A win at the exact distance

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

How valuable is a horse with a win at the exact distance and surface of todays race? From the perspective of a select type of bet with a higher win percentage it would seem beneficial to have your money riding on a horse with proven winning ability at todays exact distance and surface (turf/dirt) when the other necessary handicapping factors are considered. I would think this factor is for 3 year olds and up horses.

Obviously when the generous price is offered the distance factor is more lenient.

Any opinions out there.

Thanks in advance.

[Overlay]

From a distance standpoint, I've found that a general distinction between sprints of less than one mile and routes of one mile or longer (as done, for example, by Quirin in Winning at the Races) suffices for my purposes, along with making various distance-related adjustments in the factors that I use (for example, taking distance switches into account in factoring early speed, or considering distance in being more or less forgiving about how many days a horse has had between starts).

As far as surface, I compensate for that in the same manner, considering the varying probabilities associated with the factors that I use on dirt, turf, or artificial surfaces.

The main point, as far as I'm concerned, is not to use either of those two factors (or any other factor for that matter) as a basis for completely eliminating any horse from further consideration, but to consider the probabilities associated with them as part of the total picture in reaching a judgment as to the winning chances of each horse in a race.

[bobphilo]

I understand that ability at the distance is an important consideration but,
Like Overlay, I would be very reluctant to totally eliminate a horse from consideration unless I thought it had virtually no chance in a race. That is not the case with horses not having run well at the exact distance. In my experience the vast majority of horses can handle a shift of half a furlong and most can also deal with a furlong change from their ideal distance. A possible exception at 1 furlong might be from 6 to 7 furlongs where the race dynamics may change dramatically. Given this, demanding the horse has run well at the exact distance is cutting things too close. I generally use a I furlong division, though at times I’ll use a sprint-middle-long distinction.
A danger of only judging a horse at an exact distance is that a horse may have not been in today’s form when it ran today’s distance a long time ago, but may have shown that it’s in much better form today at a different distance.

An example came in the ’08 Preakness. There was no beating Big Brown that day but Macho Again looked like a real overlay to complete the Exacta. Despite having earned the 2nd best figure in the race with a 99 Beyer in winning the Derby Trail he went off at an incredible 39.90-1 because his previous 2 dirt route attempts only earned 86 and 83 Beyers. However, the subtle point missed by most was that these attempts were sandwiched between a couple of 86’s in sprints, indicating he was about equally talented at both sprints and routes. With his most recent near route figure increasing to 99, a similar increase in his route ability could be predicted, and the huge odds made him a must play in the exotics. I was frankly more concerned with a “bounce” from MA than a problem with distance limitation. BB and MA ran
I-2 in a very predictable Exacta.


Bob

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Thanks for the well thought reponses guys. Obviously their are certain distance limitations with some horses but they can be the exception and from your stand points most horses are adaptable to a half furlong or one furlong in distances.

The lesson is to take each horse as an individual case and eliminate when they have that distinct proven distance liability.

[bobphilo]

Thanks for the well thought reponses guys. Obviously their are certain distance limitations with some horses but they can be the exception and from your stand points most horses are adaptable to a half furlong or one furlong in distances.

The lesson is to take each horse as an individual case and eliminate when they have that distinct proven distance liability.

Precisely.



BTW Zappi, good call on your website on today’s 2nd race at Aqu. With the small weak field, one could expect a firster to do well, but the odds-on price on the 6 was absurd considering he had no real advantage in works, trainer or breeding. The 3 was clearly the better play.



Bob

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Thanks Bob,

For me it was a good play considering the odds and the principles involved. I am willing to lose some of these to get the percentages in my favor.

[JustRalph]

How valuable is a horse with a win at the exact distance and surface of todays race? .


This is one of those threads that requires "real Answers" to the original question from somebody with a good database. Until you get that.........???? How can you make any assumptions?

[bobphilo]

This is one of those threads that requires "real Answers" to the original question from somebody with a good database. Until you get that.........???? How can you make any assumptions?

Ralph,


Speaking of assumptions, how do you know whether Overlay’s or my answers to Zappi’s question are not based on a study or data base research before calling them “not real”? Whether they are or not, are you proposing that no one be allowed to contribute to our threads unless they have a database?


As a trained researcher, I’m not denying the importance of a good database. However, I also know that any good study begins with the researcher creatively constructing rational hypotheses, both null and alternative, based his/hers carefully selected observations. They then select the most appropriate statistical method to answer these questions. The next step involves collecting data and crunching numbers – the most routine and mindless part of the study, usually relegated to student assistants or even more mindless computers. The final part of the process, which again involves logical skills, is interpreting the results of all that came before into a well-reasoned conclusion.

The size and complexity of the database is secondary to the ability to form a reasonable explanation based on the data and experiences of the researcher. Just as there were great scientists before computers, there were great handicappers before computerized databases. Even in the age of information explosion, the best handicapping tool is still between one’s ears.


I suspect that Zappi finds the effort by experienced handicappers offering him, in his own words, a “well reasoned explanation” based both on their own experiences and the research of others, to your inappropriate put-downs of other’s efforts while offering no “real” answers of your own.


Bob

[Overlay]

Just as a clarifying note, I do have access to hard data in regard to handicapping the distance factor, but the only available data that I've seen has used a plus-or-minus 1/2-furlong range, so I can't make definitive statements about the implications of a horse showing or not showing either a previous win or a previous "good race" at today's exact distance (although I'm sure that many board members might be able to provide statistics in that regard). As I said in qualifying my original post, I've found that the general distinction between sprints and routes (as comparatively inaccurate as it may be) has proved satisfactory for my own use.

[Overlay]

I don't know what this may say about the overall value of a previous win at today's exact distance and surface, but in one of Ainslie's books (I think it was Theory and Practice of Handicapping), he discussed an angle of looking for a horse that was being given an opportunity to repeat a previous victory under the same circumstances (distance, class, and track). (This was the flip side of the old handicapping adage that you should never bet on a horse to do something that it hasn't done previously.) The only other requirement was that the horse have enough recent action to indicate an acceptable degree of physical fitness. In fact, I believe that it was preferable if the identical race victory had occurred several races back, and the horse's recent performances were of the type that would cause the horse to be overlooked today. I guess the assumption would be that the trainer was purposely darkening the horse's form, or otherwise using the horse's recent races purely for conditioning, while looking for a suitable slot where the horse might go off at high odds under conditions where it had already shown that it could win.

[JustRalph]

Bob, I don't disagree with anything you say. But if you have used a database to come up with your reply............show me. I like to see this stuff.

[bobphilo]

Bob, I don't disagree with anything you say. But if you have used a database to come up with your reply............show me. I like to see this stuff.

Ralph, as far as a small distance changes not affecting performance, I’ve seen the concept incorporated into several handicapping software and I’ve found it personally to hold true a large majority of the time. The concept for this was not original with me but in conjunction with others’ observations and theories.

As for the question of whether a horse, like Macho Again who has shown equal ability at sprints and routes in the past can, after running an improved sprint when in better form, be reasonably expected to show similar improvement in a route, this is an original hypothesis I developed after several observations and it continued to work with post-test data.

Of course, I’d love to be able to see it tested on a good database and would appreciate it if anyone with such a base would test it. I like to see this stuff too. In the meantime it has proven profitable, based on its underlying logic. Many such hypotheses stand up to the rigor of later large database testing if well thought out and consistent with the laws of biophysics and kinesiology. Of course, some do not, so database testing is always useful when available. Thanks for your interest in my hypothesis.


Bob

[raybo]

While proven ability at the same, exact, distance, on the same track and surface, and at or above the same class (pace requirements), is certainly a distinct advantage when considering a particular horse's probability of winning.

However, without having a complete, fairly recent, history on the horses in question, more often than not, the handicapper must make intelligent allowances regarding all the above factors. One must also consider the horse's current physical condition as this determines a horse's current ability to compete at its optimum level.

In summary, the handicapper must, or should, do a complete job of handicapping, taking into account all factors that weigh on a horse's probabilities related to current form and the conditions of the race and its opponents in that race.

A horse's ability to "stretch out" or "shorten up", change tracks, and surfaces, is an individual thing and making generalizations of within 1/2f, within 1f, etc., can be suspect. This quandary faces each handicapper constantly and, in many cases, is the difference between the successful player and the unsuccessful one.

[bobphilo]

While proven ability at the same, exact, distance, on the same track and surface, and at or above the same class (pace requirements), is certainly a distinct advantage when considering a particular horse's probability of winning.

However, without having a complete, fairly recent, history on the horses in question, more often than not, the handicapper must make intelligent allowances regarding all the above factors. One must also consider the horse's current physical condition as this determines a horse's current ability to compete at its optimum level.

In summary, the handicapper must, or should, do a complete job of handicapping, taking into account all factors that weigh on a horse's probabilities related to current form and the conditions of the race and its opponents in that race.

A horse's ability to "stretch out" or "shorten up", change tracks, and surfaces, is an individual thing and making generalizations of within 1/2f, within 1f, etc., can be suspect. This quandary faces each handicapper constantly and, in many cases, is the difference between the successful player and the unsuccessful one.

As Zappi and myself have agreed, “each horse must be taken as an individual case”. One has to always look for exceptions to the rules. However, one first has to have general rules to begin with. Something that applies to most horses though there are exceptions. As we’ve found, requiring a win at the exact distance is probably too tight a requirement but either the 1-furlong rule and/or sprint route distinction are good starting points as they fit most, though not all, horses.


Bob

[CryingForTheHorses]

How valuable is a horse with a win at the exact distance and surface of todays race? From the perspective of a select type of bet with a higher win percentage it would seem beneficial to have your money riding on a horse with proven winning ability at todays exact distance and surface (turf/dirt) when the other necessary handicapping factors are considered. I would think this factor is for 3 year olds and up horses.

Obviously when the generous price is offered the distance factor is more lenient.

Any opinions out there.

Thanks in advance.


There is a horse in today 2 for 2 at the excat distance.61/2 furlongs..Distance and speed play a big factor in all races.If you have a "need to lead" horse then I feel the distance is a factor. Come from behind horses are the ones who will be passing the "Need to lead" horses in the race as they slow down because the distance was to far

[CryingForTheHorses]

There is a horse in today 2 for 2 at the excat distance.61/2 furlongs..Distance and speed play a big factor in all races.If you have a "need to lead" horse then I feel the distance is a factor. Come from behind horses are the ones who will be passing the "Need to lead" horses in the race as they slow down because the distance was to far

This horse is now 3 for 3 at the distance..Flint Mountain is his name..

[bobphilo]

This horse is now 3 for 3 at the distance..Flint Mountain is his name..

No one here is saying that distance is not an important factor, but it is still one factor to be considered along with any others that apply. If Flint Mountain were the sole frontrunner in the race he would have been just as good a play at any sprint distance. To insist on “exact distance” would have been passing up a good bet. If the pace scenario indicated he would be facing a couple of other need to lead types, he would not have been a good bet, even at the “exact distance”.


Bob

[andicap]

Another consideration is trainer intent. Maybe McShell can shed some light on this, but in my experience if a conditioner is pointing a horse toward a race -- that is, getting the animal in peak shape -- wouldn't he want to make sure the horse is entered at a distance (surface) where he has had success in the past.

(With the exception maybe of lightly raced horses who's ability is not always known at the new distances.)