Pace on Poly tracks

[Tom]

Maybe we can get a discussion going......

What pace figures are best for poly races? With less emphasis on early pace, in most cases, is a number geared towards late, or stamina needed in stead of one tilted towards early speed?
Beyer changed his scale for polytrack races, but is it good (enough)? Does it work?

A DRF columnist ( I do not have his name – I omitted it when I copied the column), but it was about Mine that Bird’s prep over poly and his Beyer (maybe Brad Free?). The suggestion was that since poly favors late runners, the way to go was to use the Beyer beaten lengths idea for the final fraction, so that a FF in :24 Flat equals 120 fifths (lengths) so the value of a BL at 6 furlongs would be worth 8 points on poly (1/120 = .00833)

I think this is too much to be useful.

My idea is to use the exact same idea Quinn uses in his late turf ratings, that is the value of a fifth is 1.8. 2.0, 2.4, or 2.8, depending on the distance, the longer final fractions getting the better ratings so that closing 5 lengths at 9 furlongs is superior to closing 9 at a mile. I am giving that a try now and will see how it goes. I am also looking at doing the same thing for the final two furlongs, or whatever, from the first call on. Two late ratings would hopefully help distinguish between stamina and late.

How to incorporate the pace call, if at all, is the question.

Another idea I have heard is to use the BRIS numbers – LP + SR for a poly rating. The guy doing this is happy with his results, but I have not tried it.

[46zilzal]

No two of them are close to the same. Each is as specific as their dirt counterparts. If I tackled Arlington or Del Mar the same way I do Woodbine, i would, and have, gotten eaten alive.

[cj]

Of course they are close, just like most dirt tracks are close. It doesn't mean they are exactly the same and that you can't profit from using track profiles, but the general tendencies of all the synthetic surfaces are the same.

I am already doing what you are suggesting Tom and it works pretty well. I'm testing now at different distances, where obviously there is a difference in the emphasis that should be placed on late pace.

[11cashcall]

[How to incorporate the pace call, if at all, is the question. [

Another idea I have heard is to use the BRIS numbers – LP + SR for a poly rating. The guy doing this is happy with his results, but I have not tried it.[/font]


Hi Tom, i have found given the sample size that stanima is a deciding factor,particularly when one weighs in track maintenance on any given card.
Quinn's turf rating's are usefull as well with the above when weather conditions are incorperated into the analysis. To date i have not used
DRF'S new figs.since they do not ajust for path's wide and based on previous observations can be crucial es. with horse's going from dirt to syn & their point of development.This btw omits HP since it plays much like the dirt surface.

With the Bris factors,I have started to use only recently & have found strong P type animals rank high with their formula.

Hope this helps.

[raybo]

Maybe we can get a discussion going......

What pace figures are best for poly races? With less emphasis on early pace, in most cases, is a number geared towards late, or stamina needed in stead of one tilted towards early speed?
Beyer changed his scale for polytrack races, but is it good (enough)? Does it work?

A DRF columnist ( I do not have his name – I omitted it when I copied the column), but it was about Mine that Bird’s prep over poly and his Beyer (maybe Brad Free?). The suggestion was that since poly favors late runners, the way to go was to use the Beyer beaten lengths idea for the final fraction, so that a FF in :24 Flat equals 120 fifths (lengths) so the value of a BL at 6 furlongs would be worth 8 points on poly (1/120 = .00833)

I think this is too much to be useful.

My idea is to use the exact same idea Quinn uses in his late turf ratings, that is the value of a fifth is 1.8. 2.0, 2.4, or 2.8, depending on the distance, the longer final fractions getting the better ratings so that closing 5 lengths at 9 furlongs is superior to closing 9 at a mile. I am giving that a try now and will see how it goes. I am also looking at doing the same thing for the final two furlongs, or whatever, from the first call on. Two late ratings would hopefully help distinguish between stamina and late.

How to incorporate the pace call, if at all, is the question.

Another idea I have heard is to use the BRIS numbers – LP + SR for a poly rating. The guy doing this is happy with his results, but I have not tried it.

Tom,

I don't know if this fits into your realm of reasoning or not but here's what I do.

I first determine the distance for every fraction in the race, in feet, then I use a distance per length (9' is what I use but you could use 8', 10', 11', whatever you think is appropriate). Then the distance of each fraction is divided by the distance per length number. That will give you the number of lengths in each fraction. Next I take the raw fractional time for the leader, in each fraction, and divide that time by the number of lengths in the fraction. That will give you the average time for a beaten length for that particular fraction.

Example:

> fraction = 1/4m or 440yds*3ft = 1320'
> distance per length = 9'
> 1320'/9' = 146.67 lengths in the fraction
> leader's raw time = 22.0 seconds
> 22.0/146.67 = .1499965 seconds per beaten length

> if the fraction was run in 24 seconds then: 24/146.67 = .1636326 seconds per B/L

As fractional distances increase or fractional times increase so does the time per beaten length (and vice versa), which I find is a pretty good adjustment for both slow or fast paces and varying race distances.

[gm10]

Maybe we can get a discussion going......

What pace figures are best for poly races? With less emphasis on early pace, in most cases, is a number geared towards late, or stamina needed in stead of one tilted towards early speed?
Beyer changed his scale for polytrack races, but is it good (enough)? Does it work?

A DRF columnist ( I do not have his name – I omitted it when I copied the column), but it was about Mine that Bird’s prep over poly and his Beyer (maybe Brad Free?). The suggestion was that since poly favors late runners, the way to go was to use the Beyer beaten lengths idea for the final fraction, so that a FF in :24 Flat equals 120 fifths (lengths) so the value of a BL at 6 furlongs would be worth 8 points on poly (1/120 = .00833)

I think this is too much to be useful.

My idea is to use the exact same idea Quinn uses in his late turf ratings, that is the value of a fifth is 1.8. 2.0, 2.4, or 2.8, depending on the distance, the longer final fractions getting the better ratings so that closing 5 lengths at 9 furlongs is superior to closing 9 at a mile. I am giving that a try now and will see how it goes. I am also looking at doing the same thing for the final two furlongs, or whatever, from the first call on. Two late ratings would hopefully help distinguish between stamina and late.

How to incorporate the pace call, if at all, is the question.

Another idea I have heard is to use the BRIS numbers – LP + SR for a poly rating. The guy doing this is happy with his results, but I have not tried it.

The way I do it is as follows:

WHEN SURFACE_TYPE = 'D' THEN EXP(1.457533 - 0.093981 * DISTANCE)
WHEN SURFACE_TYPE = 'P' THEN EXP(1.780099 - 0.108563 * DISTANCE)
WHEN SURFACE_TYPE = 'T' THEN EXP(1.706247 - 0.097584 * DISTANCE)

Just open a spreadsheet to see what this means for different surfaces. You can ignore the specific values, it's what they are relative to each other which matters for your question.

For example 6F:

dirt: 2.48
poly: 3.07
turf: 3.09

That means that 'lengths beaten' is 3.07/2.48 times (=23.3%) more important on poly than on dirt, over 6F.

This is based on about half a million races (admittedly, the majority on dirt).

[the_fat_man]

My thoughts are pace is nowhere near as important as many people make it out to be. Fast and slow paces do influence final times, but trying to predict what you are going to get today is the problem. I see many horse lose leading in very slow paces come back and win in blazing pace times. At a 77 pace, they pigs die on the lead, but at 97, they explode?

I now use pace to explain what happened, but I have no interest in wasting my time trying to predict what pace will be there today. My data has shown me that unless the pace is fast or slow by a full second or more, it is not really a factor in the race. Positioning is far more important. Horses run against horses, not numbers. I am a recovering pace capper! :D



These are precisely (some of) the issues that have me convinced that numerical pace is not the way to go; certainly when the surface is turf and poly. (I don't focus on dirt so my comments apply only to those surfaces.) Obviously, pace figures work well for those who use them properly but they, conceptually, at least, lead to the problems you point to. That a horse can go very slow (relatively), with or without pressure, and collapse; then, subsequently, go very fast, with or without pressure, and win for fun, can't really be modeled by numbers. And, what's the point of focusing on how fast a horses comes home, when a good number of turf (and poly) races are cavalry charges at the end? Are all the horses running late in these races considered to be 'strong closers'? A race type approach indicates otherwise.

Numeric pace is just not comprehensive enough and leads to too many ridiculous results. (This is why concepts like THE BOUNCE are resorted to, I suppose.)

I think these are issues that need to be discussed in depth. Pace numbers are just a part of what happens in a race.

[46zilzal]

The BOUNCE is easy to pick up: progressively lowered total energy versus rising % median versus the same pace more of less. The HORSE tells you.


Position means very little without pace. I often find the fastest horse TODAY who ran 6th or 7th last and will go out to get or prompt the lead TODAY as it last ran versus an early pace it could NEVER approach but will in today's projected pace.

[Pell Mell]

The BOUNCE is easy to pick up: progressively lowered total energy versus rising % median versus the same pace more of less. The HORSE tells you.


Position means very little without pace. I often find the fastest horse TODAY who ran 6th or 7th last and will go out to get or prompt the lead TODAY as it last ran versus an early pace it could NEVER approach but will in today's projected pace.

HUH?:confused:

[Pell Mell]

This is a quote by Tom on another thread;

I now use pace to explain what happened, but I have no interest in wasting my time trying to predict what pace will be there today. My data has shown me that unless the pace is fast or slow by a full second or more, it is not really a factor in the race. Positioning is far more important. Horses run against horses, not numbers. I am a recovering pace capper! :D
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tom, I was trying to figure out how you started this thread after that statement.
I was going to congratulate you on the other thread for finding that all that pace work is a waste of time. I got out of speed and pace handicapping 40 yrs. ago and haven't looked back since. I now have so much more time to myself and my profit line has gone way up.

This is not to say that one cannot pick winners using spd. and pace but there are methods that produce a good % of winners at much longer odds. The time spent with figures can be better spent in enjoyable pursuits.;)

[the_fat_man]

I got out of speed and pace handicapping 40 yrs. ago and haven't looked back since. I now have so much more time to myself and my profit line has gone way up.

This is not to say that one cannot pick winners using spd. and pace but there are methods that produce a good % of winners at much longer odds. The time spent with figures can be better spent in enjoyable pursuits.;)

What might a sample ROI be for a non-figure handicapper?

[illinoisbred]

I tend to concentrate most of my plays on developing 3 and lightly raced 4 yr. olds. Past pace performances never seem to matter. When 1 of these types runs a new top, or really" explodes" they'll often run on or near the lead and withstand any challenge even if they've never been anywhere near the front in previous races. This, what many call surprise early speed happens often.

[fmolf]

I tend to concentrate most of my plays on developing 3 and lightly raced 4 yr. olds. Past pace performances never seem to matter. When 1 of these types runs a new top, or really" explodes" they'll often run on or near the lead and withstand any challenge even if they've never been anywhere near the front in previous races. This, what many call surprise early speed happens often.
Oft time signalled by a quicker than normal second fraction last race back,or by an uncharacteristic change in running styles the previous race.Not to mention the old standard z pattern and the early speed carried progressively further than each previous race.

[the_fat_man]

I tend to concentrate most of my plays on developing 3 and lightly raced 4 yr. olds. Past pace performances never seem to matter. When 1 of these types runs a new top, or really" explodes" they'll often run on or near the lead and withstand any challenge even if they've never been anywhere near the front in previous races. This, what many call surprise early speed happens often.

When you look at horses in terms of past performances and numbers (i.e. individually) you don't get a complete view. I might have a history of numbers for a horse but if I don't know what 'type' of race each was produced in, then my view is limited. If I incorporate race type into the equation, then I have more of an explanation as to why horses run different numbers.

[classhandicapper]

I presented the idea that a length is not always a length a long time ago on the TG board.

The concept is best described by imagining yourself running in a 1 mile race with a world class runner where he stalks your jog for 3/4 of a mile and then asserts his superiority. He will certainly crush you, but not by as much as if set his own natural pace from the start. Even though both races were a mile, the slow paced one was "effectively" a "shorter race". Therefore, each length is worth more.

Even though I feel confident in this idea conceptually, it is not easy to convert into a new formula for beaten lengths. That's primarily because even though the average pace is slower on turf/synthetic than dirt and that leads to compressed margins relative to dirt, the pace is not uniformly slow. That means that you would have to have a sliding beaten lengths adjustment to account for different paces, just as you have to adjust closing quarters for extreme paces.

At a certain point, I think you have to throw up your hands and realize that fooling around with numbers like this becomes more of an intellectual exercise than a method of reflecting the reality of how horses are running.

I don't claim to be an expert at either synthetic or turf handicapping, but currently I use pace figures and closing times to help understand race results and not to make fine line decisions between close contenders.

I handicap the race, get a feel for the quality of the horses relative to the class designation, look at their running styles, watch the race development, looks at the pace figures and closing times, and then come to a conclusion about how well each horse ran relative to the others and relative to the average for that class. It's not a number per se, but I use the numbers as a tool.

Sometimes the numbers tell me something that I couldn't possibly see and sometimes what I see and know about the horses tells me that the numbers are misleading (usually an accuracy issue).

I'd also like to point out that at times when we see a fast pace but the horse wires anyway or a slow pace and he collapses, a bias, run up change, horses all getting jostled coming out of the gate, wind, and other accuracy issues sometimes account for that kind of problem with numbers. The other thing is that sometimes horses just fire a big shot or dud and pace had nothing to do with it.

[JohnGalt1]

I use the Hambleton pace figures, which I handicap myself.

But I adjust the Final Pace Rating for lengths gained this way-- No adjustment for 1-4 3/4 lengths.

5-6 3/4 gains I give credit for 5 lengths.
7-6 3/4 gains is 6.
Up to 13-14 3/4 is 9, and 15 and over is 10 and that is the max.

I punish closers because they have so much to overcome in a race.

This works well on All Weather and turf, because if a closer has a top FPR with these adjustments, it's a strong contender.

[raybo]

I might add to my above post:

In addition to figuring B/Ls per fraction according to each fraction's average pace time, I also include fractional variant points in order to arrive at "variable B/L + fractional variant" adjusted times for each paceline.

I use these adjusted fractional and final times instead of pace or speed figures.

I also utilize running styles and race shapes as equally important elements in my decision making process.

All this is done in Excel, using Bris DRF data files for raw times and the running styles. I also use Bris' race shapes, but, am developing my own version. I don't use any other of Bris' proprietary figures.

[gm10]

I presented the idea that a length is not always a length a long time ago on the TG board.

The concept is best described by imagining yourself running in a 1 mile race with a world class runner where he stalks your jog for 3/4 of a mile and then asserts his superiority. He will certainly crush you, but not by as much as if set his own natural pace from the start. Even though both races were a mile, the slow paced one was "effectively" a "shorter race". Therefore, each length is worth more.

Even though I feel confident in this idea conceptually, it is not easy to convert into a new formula for beaten lengths. That's primarily because even though the average pace is slower on turf/synthetic than dirt and that leads to compressed margins relative to dirt, the pace is not uniformly slow. That means that you would have to have a sliding beaten lengths adjustment to account for different paces, just as you have to adjust closing quarters for extreme paces.

At a certain point, I think you have to throw up your hands and realize that fooling around with numbers like this becomes more of an intellectual exercise than a method of reflecting the reality of how horses are running.

I don't claim to be an expert at either synthetic or turf handicapping, but currently I use pace figures and closing times to help understand race results and not to make fine line decisions between close contenders.

I handicap the race, get a feel for the quality of the horses relative to the class designation, look at their running styles, watch the race development, looks at the pace figures and closing times, and then come to a conclusion about how well each horse ran relative to the others and relative to the average for that class. It's not a number per se, but I use the numbers as a tool.

Sometimes the numbers tell me something that I couldn't possibly see and sometimes what I see and know about the horses tells me that the numbers are misleading (usually an accuracy issue).

I'd also like to point out that at times when we see a fast pace but the horse wires anyway or a slow pace and he collapses, a bias, run up change, horses all getting jostled coming out of the gate, wind, and other accuracy issues sometimes account for that kind of problem with numbers. The other thing is that sometimes horses just fire a big shot or dud and pace had nothing to do with it.

Without wanting to brag, but the formula's that I posted earlier, fit the bill.
Just pick a baseline, say 6F on dirt, and calculate all the other values relative to it.


I use them in a slightly different way, but they do quantify the underlying, fundamental relationship between lengths beaten and distance/surface.

[Valuist]

I've been toying with an idea for synthetic handicapping. We all know it is much more like grass than dirt, and the longer the race, the more difficult it is for a speed horse to win. My idea is to handicap the race as if:
a) when handicapping races 6 1/2 furlongs or shorter, add 1/2 furlong to the distance. For instance, any 6f race should be handicapped as if it were a 6 1/2 furlong race.
b) for races at 7f and 1 mile, add a full furlong.
c) for races over 1 mile, add 1 1/2 furlongs to the actual race distance when handicapping.

This is one way to limit betting speed and pressers, no matter how good they may theoretically look on paper.

[stuball]

I have found something that you may or may not be able to use...at each poly track there are certain jocks that know where to place their horse to give him a chance to win-whether it is close to the pace..or further back.
Also current form on jocks is very important. I am currently
figuring 10 day blocks to assess performance...it seems to work reasonably well. Now if I can get my head fixed--Doc appt. tomorrow.

Stuball

[Overlay]

I have found something that you may or may not be able to use...at each poly track there are certain jocks that know where to place their horse to give him a chance to win-whether it is close to the pace..or further back.
Also current form on jocks is very important. I am currently
figuring 10 day blocks to assess performance...it seems to work reasonably well. Now if I can get my head fixed--Doc appt. tomorrow.

Stuball

Similar to a point that I raised in a previous thread, with regard to the effect of capable jockeys' tactics in mitigating any adverse consequences of polytrack on horses' usual running styles:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52084&highlight=Tactics

[bisket]

tom one major thing that i've noticed about poly is that it does play fair at 6 and 7 furs. if you go to fast your punished, and if you go to slow speed holds. the mile distance is really a tough one for me on poly. when it comes to routes late kick (stamina) has a huge advantage. i'm not a speed fig handicapper, but in making any figures seperate sprints from routes. its very important on this surface.

[Tom]

I'm not saying you can ignore pace, but I am saying that it is not nearly as simple as you go fast early you go slow late. At some point yes, but there is a range where the faster you go early the faster you go late. I think you need a rating that is in tune with your surface. The Quirin method on turf has been the goose that laid the golden egg for me for years. I use the best late ratings from any of the last 6 races in, the highest class (90 in MSW is not as good as a 90 in NW1). I think poly might offer that same type of opportuinity.

Some good ideas here - thanks everyone. Now, back to work.....

[bisket]

i have yet to see in any of the routes that i've witnessed on poly the leader for the first 1/2 mile still be on top at the end. now i've seen pacesetters hang around for a piece. what i think you want to look at pace wise is does a horse get far back even if the first 1/2 goes in 50 seconds. that type needs the fast pace to win. what seems to work more times than not in the routes is a horse that doesn't get real far out of it for the first mile, and when they turn for home lays down an eleven second furlong, and pokes his head in front 200 yard before the wire. you want a horse that runs evenly, and can give a spurt in the stretch.

[proximity]

I'm not saying you can ignore pace, but I am saying that it is not nearly as simple as you go fast early you go slow late. At some point yes, but there is a range where the faster you go early the faster you go late. I think you need a rating that is in tune with your surface. The Quirin method on turf has been the goose that laid the golden egg for me for years. I use the best late ratings from any of the last 6 races in, the highest class (90 in MSW is not as good as a 90 in NW1). I think poly might offer that same type of opportuinity.

Some good ideas here - thanks everyone. Now, back to work.....

tom, personally i would study the milkowski ratings of horses who ran identical (same track, surface, and distance) races back to back with no layoff line.

for example if you're studying 1m 1/16 races at woodbine. look for horses who have run consecutive 1m 1/16 races at woodbine. say a horse went 70-90 in the first race. what speed figure did he run in the second race? higher than 90? lower than 90? how much higher or lower? you could break these individual raceshapes into ranges and study the effects once you get some decent sample sizes.

just a suggestion.

[classhandicapper]

Without wanting to brag, but the formula's that I posted earlier, fit the bill.
Just pick a baseline, say 6F on dirt, and calculate all the other values relative to it.


I use them in a slightly different way, but they do quantify the underlying, fundamental relationship between lengths beaten and distance/surface.

Unfortunately no fixed formula can capture what I am talking about.

The fundamental reason why margins tend to vary from surface to surface is that the "average paces are different" on each surface.

The problem is that "average" is not fixed.

That is, even though dirt paces tend to be fast, if there is a very slow pace on dirt it will tend to shrink the "effective distance" like a turf race. So the margins between the horses will tend to shrink. Conversely, if there is a bullet fast pace on turf, it will tend to mimic the average dirt race and expand them.

In order to account for the impact of pace on margins you would need a variable beaten length chart that accounts for pace.

But that's just the beginning of problems. IMO, it's more it less is a waste of time to go down that road other than to understand the impact of pace in general terms so you can evaluate the results of races better.

[gm10]

Unfortunately no fixed formula can capture what I am talking about.

The fundamental reason why margins tend to vary from surface to surface is that the "average paces are different" on each surface.

The problem is that "average" is not fixed.

That is, even though dirt paces tend to be fast, if there is a very slow pace on dirt it will tend to shrink the "effective distance" like a turf race. So the margins between the horses will tend to shrink. Conversely, if there is a bullet fast pace on turf, it will tend to mimic the average dirt race and expand them.

In order to account for the impact of pace on margins you would need a variable beaten length chart that accounts for pace.

But that's just the beginning of problems. IMO, it's more it less is a waste of time to go down that road other than to understand the impact of pace in general terms so you can evaluate the results of races better.

Yes that is certainly a valid point. Those formula's are good for 90% of the races, but I don't know how well cover certain freak races.

I've actually played with the idea that you're floating (adding pace as a variable), and the results were very unclear. I just ignore these extreme pace scenario's, by now. I'm not even convinced that pace is always such a big factor in explaining lengths beaten. Might as well be the kickbak, or the big class differences within 1 race.

[raybo]

Yes that is certainly a valid point. Those formula's are good for 90% of the races, but I don't know how well cover certain freak races.

I've actually played with the idea that you're floating (adding pace as a variable), and the results were very unclear. I just ignore these extreme pace scenario's, by now. I'm not even convinced that pace is always such a big factor in explaining lengths beaten. Might as well be the kickbak, or the big class differences within 1 race.

This is, more or less, what I have come to believe. The studying of pace involving different classes, surface conditions, winds, track configurations, and surface types will, likely, never be an exact science (due to these "freak races").

One can only hope to get it right most of the time.

The use of variable B/Ls values, according to the pace exhibited in each fraction, along with the incorporation of a fractional variant (which inherently includes surface speed, surface conditions, wind, track configurations and quality (class) of the competitors), works well for me, much better than not utilizing those 2 tools.

But, as has been said, there is more involved; running styles, race shapes, events affecting certain of the participants during the running of certain portions of the race, that had an impact on the outcome of the race and not covered by pace analysis utilizing what I have proposed and use (for pace analysis). You must perform some other analysis, in addition to pace, in order to have a viable method.

[gm10]

i have yet to see in any of the routes that i've witnessed on poly the leader for the first 1/2 mile still be on top at the end. now i've seen pacesetters hang around for a piece. what i think you want to look at pace wise is does a horse get far back even if the first 1/2 goes in 50 seconds. that type needs the fast pace to win. what seems to work more times than not in the routes is a horse that doesn't get real far out of it for the first mile, and when they turn for home lays down an eleven second furlong, and pokes his head in front 200 yard before the wire. you want a horse that runs evenly, and can give a spurt in the stretch.

You should have a look at Oaktree. Plenty of pace setters are winning the two turn races at the moment.

[gm10]

This is, more or less, what I have come to believe. The studying of pace involving different classes, surface conditions, winds, track configurations, and surface types will, likely, never be an exact science (due to these "freak races").

One can only hope to get it right most of the time.

The use of variable B/Ls values, according to the pace exhibited in each fraction, along with the incorporation of a fractional variant (which inherently includes surface speed, surface conditions, wind, track configurations and quality (class) of the competitors), works well for me, much better than not utilizing those 2 tools.

But, as has been said, there is more involved; running styles, race shapes, events affecting certain of the participants during the running of certain portions of the race, that had an impact on the outcome of the race and not covered by pace analysis utilizing what I have proposed and use (for pace analysis). You must perform some other analysis, in addition to pace, in order to have a viable method.

That's very interesting. I've never considered refining it to such a level.
Do you find that a lot of predictive 'improvement' comes from fractions, wind, quality (compared to, say, just the surface)?
How would you measure this 'predictive improvement'?

[cj]

You should have a look at Oaktree. Plenty of pace setters are winning the two turn races at the moment.

Excluding maiden races, there are the beaten lengths of the winner at the pace call for OSA routes:

8.0f: 0.0, 3.2, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 0.0

8.5f: 10.0. 2.5, 8.6, 4.6, 3.5, 2.5, 10.5, 2.5, 1.0, 6.1, 0.1, 8.0, 0.0, 3.5, 1.5, 3.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 9.0

9.0f: 1.5, 2.1, 6.1

So, there is obviously a big difference as the race gets longer. At a mile, 5 of 7 (71%) were within a length, and the average lengths back is a little less than 1 length, or .8.

But, at a mile and a sixteenth, those values change to 6 of 20 (30%) within a length after 6f, and the average lengths back is nearly 4, 3.9 to be exact.

The smaller sample, at 9f, shows 0 for 3 and 3.2 lengths back.

This doesn't even address that these things tend to go in cycles. The more speed loses, the slower and slower the jockeys tend to go on the front end until they eventually start winning. Once they do, the pressure up front heats up. That is one of my biggest problems with synthetics, the jockeys are much more important than dirt. If I want to bet on people, I'd try another sport.

[illinoisbred]

This doesn't even address that these things tend to go in cycles. The more speed loses, the slower and slower the jockeys tend to go on the front end until they eventually start winning. Once they do, the pressure up front heats up. That is one of my biggest problems with synthetics, the jockeys are much more important than dirt. If I want to bet on people, I'd try another sport.

I couldn't agree more.The jockeys and their mindset has become too big of a factor on synthetics. They waste precious energy restraining horses[particularily in sprint races here] that want to run. I see way too much flinging/flailing of heads and turned necks on front runners. This restraint seldom pays off -the horse wears itself out fighting the rider. Once in a while a smart jockey sends frontrunners/pressers out and rides like its dirt-E.T. Baird did at Arlington all summer long- the others never caught on.

[the_fat_man]

I don't see much of this. Most jocks are trained (or told by the connections) to put their horse outside of other horses. So, you have late runners that are 8 wide on the 1st turn because they just must get position even though they're last or next to last. (Then they're typically wide, without cover on the backstretch.) Horses are also trained (by the lazy) to run outside other horses so, when you put one outside, it wants to go. I could really give a shit how slow the pace is in a poly race. They went 26+ the 1st quarter at WO the other day and the speed collapsed. What I do know, however, is if my horse is allowed to draft behind other horses, allowed to RELAX, which it would typically do if behind other horses, and not move prematurely, then I have a good chance of getting the front runner. This is simple physics --- if you draft, you use less energy and have more at the end.

And, I do also follow CALI and AP. As a whole the jocks at WO are just about the worst in the country. What they have in common with those at AP and CALI is that they're all:

1) in a hurray --- for every time I see a horse restrained, there are 10 where a horse is needlessly rushed
2) insensitive to saving ground -- they're not the ones running, why would they care?

[46zilzal]

more at the end.

And, I do also follow CALI and AP. As a whole the jocks at WO are just about the worst in the country.


is THAT why these same riders do so well at other venues then? Da Silva just missed at the big Keeneland stake Friday, Sutherland does very well in New Orleans as do many other riding in the Breeder's Cup each year.

They MUST BE atrocious then.

Horses run...... riders just are passengers to the horse's ability and form cycle

[illinoisbred]

is THAT why these same riders do so well at other venues then? Da Silva just missed at the big Keeneland stake Friday, Sutherland does very well in New Orleans as do many other riding in the Breeder's Cup each year.

They MUST BE atrocious then.

Horses run...... riders just are passengers to the horse's ability and form cycle
I agree. Woodbine has a fine if not underrated jockey colony. Not many ride elsewhere outside of Patrick Husbands at the Fair Grounds or Chantel Sutherland at Santa Anita. I'd take P.H. any day.

[classhandicapper]

This doesn't even address that these things tend to go in cycles. The more speed loses, the slower and slower the jockeys tend to go on the front end until they eventually start winning. Once they do, the pressure up front heats up. That is one of my biggest problems with synthetics, the jockeys are much more important than dirt. If I want to bet on people, I'd try another sport.

And I'm sure you understand, this also makes the track variant and figure calculating process more difficult.

If the fractions are slower/faster relative to the final times than usual, does that mean track speed was not uniform because it dried unevenly, the wind was blowing against/with them in the backstretch, the maintenance crew worked on one part of the track differently than another etc... or did the jockeys simply adjust their riding to a bias and the fractions are representative of that?

That's what also makes bias so difficult for some people.

I remember arguing biases with people where the first few races were won by weak horses on the lead and where couple that dueled held on much better than I expected. In the next few races savage duels developed and a closer won. Yet the person I was discussing the day with couldn't comprehend that there was a speed bias because a few closers won later in the day.

Biases like this are really about energy distribution, stamina, etc...

[classhandicapper]

I agree. Woodbine has a fine if not underrated jockey colony. Not many ride elsewhere outside of Patrick Husbands at the Fair Grounds or Chantel Sutherland at Santa Anita. I'd take P.H. any day.

I'd take Chantel any day, but that's a discussion for another group. ;)

[raybo]

That's very interesting. I've never considered refining it to such a level.
Do you find that a lot of predictive 'improvement' comes from fractions, wind, quality (compared to, say, just the surface)?
How would you measure this 'predictive improvement'?

They are all involved in the equations. As of now, only the variable B/L and fractional variants calculated for adjusting the raw fractions and final times are all that can be measured quantitatively, regarding the "predictive improvement" you mention, and that is measured by my hit rate and ROI.

Concerning the other factors you mentioned, I am letting the variant take care of all that for me. I'm not attempting to separate those individual factors for analysis. I'm 60 years old and don't feel the drive to open new worlds now, as I once did. I'm more of a mind to help those who ask to do what I know works, in general, of course. I'm not of the mind to give away the whole farm.

What I have seen, in the form of improved hit rate and subsequent improved ROI, tells me that it works. I'm of the opinion that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Of course I still play with things and look for better ways of doing them, but, after over 30 years of that I'm reaching the point of being satisfied that my approach is good enough. Sure things change in horse racing and I'll still have to make some adjustments for that but that is limited by my approach and methodology.

[fmolf]

That's very interesting. I've never considered refining it to such a level.
Do you find that a lot of predictive 'improvement' comes from fractions, wind, quality (compared to, say, just the surface)?
How would you measure this 'predictive improvement'?I believe the most important factor in a races pace are the physical condition of all the horses ...some who ran a fast pace last time are on their way down others who were in slow races or on the upswing of their form cycle may withstand a faste pace today.I believe this is what thorograph and the sheets purports to measure with their speed figures.They do not believe in pace just for the above mentioned reasons though they do attach significance to wind,ground loss,weight carried and post position.

[raybo]

I believe the most important factor in a races pace are the physical condition of all the horses ...some who ran a fast pace last time are on their way down others who were in slow races or on the upswing of their form cycle may withstand a faste pace today.I believe this is what thorograph and the sheets purports to measure with their speed figures.They do not believe in pace just for the above mentioned reasons though they do attach significance to wind,ground loss,weight carried and post position.

I wasn't dismissing form. Heaven forbid!! In my own words, stated many times on this forum:

"Form determines everything else"

It's one of the hardest things to achieve and, IMO, the most important.

I have over 30 years of hard earned "education" in my spreadsheet program and I still use fractional times instead of pace numbers, speed numbers, power numbers, someone else's composite factors , etc., etc., etc.

I'm not even a "Pace" handicapper, I'm old school consider everything, but put it in a computer to crunch the numbers, kind of player.

And at the top of my list still remains "current form".

[Valuist]

I couldn't agree more.The jockeys and their mindset has become too big of a factor on synthetics. They waste precious energy restraining horses[particularily in sprint races here] that want to run. I see way too much flinging/flailing of heads and turned necks on front runners. This restraint seldom pays off -the horse wears itself out fighting the rider. Once in a while a smart jockey sends frontrunners/pressers out and rides like its dirt-E.T. Baird did at Arlington all summer long- the others never caught on.

But if one is riding at AP, it certainly doesn't hurt to be riding most of Calabrese's horses, like ET did.

[Tom]

The thing to remember about variants and adjustments and what have you, you can do that with numbers but not with horses. Just because you can covert a sprint pace line to a route pace line doesn't mean every horse can make that conversion. What happens to a jock-slow pace when you make a variant? The horses that could run faster might be able to run to that variant, but the ones who were only close to the pace setter because the pace setters were dogging it are not going be able to run to an adjusted pace.

I hope that makes sense.....it did before I typed it.

[illinoisbred]

The thing to remember about variants and adjustments and what have you, you can do that with numbers but not with horses. Just because you can covert a sprint pace line to a route pace line doesn't mean every horse can make that conversion. What happens to a jock-slow pace when you make a variant? The horses that could run faster might be able to run to that variant, but the ones who were only close to the pace setter because the pace setters were dogging it are not going be able to run to an adjusted pace.

I hope that makes sense.....it did before I typed it.
I understand what you're saying. Something not discussed here but would be interesting is how we construct pace figures. I make Quirin style figures and use a proportional share of the variant to make mine. If my 6 furlong variant is -6, I use -4 for the 1/2. I know many may say that's crude or inadequate,but it works and has worked surprisingly well for many years. For me , they're just a guide, but most if not all concepts of pace are evident with these numbers. I do agree with Tom regarding an optimum pace number for a horse to run to achieve it's best final number. A little goading or urging to run quicker is beneficial for many horses. Personally, I've never seen the validity of making a separate pace variant. Too many times you're just measuring the rating ability [or lack of] of jockeys.

[raybo]

The thing to remember about variants and adjustments and what have you, you can do that with numbers but not with horses. Just because you can covert a sprint pace line to a route pace line doesn't mean every horse can make that conversion. What happens to a jock-slow pace when you make a variant? The horses that could run faster might be able to run to that variant, but the ones who were only close to the pace setter because the pace setters were dogging it are not going be able to run to an adjusted pace.

I hope that makes sense.....it did before I typed it.

I don't make the adjustments to go from sprint to route or vice versa, I adjust the fractional times for reasons of determining form and form patterns. I insist upon comparing adjusted times at similar distances. If I can't and I can't find other ways to determine a horse's capabilities in today's race, I don't wager.

As you know I'm a superfecta player, I don't have to wager on a lot of races to make sizable profits. I can just wait until things line up for me. Don't believe in forcing things.

[Bobzilla]

I understand what you're saying. Something not discussed here but would be interesting is how we construct pace figures. I make Quirin style figures and use a proportional share of the variant to make mine. If my 6 furlong variant is -6, I use -4 for the 1/2. I know many may say that's crude or inadequate,but it works and has worked surprisingly well for many years. For me , they're just a guide, but most if not all concepts of pace are evident with these numbers. I do agree with Tom regarding an optimum pace number for a horse to run to achieve it's best final number. A little goading or urging to run quicker is beneficial for many horses. Personally, I've never seen the validity of making a separate pace variant. Too many times you're just measuring the rating ability [or lack of] of jockeys.


I agree. There was a period of time where I was attemting to create pace variants but in the end I felt tactics, or more specifically, the manner in which the riders were playing the early chess match with one another had more of an effect on the pace than track speed. I also found it impossible to know for the sure the true wind speed/direction at the precise moment of the race as it's consistently fluctuating. I wish the official charts could record wind information at the exact time of the race and possibly other atmospheric info which may or may not be pertinent. I'm not all that familiar with Moss Pace figures but I believe he is using Beyer's speed variants as part of his calculations. For my own purposes getting a reasonably good read on the final times and arriving at a corresponding speed variant that I'm comfortable with is enough information to help guage the earlier fractions.

I've long felt that there are different types of closers. I'm often seeing horses with good/improving form who possess a good turn of foot absolutely explode from the back of the pack off of slow early fractions. I think this dynamic fits the comfort zone of some closers rather than that of putting in a sustained run with the hopes of reeling in tiring front runners. With turf/synthetic races I'm more interested in current form and if the horse is well placed than I am in pace, although I don't totally ignore pace, and I'm especially more interested in the riders and if they're the ones who are apt to keep their mounts in their comfort zones and successfully sense the right time to catch the winning wave. In turf races I much prefer the instincts of Dominguez, Lezcano and Maragh to those of Prado and Velazquez.

Another thing I see is too many riders get an uncontested lead and wait WAY too long before asking for serious run, as they assume that their mount will be able to out accellerate the oncoming wave once it's close to catching up. The oncoming wave often had too much time to comfortably build up good accelleration, a move that often times overwhelms the leader who was asked to run too late. That good accelleration of the closers might have been dulled to some degree if they had had to work a little to stay within reasonable striking distance during the middle to late stages and having been a little discouraged in the process.

[cj]

There is definitely value in making a separate pace variant. The problem many have is that they use the pace of the leader. While not perfect, using the pace of the winner yields much better results.

[illinoisbred]

There is definitely value in making a separate pace variant. The problem many have is that they use the pace of the leader. While not perfect, using the pace of the winner yields much better results.
Interesting approach. I may look at AP's last 3 years along your guideline in the off-season.

[gm10]

They are all involved in the equations. As of now, only the variable B/L and fractional variants calculated for adjusting the raw fractions and final times are all that can be measured quantitatively, regarding the "predictive improvement" you mention, and that is measured by my hit rate and ROI.

Concerning the other factors you mentioned, I am letting the variant take care of all that for me. I'm not attempting to separate those individual factors for analysis. I'm 60 years old and don't feel the drive to open new worlds now, as I once did. I'm more of a mind to help those who ask to do what I know works, in general, of course. I'm not of the mind to give away the whole farm.

What I have seen, in the form of improved hit rate and subsequent improved ROI, tells me that it works. I'm of the opinion that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Of course I still play with things and look for better ways of doing them, but, after over 30 years of that I'm reaching the point of being satisfied that my approach is good enough. Sure things change in horse racing and I'll still have to make some adjustments for that but that is limited by my approach and methodology.

Nice answer :-)

I used to treat B/L in the same way for every surface/distance. Of course, I always knew that 2l in a 5F claiming race on the turf is not the same as 2l in the Kentucky Derby.
After a bit of research, I've decided to apply a surface/distance factor to B/L before I use them in the rest of the calculations.

I suppose the next step will be to come up with a fractional variant :-)

[illinoisbred]

[/b]


I agree. There was a period of time where I was attemting to create pace variants but in the end I felt tactics, or more specifically, the manner in which the riders were playing the early chess match with one another had more of an effect on the pace than track speed. I also found it impossible to know for the sure the true wind speed/direction at the precise moment of the race as it's consistently fluctuating. I wish the official charts could record wind information at the exact time of the race and possibly other atmospheric info which may or may not be pertinent. I'm not all that familiar with Moss Pace figures but I believe he is using Beyer's speed variants as part of his calculations. For my own purposes getting a reasonably good read on the final times and arriving at a corresponding speed variant that I'm comfortable with is enough information to help guage the earlier fractions.

I've long felt that there are different types of closers. I'm often seeing horses with good/improving form who possess a good turn of foot absolutely explode from the back of the pack off of slow early fractions. I think this dynamic fits the comfort zone of some closers rather than that of putting in a sustained run with the hopes of reeling in tiring front runners. With turf/synthetic races I'm more interested in current form and if the horse is well placed than I am in pace, although I don't totally ignore pace, and I'm especially more interested in the riders and if they're the ones who are apt to keep their mounts in their comfort zones and successfully sense the right time to catch the winning wave. In turf races I much prefer the instincts of Dominguez, Lezcano and Maragh to those of Prado and Velazquez.

Another thing I see is too many riders get an uncontested lead and wait WAY too long before asking for serious run, as they assume that their mount will be able to out accellerate the oncoming wave once it's close to catching up. The oncoming wave often had too much time to comfortably build up good accelleration, a move that often times overwhelms the leader who was asked to run too late. That good accelleration of the closers might have been dulled to some degree if they had had to work a little to stay within reasonable striking distance during the middle to late stages and having been a little discouraged in the process.
I used to make wind adjustments back when the Chicago Tribune gave hourly wind speeds and their direction at both O'hare and Midway airports. AP is less than 10 miles from O'hare and Hawthorne is just north of Midway. It helps that both track's backstretches run pretty much east-west. I used to adjust 1 length for every 10 mph wind speed [1 length quicker for east 10 mph winds and vice versa]. It worked pretty good, however it didn't capture gusts that can come up and be an exceptional factor in 1 race. I remember 1 time being at AP on a calm day when a weather front came through and they ran a 1-turn mile race with an approx. 40 mph westerly wind behind them.They ran about 44 3/5 and 1:09 4/5 for the fractions. I do agree with you, it would be nice to have the wind speed and direction in the chart.

[Cratos]

There is definitely value in making a separate pace variant. The problem many have is that they use the pace of the leader. While not perfect, using the pace of the winner yields much better results.

Aren’t the two (pace of the leader and pace of the winner) different except when the winner is the leader for the entire race?

Pace by definition in the race is the rate of movement that a horse is making during the race and the final time of a horse can be formulated as final time = f(pace). Also a curve can be constructed between the leader’s pace and the winner’s pace with the difference being the amount of kinetic energy being exerted by the leader at a given point in time during the race. However, this curve difference only occurs when the winner is not the leader throughout the race.

[cj]

Of course, I hope that silly question is rhetorical.

When trying to create pace variants, aren't you just trying to find if the track was faster in a certain portion than another? This can be cause for a multitude of reasons, including a horse's ability, jockey tactics, wind, sun and/or shade, etc. There is no way to ever measure everything with the information we have to get a perfect variant.

However, without question, it is certainly a better starting point to use the pace time of the winner as he most likely ran the most efficient race.

Let us say I determine the track, overall, is 3 lengths faster than normal at 6f. I have my speed figure variant. Now, I want to find out if the 4f call was responsible for 2/3rds of that, as would happen if the track was completely uniform. I check the 6f races for the day and I find that at the pace call, the track was 8 fast, 6 fast, 4 fast, 3 fast, and 1 slow. That averages out to the track being 5 lengths fast at the pace call, indicating some portion was fast, and the stretch very slow. That is how many people determine the pace variant.

However, I might find the following. The winners' pace times were 3 fast, 3 fast, 2 fast, 3 fast and 1 slow. If I base my variant on that, I find the track was indeed uniform and the pace setters just went way too fast in a couple races.

Now, this is very basic and I go into a lot more detail when I make my variants, considering class of the race, the age of the horses, extremely slow, tactical races, etc. But the basic premise is the winner probably ran the most efficient race. It works a lot better than basing a the variant on the leader.

One thing I forgot to mention, if you use this method, your pars should be based on the winner's pace times as well.

[Cratos]

Of course, I hope that silly question is rhetorical.

When trying to create pace variants, aren't you just trying to find if the track was faster in a certain portion than another? This can be cause for a multitude of reasons, including a horse's ability, jockey tactics, wind, sun and/or shade, etc. There is no way to ever measure everything with the information we have to get a perfect variant.

However, without question, it is certainly a better starting point to use the pace time of the winner as he most likely ran the most efficient race.

Let us say I determine the track, overall, is 3 lengths faster than normal at 6f. I have my speed figure variant. Now, I want to find out if the 4f call was responsible for 2/3rds of that, as would happen if the track was completely uniform. I check the 6f races for the day and I find that at the pace call, the track was 8 fast, 6 fast, 4 fast, 3 fast, and 1 slow. That averages out to the track being 5 lengths fast at the pace call, indicating some portion was fast, and the stretch very slow. That is how many people determine the pace variant.

However, I might find the following. The winners' pace times were 3 fast, 3 fast, 2 fast, 3 fast and 1 slow. If I base my variant on that, I find the track was indeed uniform and the pace setters just went way too fast in a couple races.

Now, this is very basic and I go into a lot more detail when I make my variants, considering class of the race, the age of the horses, extremely slow, tactical races, etc. But the basic premise is the winner probably ran the most efficient race. It works a lot better than basing a the variant on the leader.

One thing I forgot to mention, if you use this method, your pars should be based on the winner's pace times as well.

I don’t know what you are inferring too with the “silly question” retort and will not address it.

However I do agree with your statement: “But the basic premise is the winner probably ran the most efficient race.”

[cj]

I meant this question:

Aren’t the two (pace of the leader and pace of the winner) different except when the winner is the leader for the entire race?

No offense intended, but that is obvious to anyone, isn't it?

[Robert Goren]

Although I have never taken the time to look at, I have often thought the pace of the "pack" maybe the way to go. Now just don't ask me how to define the "pack" as that is one thing I haven't figured out yet.

[illinoisbred]

Its all great food for thought. In CJ's example, his pace variant would come out to the proportional share- the approach I use. I understand every day won't be that tidy, but I'm interested in checking to see how often it does. Of course, I need to create winner's pace pars to research this. I'll be curious to see if this sheds a different light for synthetics. Thanks for sharing your insight-much appreciated.

[bisket]

There is definitely value in making a separate pace variant. The problem many have is that they use the pace of the leader. While not perfect, using the pace of the winner yields much better results.
now your talking my kinda language!!!

[bisket]

even in dirt racing pace doesn't effect EVERY RUNNER!!!

[bisket]

Although I have never taken the time to look at, I have often thought the pace of the "pack" maybe the way to go. Now just don't ask me how to define the "pack" as that is one thing I haven't figured out yet.
for certain races thats the way to go. case in point. not one jockey in this years derby adjusted their ride because regal ransom was running in front. why? because they all new he was cheap speed. pay more attention to the herds time. now on the other end of the spectrum. every jock in the race is adjusting what they are doing when rachel is running in front.

[Cratos]

I meant this question:
No offense intended, but that is obvious to anyone, isn't it?

No, I don’t believe it is obvious at all because in any race the pace set by the leader become the hypothetical “timing clock” in the race and the pace set by the winner is what you correctly stated which was the most “the most efficient race.” Sometimes the two are the same.

I will always believe that Affirmed “pace clock” was just too efficient for Alydar and not unless something could be changed (and it couldn’t) with Alydar, he would typically run second to Affirmed.

History will show that when there isn’t a “clock” (a pacesetter) in the race, some trainers would enter a “rabbit” which would legitimize the pace of the race and give that trainer’s horse a better opportunity to run its most efficient race.

[Tom]

There is always a pace setter in every race.

[Cratos]

There is always a pace setter in every race.

Yes you are correct, there is always a pacesetter in any race, but not always to the style of every horse in the race and that is why a “rabbit” is sometimes needed

[Robert Goren]

Is a horse with say an 8 length lead really effecting the race much? Or is it the 2nd running horse just barely in front of field? If you are making a pace figure that means something whose time would you use?

[Show Me the Wire]

Is a horse with say an 8 length lead really effecting the race much? Or is it the 2nd running horse just barely in front of field? If you are making a pace figure that means something whose time would you use?

The winner and the second place finisher if the second horse is within one length of the winner.

[senortout]

I don't know if this will be relevant to the thread but I need members opinions on the proper use of this past performance tidbit....I think it is one of the latest additions to Bris pps

senortout

[fmolf]

I don't know if this will be relevant to the thread but I need members opinions on the proper use of this past performance tidbit....I think it is one of the latest additions to Bris pps

senortout
I do use those numbers as a general guide as to which horsesmay have been used up by a fast pace.I note the pace of that race and try to figure the pace of todays race in comparison.I also look for front runners whose lp stayed the same into a faster than normal pace....or frontrunners who all of a sudden have lower ep's but a significantly higher lp indicating a conditioning race for the serious try today!

[Bill Cullen]

If one had to make a generalization about pace on the poly track at Santa Anita vesus the old Santa Anita dirt oval, would one say that the old speed bias on the dirt has been reversed on the poly surface, or is it that the winners are just more evenly distributed across the spectrum of E, EP, P, and S type of runners on the synthetic track?

Good hunting in the Breeder's Cup!

Bill C

[46zilzal]

Poly is not Pro-ride.
They are not the same

[Tom]

It's like Kleenex.......or Jell-O is all gelatin. the lexicon has added poly to mean all artificial surfaces because it was called that so much.

[CBedo]

It's like Kleenex.......or Jell-O is all gelatin. the lexicon has added poly to mean all artificial surfaces because it was called that so much.like escalator and elevator. I believe they were company names at one point.