Field size : final time

[GameTheory]

Anybody studied the relationship between field size and final time? Is there any?

In other words, for an identical class of race, track, & surface, is a short field more or less likely to be below/above par than a large field?

I'm about to pull about a bunch of data that will answer this question, but just curious...

[Hosshead]

GT,

Was thinking about your question.--- On one hand-
Large Fields- Means more traffic. More horses running wide,
which takes longer............On the other hand-
Small fields- Possibly fewer speed horses to contend for the lead.
So maybe easier for the pacesetter to slow down the pace?

However: Large Fields- Might have More speed horses to assure
a faster pace.
Small Fields- Don't have to run wide.

I'll wait for your results!

[sjk]

Looks to me like a very slight difference; 5 and 6 horse fields run 1-2 tenths of a point slower than par (a nose?) while 11 and 12 horse fields run 1-2 tenths of a point faster than par. Larger and smaller fields show greater differences, but the sample sizes are not very large.

[Larry Hamilton]

I've spent half my life in research, so this thought may seem completely out of character. Consider: if the field size causes the time to increase or decrease for all the horses EQUALLY, how does one use this information?

More thoughts on related subjects:

Variants--if you spend years compiling an average speed for a situation, why would you disbelieve your average and change it with a sample size of one card? How can you adjust the results of a legitimate sample size with one of approximately 9 races?

Pars--as has been stated here many times, it's an average. All things being evenly distributed, that means HALF of your sample of winners DID NOT beat the average.

[Dave Schwartz]

If what has been proposed here is true, then I would look for another culprit... running style. I would suggest that in larger fields there is a greater scamble for the lead because of tactical speed. This would cause the races to run faster early and, hence, faster late.

It might also manifest itself in having more front-runner types present in the race. More "E's" produce faster early paces, which produce faster final times.


Dave

[so.cal.fan]

I agree with Dave.....haven't ever thought of this before, but Dave's reasoning makes sense.
Interesting.....probably just trivia.......but interesting.

[andicap]

How about a corrolation between field size and running styles that win?

Do "E" or "EP" horses have a better chance in 6 horse fields because there would theoretcially be fewer early horses? Or would that be counteracted by the psychology of the race -- other jockeys know they can't let the "E" horse steal the race so one of them goes after the leader. In a 10 horse race the jocks might figure "someone will go after the leader so I won't" -- and let the early horse get away with soft fractions.

Any research on this??

[GameTheory]

There are lots of reasons one can think of that might explain it -- I think people get into trouble when they decide one is *the* reason just because they happened to think of it. The obvious reason that full fields would be a little faster is there is more of a chance to have a high-quality horse in the field when you've got 10 horses than when you've got 5. It may not have anything to do with the running of the race itself. Am I right? No idea. All of the speculations are probably valid some of the time...

[Dave Schwartz]

I think you will find that the primary factor will be the number of E-Horses in the race and secondarily, the field size.

That is, a 3-E race will produce more E-winners than a 1-E race, whether the field size is 5 or 10.

But a 3-E 5-horse field will produce more E-winners than a 3-E 10-horse field.

Did that make sense?

Dave

[andicap]

Dave,

Seems like common sense because ANY horse would have a better chance in a 5-horse race than a 10-horse race, not just "E" types. It seems less likely there would be 3 E types in a 5-horse field than a 10-horse field so I would figure the 5-horse field would have more on-pace winners.

Such a conundrum -- you can't figure out how the variable of the size of the field impact the running of the race itself, or if an E horse came out of a 5-horse field and now goes into a 10-horse field, are his chances diminished (leaving equal the number of early pace horses in both fields.)

[Larry Hamilton]

bad news: when I used the variables you mentioned (Track, surface, starters, and class) I came up with over 100,00 unique lines. This tells me your data will have to be more than 3 million lines to be significant--way beyond me. Dave is probably the only one with that much data