPs for instances where the horse sat off the pace in the past and finished OK or put up a speed figure consistent with its record.

The other thing to consider is whether the horse has been showing speed in longer races or shorter races. Some speed horses that are shortening up in distance will finish better at a shorter distance if they don't make the lead.

Races loaded with early speed always present problems because if the pace is fast enough it can collapse almost everyone near it and allow a deep closer to win. Sometimes the best speed kills off the weaker ones and lasts over the deep closer and sometimes one of the speeds sits off the pace and picks up the pieces.

[Niko]

I've noticed the same thing..can be frustrating at times.

I saw some interesting stats from Turfday when they had a free trial a while back. P and S horses overall did better in fields of 7 or less. I thought it would favor E or E/P horses. But I guess if there's somewhat of a fair pace up front the closers have less traffic problems to deal with and generally get a better run. That was an eye opener for me.

[ryesteve]

What I mean is what % of horses with an S style, if that means speed,
No, S = Sustained (or "Slow", if you prefer)

[46zilzal]

1) unexpected traffic
2) rider has to "guess' when best to move
3) have only a passive association with the pace and cannot change it.

BAD bets unless you are on the lawn.

Just ask the owners of Cefis, Concern, Editor's Note, etc.

[Lefty]

Some horses have tactical speed, i.e. they don't need to lead. These are good bets, normally.

[Cangamble]

I tend to think that come from behind horses are generally more sore on average than speed horses. Outside of ankle problems that is. I'm not sure, but I think that also plays into the fact they underperform.

[46zilzal]

I tend to think that come from behind horses are generally more sore on average than speed horses. Outside of ankle problems that is. I'm not sure, but I think that also plays into the fact they underperform.
There is no way to even begin to prove that. What about a later mover, biomechanically, would even begin to address that?

[Bill Olmsted]

1. Never bet a closer.
2. Never bet a closer.
3. Never bet a (*&#$#$) closer.


"There ain't no answer.
There ain't gonna be any answer.
There never has been an answer.
That's the answer."

GERTRUDE STEIN

[JustRalph]

Let's put it this way.................

If you don't ever bet a "S" type...........you will only lose 3% of the time on win tickets. But they can hit the board often..........race shape is everything when it comes to these types. But I almost never bet them to win, on dirt.

[Bill Olmsted]

Let's put it this way.................

If you don't ever bet a "S" type...........you will only lose 3% of the time on win tickets. But they can hit the board often..........race shape is everything when it comes to these types. But I almost never bet them to win, on dirt.

If you only lost "3% of the time on win tickets" then you would rule, dude.

[Cangamble]

There is a always a way to prove things. Though it would be hard in this case.
Take S types and examine the amount of times they race per year versus non S types, also lifetime starts. That can be done.

Also, vet bills for S types versus non S types can be looked at. Though this is near impossible unless it was a commissioned study.

[Cratos]

I was wondering if anyone has ever checked to see what % of races that are won by a horse coming from off the pace were actually won by a horse that normally runs up front. Over the years I have observed that a lot of races with an abundance of speed are won by one of the speed horses coming from behind. I guess my question is; what % of winners that close are actually deep closers.


You asked a very good question and the answer is somewhat complicated. The complication comes into play when class is added to the answer. A horse running in a high class race (e.g. stakes or allowance) with a running style of a deep closer will be much closer to the pace when it is dropped in class. In the “old days” at the beginning of the season when a stakes horse which typically run in distance races (1-1/8m and up) and had been away from the races for a long time, it would sometimes be entered into an allowance sprint and would win easily.

Therefore a good angle to play is a closer dropping in class with a poor past performance record. If the horse’s internal fractions are showing good acceleration, but it can’t get to the leaders, this horse might be playable at a lower class level for a price.

[46zilzal]

There is a always a way to prove things. Though it would be hard in this case.
Take S types and examine the amount of times they race per year versus non S types, also lifetime starts. That can be done.

Also, vet bills for S types versus non S types can be looked at. Though this is near impossible unless it was a commissioned study.
looking for the MECHANISM...There is no logic to your point of view without one.

A more apportioned move throughout a race would produce less force not more. Locomotion depends upon how much effort is expended. It would be more conformational than running style.

I have seen the same thing in runners: good biomechanics, little injury.

[xtb]

He found that horses running either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd at the pace call (1/4 mile in sprints; 1/2 mile in routes) won 19% of their races and the $NET was $2.56. Those that were 4th - 7th won 8.8% of their races and the $NET was $1.44. Finally, the horses that were 8th-12th at the pace call won only 3.5% and the NET was $0.56.

I think there's a mistake here somewhere, the percentages only add up to 31.3%.

[Bill Olmsted]

I think there's a mistake here somewhere, the percentages only add up to 31.3%.

You are right. I am quoting from page 13 of the book. What am I missing?

[xtb]

I guess I don't quite understand the chart, if the individual percentages are used:

1-3: 57.1%
4-7: 34.8%
8-12: 13.7%

If the %W column in the chart you used, is used:

1-3: 57.0%
4-7: 34.5%
8-12: 8.5%

[Tom]

You are right. I am quoting from page 13 of the book. What am I missing? You are looking at starters, not races. It shouldn't be 100%.
Three horses will be in the top three of a race, but ony one can win ( or none).

[Tom]

Define deep closer.
What call, how many lengths back, or what postion at an early call.
Definables can be queried.

[Pell Mell]

What I mean is what % of horses with an S style, if that means speed, win by coming from off the pace vs. those that normally close. As I said, I notice many races that have an abundance of speed horses, which most people say sets it up for a closer, are won by a speed hose that lays back and the normal closer just doesn't get there.:confused:

I wanted to give an example of why I asked this question but I can't copy and paste the PDF PP for some reason. I guess they have a block built in somehow. Anyway, I bet the #1 horse in the 1st at RD on 6/19. This horse only had 9 races lifetime and had 1 race where he lay 2nd and then won. All of his other races he ran very close up and either faded or couldn't gain. But last week when I bet him he came from dead last to win at 20/1.

[Bill Olmsted]

You are looking at starters, not races. It shouldn't be 100%.
Three horses will be in the top three of a race, but ony one can win ( or none).

Thanks for clearing that up. ;)

[Cangamble]

looking for the MECHANISM...There is no logic to your point of view without one.

A more apportioned move throughout a race would produce less force not more. Locomotion depends upon how much effort is expended. It would be more conformational than running style.

I have seen the same thing in runners: good biomechanics, little injury.

I agree with that. What I'm saying is that S horses have already developed problems and the trainers know this and train the horse around the injuries taking their speed away in races.
Horses with suspensories for example, I think, are more apt to come from behind most of the time.

[46zilzal]

I agree with that. What I'm saying is that S horses have already developed problems and the trainers know this and train the horse around the injuries taking their speed away in races.
Horses with suspensories for example, I think, are more apt to come from behind most of the time.
Not a shred of evidence...Hard to support the "theoretical" without some evidence.

One needs mechanism not generalizations......
http://eyebright.sslnetworks.org/~christop/ChrisRuel.com/SportHorseInjuryTips.htm

[delayjf]

I tend to think that come from behind horses are generally more sore on average than speed horses. Outside of ankle problems that is. I'm not sure, but I think that also plays into the fact they underperform.

I'm inclined to believe the opposite is true due to traffic problems, pace setups and the jockey's ability to know exactly when to start that late kick. I think a lot of closers never really run their best races and leave something on the track. As I recall, Raggozin even claimed that speed horses are more apt to bounce as they tend to run harder during the entire race.

[skate]

1) unexpected traffic
2) rider has to "guess' when best to move
3) have only a passive association with the pace and cannot change it.

BAD bets unless you are on the lawn.

Just ask the owners of Cefis, Concern, Editor's Note, etc.


woe woe woe,"bad bets unless you are on the lawn", with no address to the odds is typical.

and and and, "cannot" became two words:lol:

[skate]

It would be more conformational than running style.




woe woe woe, "running style" is "conformational".


oh, an easy race for the horse, makes the horse less prone to injury.;) ok.

[Tom]

Dirt, wet or dry, all distances
All classes, all sexes, all ages
Roughly April 2005 - May 2007
This is the positoin in the current race, not a past race.

[Bill Olmsted]

Amen

[46zilzal]

In Sartin's orignal PIRCO group studies one of the stand alone factors which profited was velocity to the 2nd call.

[Bill Olmsted]

Where is the good Doctor these days?

[46zilzal]

woe woe woe, "running style" is "conformational".


oh, an easy race for the horse, makes the horse less prone to injury.;) ok.
Is English your third language? I am really beginning to think it is.

[46zilzal]

Where is the good Doctor these days?
Ill, confined to his home in S. California.

[DanG]

In Sartin's orignal PIRCO group studies one of the stand alone factors which profited was velocity to the 2nd call.
To be clear 46,

The groups original criteria was the winner had to be ranked in the top four 67% of the time, not be "profitable" as a stand alone factor.

[Tom]

Back to the original thought - an early horse doesn't get the lead but come running late to win.

Same dataset as before,
QSP 8 or 7,
Beaten over 5 lengths at 2nd call,

No. horses - 6,723 No. wininers 177 2.6%

Not bad.....if you hate money and are looking to get rid of it! :D

[skate]

Is English your third language? I am really beginning to think it is.

exactly my point, you are just beginning TO THINK.

the words I used were your words and you got confused:(

i repeat you and now you tell me you got confused;)

[Overlay]

I agree that early position on dirt has historically been associated with a high winning probability. However, some of the posts I've seen on the effects of Polytrack portray it as being more tiring to front runners, causing the field to run more closely bunched, with the race often being decided by a short dash to the wire in the final stages. (I believe I recall Andy Beyer's impression of Polytrack as putting handicapping on the same level as a lottery, or words to that effect.) Or will jockeys gradually adjust their riding tactics to Polytrack, with the result that front-runners will again have an advantage? Any thoughts on that subject?

[cnollfan]

Back to the original thought - an early horse doesn't get the lead but come running late to win.

Same dataset as before,
QSP 8 or 7,
Beaten over 5 lengths at 2nd call,

No. horses - 6,723 No. wininers 177 2.6%

Not bad.....if you hate money and are looking to get rid of it! :D

Good info, Tom. The speed horse that rates and wins sticks in our memory, while the 30 speed horses that rate and lose are forgotten.

[Greyfox]

I take it a lot of those throwing out percents here aren't playing Hollywood.
I have no problem betting closers there.

[Greyfox]

Back to the original thought - an early horse doesn't get the lead but come running late to win.

Same dataset as before,
QSP 8 or 7,
Beaten over 5 lengths at 2nd call,

No. horses - 6,723 No. wininers 177 2.6%

Not bad.....if you hate money and are looking to get rid of it! :D

Separating early "need to lead " horses and "early" horses who might appear to "need to lead" is a very tough call with three year olds.
Too many handicappers assume that lightly raced runners can only follow the same form style. While the percentages above are probably quite correct,
energy is also a strong factor, especially with these youngsters who are
still learning to race.

[demaloot]

Hi Tom,

Nice reply.

Sure, it would be great to figure which horses will lead at 2nd call.

We can approximate.

However, your statistics are mis-leading.

In many of those examples, the second call leader

would have been very difficult to determine.

[socantra]

I hope my post makes it on here, the idiot administrator of this board has a habit

of restricting posts, and also closing accounts.

In that sense, this is hardly a free & open forum.



Its hard to imagine why you might have a problem with board administrators. I've been here a number of years and have disagreed with the administrator from time to time. I haven't noticed any such habit, except when applied to those who managed to be outrageously stupid and outrageously offensive at the same time.

So far, your post is merely needlessly rude, so you'll probably have to keep trying to make the grade. I'll be pulling for you.

[1st time lasix]

Since I have an exotics overlay betting philosophy....I must pay close attention to closers and off the pace types that are "in form" with higher odds that may hit the tickets underneath. They can provide the nice overlay return by "splitting' logical favorites or rounding out a trifecta/super as a key. Rarely do i bet these types to win UNLESS there is a class drop and the pace scenario of cheap speed is entered. The game is difficult because of the many possibilities. Handicapping is an intellectual challange. With my approach i must be patient to find that one or two races on the card that will cover all my losers and give me some extra $ to blow elsewhere! {wine, women, golf and lobster} ha! What is wrong with racing is the huge "takeout" that reduces $$$ the correct tickets and eliminates so many players over time.

[cnollfan]

Separating early "need to lead " horses and "early" horses who might appear to "need to lead" is a very tough call with three year olds.
Too many handicappers assume that lightly raced runners can only follow the same form style.

Good point. Even more pronounced with two-year-olds. Unless a horse is opening up by daylight as a youngster, I assume 2yo speed is more an indication of precocity than of early speed. If these horses lose their speed as they mature I don't consider them front-runners at all.

Little Current is the poster child of this phenomenon. He was one of the deepest closers ever to win two-third of the Triple Crown, but in his first start as a two year old, he went to the front.

[46zilzal]

Horses learn how to run with the vast majority of their styles becoming later as they mature.

[pandy]

My software program (Diamond System) has several ratings for Late Speed, including a Late Speed category that gives you the top 3 late speed in each race. The top late speed at tracks in So.Cal. and N.Y. wins around 18 to 20% of the time and I tracked it for 6 months and it showed a substantial flat bet profit (big longshot winners). And often either the top late speed or 2nd ranked late speed finished 2nd and 3rd. Anyone who has read Mike Pizzolla's Handicapping Magic or some of my articles about Late Speed and Kick Rating in American Turf Monthly knows that Late Speed horses are often underbet and can provide good overlays and live longshots. With the switch to synthetic surfaces, the win percentages of late speed horses could go up. Another good rating, 3rd Fraction from Sartin methodology. Many of these late speed types scored at Keeneland and they were not that hard to come up with if you have any type of program that shows you which horses have the best closing kicks.