Early Speed--All we gotta do

[Kentucky Bred]

I ran across a link I think you might like. It is actually from a football handicapping site. I don't bet sports but I am fascinated with these guys because of their unique approach to thinking about pro football and how to glean unusual pieces of information for their betting purposes.

Anyway, I guess they are a bit bored in the off season and they have a man who is looking at the ponies. The concept of early speed you will not find new, however the statistics in the middle of the page is an eye opener.

http://www.twominutewarning.com/horse.htm

The subject is early speed. Certainly not a new concept to diligent horseplayers. But get this--Throughout all of 2001, using the 3 major NY tracks (AQ/BEL/SAR), if you could have bet on the horse leading at the first call in both sprints and routes, you would get back $1.42 for every $1.00 you bet. That sure beats what the bank (or stock market) is offering these days! It is actually $1.60 if you just play sprints. These numbers go as high as $1.74 for a buck in Northen California for the same year.

To be fair, AQ and GG are quite speed favoring. But BEL is a closers track (IMO) and so can SAR be at times. BM in NoCal can close as well.

So, here we are, armed with the best software and data downloads on the planet to process a horse race in every manner possible, when ALL WE GOTTA DO is figure out who is going to be on the lead at the first call!

Easier said than done, isn't it? But why is it so hard to figure out? I have wrestled with this question. Even if you threw out the races with too many question marks and just left the claimers with consistent past history, it is still hard to know. Oh sure, the obvious horses are there to bet, but what do they pay? $4.00 to win if you are lucky. You can't make a buck that way.

The author does make one good point, though. He at least intonates that the many "vagaries" of potential scenarios within a race can greatly alter early speed results. This randomness, as it were, therefore can be somewhat overcome by requiring your horses which appear to be "lone speed" or "speed of speed" in a race pay you more via higher odds.

But be prepared, longer odds early speed types can look awfully ugly. I've seen many that fade in the stretch EVERY RACE. You feel like a fool betting them. But you have to in order to get paid.

Figuring out early speed has got to be a real b*tch because we are all trying to study it but, at least as far as I know, it can't yet be mastered. I would love to hear your opinions.

Kentucky Bred

[superfecta]

When that guy states that stat,he is not breaking new ground.What would break new ground is a way to consistently pick the horse that would make the lead.How many times have you picked a frontrunner and he doesn't make the lead,or a sustained horse that inherits the lead instead?And you would have to bet every race to make that stat true.Even just at one track you could not miss one race or you might miss the race or races that makes your profit.Not to mention the fact you would have to bet several horses in the race in order to make sure you have the pacesetter,and that alone might make the angle unprofitable.

[BillW]

The percentages are fairly consistent with wire to wire data that I am familiar with (which would make up most of this population). I'd want to check the ROI data though - looks a little high.

Bill

[Dave Schwartz]

I have studied this in the past... What you will find is that the profit is fueled entirely by the horses that actually went to the front who were not expected to go to the front.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
I have studied this in the past... What you will find is that the profit is fueled entirely by the horses that actually went to the front who were not expected to go to the front.

Dave, those are the ones that usually beat me! or at least surprise me.........:cool: I hate when that happens. It seems that the opposite holds true when I play a horse that I think is going to be on the front. The rider seems to all of a sudden want to bring my front runner off the pace. Of course it never works....

[Hosshead]

Yes Ralph, I know what you mean. I've had that happen to me too. I't too bad that humans aren't as consistent as horses. You finally figure out what the horse wants to do, but the humans don't want to go along with the program!

[David McKenzie]

Take a gander at Laurel's first race today.

When's the last time you saw a 7F Maiden Special Weight, seven horse field, where the combined speed points of all entrants equals base +zero ?

[BarnieClockerbigal]

with the pronouncement that the ROI is fueled by horses mainly
who didn't figure to go to the front. What was War Emblem in last years Derby. Didn't he figure on the lead.

and how bout yesterday's (3/12/03) first at OP. Which hoss figured on the lead. If you dug you knew Elusive Hour was the speed of speed and paid off 16.60 wire to wire.

He was switching trainers from his owner to one of OP leading trainers. If he got the lead for his own, you know he's gonna grab the lead with the leading trainer in his corner.

What betting front runners detriment is when they break bad
and that shoots the ticket almost every time whereas a closer
and a stalker can get away with a bad break, a speed horse cannot.

[tanda]

The subject is early speed. Certainly not a new concept to diligent horseplayers. But get this--Throughout all of 2001, using the 3 major NY tracks (AQ/BEL/SAR), if you could have bet on the horse leading at the first call in both sprints and routes, you would get back $1.42 for every $1.00 you bet. That sure beats what the bank (or stock market) is offering these days! It is actually $1.60 if you just play sprints. These numbers go as high as $1.74 for a buck in Northen California for the same year.

My studies indicate that the horse leading one foot from the finish line has a tremendous positive R.O.I. All you gotta do is bet that horse.

[Dave Schwartz]

Tanda,

Reminds me of a guy that told me he had a foolproof system for playing blackjack... never lose 2 hands in a row.

[John]

Tanda,
I don't understand your "one linner" Please Explain to us when you have the time......Thanks

[Dave Schwartz]

Tanda,

I don't think I can explain it any clearer than that.

Dave

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Tanda,

Reminds me of a guy that told me he had a foolproof system for playing blackjack... never lose 2 hands in a row.

Thanks for the tip, Dave.
I'm heading to Turning Stone right now-I'll try that one out.

[formula_2002]

Hey, horeses that have the lead at the wire win every races (less a few that are dq'd).

A more realistic report on early speed is presented on my web page.

look for "INFORMATION TABLES", "SPEED HORSE REPORT".

The data contained in that table is based on speed information BEFORE THE GATE OPENS.

THAT REPORT COVERS OVER 8000 'E' HORSE'S IN 5822 RACES.

Joe M

http://globalwinningpicks.homestead.com/GLOBALWINNINGPICKSX.html

[andicap]

Originally posted by tanda
My studies indicate that the horse leading one foot from the finish line has a tremendous positive R.O.I. All you gotta do is bet that horse.


What kills me are those horses I bet on that are ahead one foot before the wire and two feet PAST the wire if you know what I mean.

;)

[Tom]

If that damn wire were put 2 feet to the left or 2 feet to the right I would be a rich man!

[Claim digger]

I know that many here do not agree with me but early speed as a predictor of ROI is total nonsense. The theory is based on the idea that horse will run faster when they are alone than when they are challenged. To test this theory one only has to look at horse's Beyer when they get the lead and compare them to when they don't. There is no difference.

Horses win more often when they are on the lead because they are running faster, they don't run faster because they are on the lead.

[formula_2002]

Claim digger



To test this theory one only has to look at horse's Beyer when they get the lead and compare them to when they don't. There is no difference


Both conditions i'm certain, return losses, however,
I would imagine that the horse that gets the lead may go off at shorter odds then the horse that does not get the lead..

If that is the case, then early speed wins more often then not.

Again, each horse may return a loss of say 18%, but I suspect that the early speed loses it at shorter odds.



Can you post the ave odds for those that indeed get the lead and those that dont?

Thanks
Joe M

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Claim digger
I know that many here do not agree with me but early speed as a predictor of ROI is total nonsense. The theory is based on the idea that horse will run faster when they are alone than when they are challenged. To test this theory one only has to look at horse's Beyer when they get the lead and compare them to when they don't. There is no difference.

Horses win more often when they are on the lead because they are running faster, they don't run faster because they are on the lead.


In the classic "loose on the lead" situation you've got an early speed horse running SLOWER than normal, not faster (in the early part of the race). That's what phrases like, "They let him get away with easy fractions." are alluding to. This allows him to conserve energy he normally burns up and finish much stronger. It is when such types are challenged that they must run faster to keep the lead (if a need to lead front-runner) and therefore are much more likely to quit in the last fraction because they've got nothing left. Contrary to what you say, "easy" wins like this often get huge relative Beyers, which comes from their sustained speed leading to an overall fast final time, not their fast early speed.

[sjk]

I've looked at this many times to determine the proper adjustment for a horse with a clear lead on the dirt. If a horse is clear at either of the first two call, I downgrade his number by 4 pts. If he is clear at both of the first two calls, I downgrade his number by 7 pts. I think these adjustments are probably conservative.

[Claim digger]

<In the classic "loose on the lead" situation you've got an early speed horse running SLOWER than normal, not faster (in the early part of the race). That's what phrases like, "They let him get away with easy fractions." are alluding to. This allows him to conserve energy he normally burns up and finish much stronger. It is when such types are challenged that they must run faster to keep the lead (if a need to lead front-runner) and therefore are much more likely to quit in the last fraction because they've got nothing left. Contrary to what you say, "easy" wins like this often get huge relative Beyers, which comes from their sustained speed leading to an overall fast final time, not their fast early speed.>


Game Theory. This has always been the assumption, that horses can conserve their energy when in front easily and then finish strong and thus run faster times. I have my doubts.

If this is true then a horse that opens a good lead under a slow first quarter will run a faster overall time then when he does not get the lead or gets the lead only under a great effort. I find that this does not occur. There is no difference between the averages of Beyers for horses when they run easily on the lead and the average Beyers of the same horse when they run being challanged. I believe that this easy early lead theory is a myth.

CD

[Tom]

Originally posted by sjk
I've looked at this many times to determine the proper adjustment for a horse with a clear lead on the dirt. If a horse is clear at either of the first two call, I downgrade his number by 4 pts. If he is clear at both of the first two calls, I downgrade his number by 7 pts. I think these adjustments are probably conservative.

I do something similar - if the the won by open lengths, I reduce the winning margin to 2 lengths and use that as his adjusted speed figure. Got that from Bill Quirin's book many years ago and it still works for me today.

[cj]

Originally posted by Tom@HTR
I do something similar - if the the won by open lengths, I reduce the winning margin to 2 lengths and use that as his adjusted speed figure. Got that from Bill Quirin's book many years ago and it still works for me today.

Tom,

I'm too lazy to dig through my Quirin books (think my brother has the one you refer to anyway). Is this for any winner, or wire to wire types?

CJ

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Claim digger
[B
Game Theory. This has always been the assumption, that horses can conserve their energy when in front easily and then finish strong and thus run faster times. I have my doubts.

If this is true then a horse that opens a good lead under a slow first quarter will run a faster overall time then when he does not get the lead or gets the lead only under a great effort. I find that this does not occur. There is no difference between the averages of Beyers for horses when they run easily on the lead and the average Beyers of the same horse when they run being challanged. I believe that this easy early lead theory is a myth.

CD [/B]

Maybe the problem comes in from your averging of the times. An easy lead doesn't GUARANTEE a faster time, but makes it possible if the horse is fit, etc. The track surface also has something to do with it.

Wire to wire winners often earn lifetime best figures when doing so -- figures they never come close to when they don't get the lead. I see it all the time. I don't even see how anyone could debate that. Just look in any set of pp's and you'll see it. Don't average anything. If I can get you to agree that this does happen, your contention then is that this has nothing to do with pace / easy lead, just that he ran a great race period? How come they never run that fast when not on the lead?

Here is something to try: take all winners and separate them by wire to wire and non- wire to wire. Now look at the percentages of how many are repeat winners in their next race. You will find that the percentage is much better among the non- wire to wire winners. Why? My answer is because a significant portion of the wire to wire winners "stole" their win with an easy lead / favorable pace scenario that you can't count on them to get again next time. In other words, their win (& speed figure) wasn't as "legitimate" as the other winners performance-wise -- the horse can only run that fast when the other horses allow him to. I make money using this very angle.

Calling a horse an "early speed" horse is something of a misnomer I think -- they should just be called speed horses -- they're faster than the other horses period. But many of them are handicapped by their instincts -- speed horses who are also need-to-lead frontrunners. They absolutely have to be in front and will use all their energy in trying to get it. When they don't have to fight for it, then they can really show what they can do. Those fast times they run when getting an easy lead represent their true ability in terms of speed.

It is their lack of ability in *RACING OTHER HORSES* that holds them back. Most of these front-runners could compete one or two classes higher if they were able to rate and use their speed more efficiently. There is speed, and there is speed used effectively.

[cj]

Just as wire to wire types earn lifetime best figures when alone on the lead, pressers and closers earn there best figures when the pace is to their advantage. What's the difference?

CJ

[Claim digger]

<Wire to wire winners often earn lifetime best figures when doing so -- figures they never come close to when they don't get the lead. I see it all the time. I don't even see how anyone could debate that. Just look in any set of pp's and you'll see it.>

This is no doubt true. However, I feel that they get the lead because they are running faster. They don't run faster because they get the lead. Instances of horses putting in great Beyers when in front are anecdotal. One has to compare how they do when alone in front against how the same horse does when not alone. My research shows there is no difference.

Regards.

CD

[Claim digger]

<Here is something to try: take all winners and separate them by wire to wire and non- wire to wire. Now look at the percentages of how many are repeat winners in their next race. You will find that the percentage is much better among the non- wire to wire winners. Why? My answer is because a significant portion of the wire to wire winners "stole" their win with an easy lead / favorable pace scenario that you can't count on them to get again next time.>

I think this might prove your theory if you adjusted for the class level of the next race. The wire to wire winners may not have "stolen" the race and are being moved up in company while the non-wire to wire horse may run back at the same level.

Again I think the best comparison is of Beyers for the same horse when they get the lead versus when they don't.

CD

[Fastracehorse]

Remember we all have opinions and maybe I didn't think a horse would get the lead but you did.

Also, sharp horses that aren't E types sometimes surprisingly do get the lead - ie, if you are doing 1st call analysis - or, is it a surprise in every case??

The more experience I gain the more arsenal I have and hence, E types are becoming a less significant warhead as time goes on.

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

Without a doubt, some horses can relax and wait on their foes.

Without a doubt, some horses can't rate.

Tough game - but you know you are improving when you disprove your own hypotheses.

fffastt

[sjk]

Claim Digger

I took a look at 370,000 dirt starters who ran since 2/1/2002 and divided them into two group. The first group (7683) had made a clear lead at the 1st and 2nd calls in its previous race and the second group (362,760) had not.

My own numbers are very similar to Beyers so I am sure the results would be very nearly the same.

The loose on the lead group ran 11 pts slower than the previous race while the other group ran less than 1 pt slower. The average is more meaningful if you exclude the extremes (count any difference >20 pts as 20). There the loose on the lead group ran 6.5 pts. slower while the number for the other group was unchanged.

I've looked at previous years and come up with the same basic result.

[GameTheory]

While you're at it, could you compare the first fraction times for the loose on the lead races and compare them with the same horse first fraction times when either leading but not by much (less than a length) or when within 1 length of the leader (in other words, when trying to get the lead, but being challenged).

Are loose on the lead times slower or faster? My theory would have them slower. (Although not always -- some of these winners do just blow everyone away.)

[sjk]

I looked at 33,000 horses which had run races at the same distance and surface falling into both of you categories. I consider the results close enough to zero to be insignificant. Perhaps even a very brief breather which doesn't amount to a lot of time is enough to help the front runner. In the chart below a negative "lapped minus loose" corroborates your theory that the lapped horse is going faster.

SURFACE DISTANCE lapped minus loose time Count
DIRT 1 1/16 MILES -0.03 6078
DIRT 1 1/8 MILES -0.08 497
DIRT 1 MILE -0.05 4556
DIRT 5 1/2 FURLONGS -0.01 3966
DIRT 6 1/2 FURLONGS 0.03 2045
DIRT 6 FURLONGS 0.02 11585
DIRT 7 FURLONGS 0.00 1826
TURF 1 1/16 MILES 0.13 1013
TURF 1 1/8 MILES -0.49 283
TURF 1 MILE -0.14 760
TURF 5 1/2 FURLONGS -0.01 308
TURF 6 1/2 FURLONGS -0.20 30
TURF 6 FURLONGS -0.13 14
TURF 7 FURLONGS -0.01 116

[Derek2U]

I would think that track records happen when (1) The Track
itself is "playing to speed" --- (2) When Speedy Sprinters or
Speedy+Classy Routers are running --- (3) When the above
2 conditions prevail + 2 horses engage one another in a
duel. Swimming is a great example: Pool Water itself is often
Speed favoring or NOT. There is much variation in a pool's
water ---- & don't think I'm teasing here. Now, if a swimmer
enters such a pool he could, if he planned to do so beforehand,
set a "track record." If he's really good, and meets a speedy
rival AND the pool water is "fast" --- that's when records are
set. Being challenged is both Energizing & Exhausting. No matter how incredible a horse (or swimmer is) NO RECORD IS
SET UNLESS THE DIRT/TURF/WATER cooperates. If the medium
is slow then no record breaking will occur. Horses respond to
being baited by a rival .... the other "lesson" here is this: If
a speedy, classy horse is engaged by a rival then the pace will
be fast .... no matter what the teletimer says. That's why the
concept of Track Variant is so elusive yet so essential. I think
that if we could only produce that "correct TV" then the math
would be very easy.

[formula_2002]

sjk
Can you put a dollar value to this information?

Just what impact does it all have on the betting?

Thanks

Joe M

[sjk]

Looks to me like if you blindly bet all horses which were clear at the first two calls in their last race (dirt only), your loss rate would be 3% greater than if you blindly bet all other horses.

[Derek2U]

Betting MANY horses just because they have 1 definable trait
is $$ wasteful. If you do that, and win a few, its probably cause
the horse had MORE than the 1 trait --- Early Speed here --- than
was apparent. Take yesterday. The Florida Derby w/ TrustInLuck
and the 6th at Aqueduct, Northern Energy. Both these 2 were
SpeedBalls + HEAVY FAVS --- both Lost Badly and both were dumb Wagers who had ZERO PR of winning their races. (I said so but thats not my point)--- Speed popping occurs in a Context and
cannot be isolated from it. Thats why efforts to examine ES fail
because (1) the measure of ES is weak and (2) the measure
applied to RACES is not predictive of WHO will take charge. Until
you devise a Measure of ES thats predictive all you'll do is piss in
the wind. It's basic Tests & Measurements ---- so please stop
these Quirin speed points etc since they are useless.

[formula_2002]

sjk

[QUOTE]
Looks to me like if you blindly bet all horses which were clear at the first two calls in their last race (dirt only), your loss rate would be 3% greater than if you blindly bet all other horses.

Thanks for your time.

Let me just ask you to express the above in another manner.

# winners and average played odds for the "cleared" horses
and, the
# winners and average played odds for "all" the horses.
(not the average winning odds, but rather the average odds for all the horses in each category)

This will allow the observation of the ratio of actual winners compared to the expected winners in each of the two cases.

The ratios will indicate how the public may be over betting, under betting or correctly betting these horses...

In a large enough sample, the profit or loss resulting from betting will indicate the same information, but even then I'd rather look at the ratio information.

Thanks again
Joe M

[formula_2002]

Derek2U

I don’t think anyone is saying that one factor wins a race.

Rather it’s just trying to understand the factor more fully.

From my point of view, the speed factor, like all single factors will return a loss, however I'd like to know if it is utilized correctly by the public.

[B]
I have a difficult time believing that EVEN a combination of losing factors can lead to profits, even though I keep trying to prove that they can.

[B]

Joe M

[Fastracehorse]

< 1) the measure of ES is weak.

I do a 1st call comparative analysis in DRF to determine who will have the lead.

It is not perfect but is highly predictive.

Do you mean that there is actually a measurement out there to actually help 'cappers determine pace setters??

That's terrible if there is - that's is one of the most fundamental 'capping principles.

lllastt

BTW,

I don't use fractional times - just positional calls.

[Kentucky Bred]

Incredible information guys.

But what about price as at least a partial determining factor? When I play the ES or Lone Early horses, I want to get at least 9-2 or 5-1 and I found long term ROI success doing this. So, I wondered what would happen if I put a 10-1 requirement.

That's when I realized that, as I stated in a earlier post, there are some UGLY lone early horses out there. But they do win and when they do (even with the drop in win percentage) they are overall very profitable.

My test ROI showed a near doubling in ROI with the big jump in price demand.

Case in point. March 14, 2003, DED 7/3. This, to me, is a horse that appears to be racing all alone on the lead. He was 10-1 morning line. He was 13-1 about 5 minutes before post--11-1, 3 minutes to post--SEVEN TO ONE 2 minutes to post--8-1 at the gate and back to 10-1 (after the computer boys in North Dakota bet into the pool) after the race started.

Problem here is that I didn't know it was going to be 10-1 until after the race started. But that is a problem for another day.

The point is that an easier "loose on the lead" horse at a price you may not find this year. These horses run at a price and win, but not all the time. So, maybe price can determine financial success at following the ES.

Here's (I hope) the link to the Equibase full chart. It is race 7.

http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbChartResultsDisplay.cfm?TRK=DED&CY=USA&DATE=03/14/2003&STYLE=EQB

Kentucky Bred

[sjk]

formula_2002:

Clear horses: 1269 winner from 7689 runners; return -26.3%;avg odds 7.9

Other horses 45315 winners from 363199 runners; return -23.2%
avg odds 14.9

Returns are understated since I have not properly accounted for losing half of winning entry or for dead heats.

[BETKING]

There is a good book on the subject: "The Lone Speed Horse" by Bill Olmsted. It was published in 1996 by TBS.

TBS Publishing
P.O. Box 6283
Annapolis, MD 21401

BETKING

[formula_2002]

sjk

The spread between the running odds on the two horse groups and the calculated winning odds for each group is very large.

The best way to analyze this data (and all data) is by incremental odds.
It’s not enough to say that clear horses return a loss of -26.3 % when the odds group of horses that do the wining may be probably losing less then the take out. If that were so, it would imply that the public is under betting these horses.

I calculated the winning odd for clear horses to 3.33 to 1
Other horses won with winning odds of 5.4-1

The point of all of this is to find out if the public is making full utility of what “WE” know.
Your thoughts?

Again, thanks

Joe M