Which Race Do You Use!

[Sericm]

If you are speed handicapping how many races do you go back to pick your prime contenders?

In the Racing Times years ago there was an article to use the best of the last two Beyers.

Which is more important recency or success at the distance no matter how far back it in the past performances the race took place?

[Overlay]

Data that I'm familiar with found the best results in terms of the spread and flow of top-to-bottom field rankings by using an average of the Beyers from those races out of the horse's last three starts (irrespective of dates or distances) that were run on the same surface as today's race. If only one or two of the three races were run on today's surface, use just those one or two races to calculate the average. However, if none of the three were on today's surface, use all three. If the horse has started less than three times, calculate the average based on the race or races that were run on today's surface. If none were on today's surface, use all of the available one or two races for the average.

[thaskalos]

If you are speed handicapping how many races do you go back to pick your prime contenders?

In the Racing Times years ago there was an article to use the best of the last two Beyers.

Which is more important recency or success at the distance no matter how far back it in the past performances the race took place?I go back three races...assuming that they are comparable to today's, as far as surface, approximate class and approximate distance is concerned.

I think that the biggest misconception in the game today, is the notion of always using the horse's last race...unless there is a valid reason to ignore it. IMO, a bad last race should be readily excused, if the horse's prior race is solid...unless there are additional reasons to doubt the horse's current ability (layoffs, steep class drops, negative jockey switches, etc.)

When evaluating a horse from its 3rd race back...I like to average that speed figure with another figure from the horse's 5 most recent races, for the sake of consistency.

As far as success at the distance is concerned...a recent sharp race at today's approximate distance is always better than having to go far back in the PPs for one.

One thing to remember however, is that, even for a speed handicapper, speed figures are only one piece of the puzzle...and they should not be exclusively relied upon, for the final selections.

[Overlay]

One thing to remember however, is that, even for a speed handicapper, speed figures are only one piece of the puzzle...and they should not be exclusively relied upon, for the final selections.

I second that comment. In my post above, I recommended ignoring race dates or distances strictly with regard to the speed factor in isolation, but the distance of today's race and the horse's current condition also need to be given their proper weight as separate elements in the handicapping process.

[Robert Goren]

Generally the best one in last 2 or 3. I have gone back as far as 5 when there is a problem with the more recent races. I toss off track races, Turf and Poly races when running on dirt and vice versa.

[classhandicapper]

I look at multiple races, but I don't have a neat formula for which race to use.

I look at the horse's overall record and try to understand if its form is improving or deteriorating, how rapidly, and try to create a kind of moving average in my head. But within that there are all sorts of distance, surface and other complications that in many cases I can't answer well.

[markgoldie]

If you are speed handicapping how many races do you go back to pick your prime contenders?

In the Racing Times years ago there was an article to use the best of the last two Beyers.

Which is more important recency or success at the distance no matter how far back it in the past performances the race took place?
Most recent line is always the most significant since it is the latest piece of information we have about the condition of the horse. But any given race can produce an excusable number.

So, for example, if you have a sequence like the following: 72, 85, 83, what do we make of the poor last effort? The answer is that the probability is skewed toward a repeat of the 72, but the very real possibility exists that the horse will return to the low-mid 80's in the curent event. When you see such fluctuations among a number of horses in the race (a situation which is more normal than abnormal), you have a classic dilemma.

How you handle such things depends a great deal on what type of player you are. If you play complex verticals or horizontals, you might embrace these unknowns as a key to getting some price value. On the other hand, if you are a win bettor, you would like a bit more consistency to hang your hat on. Therefore, when playing to win, you ideally would like to see consistency in numbers such that a latest number is supported by recent past efforts. This takes some, but not all, guesswork out of what the horse will produce in the instant case.

When I look at a grid of numbers, I generally concentrate on the last two lines. However, vestigal large numbers 3 and 4 races back on seeming non-contenders always present a threat to the instant assessment.

As far as depending on vestigal numbers produced at today's distance and surface, I am inclined to rely on the recent numbers as more accurate. Situationally, a one-time try on the grass or a one-time try at an unusual distance may be more easily dismissed. But this falls far short of certainty. For ex., in the sequence 62T, 73, 76, it's tempting to toss the 62 turf number when the animal returns to dirt. But suppose the horse is not "bothered" by turf and the 62 represents a sudden loss of form. Depending on a return to the low-mid 70's is very risky. Same holds true with distance changes.

For the purpose of this discussion I am omitting all the many mitigating circumstances that may contribute to abnormal or out-of-character numbers, such as trainer, jockey, equipment, medication, and/or venue changes, as well as trouble lines and frequency issues.

But on the basis of number fluctuations alone, these are vagueries that make handicapping a continuing challenge.

[GaryG]

When you "use" other than a horse's most recent line you must consider the effect of the subsequent races. For instance a sprinter was tried in a route at a higher level last out. Could very well further his conditioning.

[Dave Schwartz]

I use a completely different approach.

Although it is more complicated than this, the simple version is I use the tight finishes first.

That is, I will prefer a race that is (say) 2nd-hd from 8 races back to 1st-5len in the last race.


My reasoning is that I want to know how good the horse is when he is in shape, well-suited for the race, etc. Form cycle and these other issues are a function of the other handicapping. In other words, decide who the real contenders are THEN select the pacelines for those contenders.

This approach works because when horses win they generally run back to a previous very good race. It has the added benefit of increasing prices.


Dave

[46zilzal]

If you are speed handicapping how many races do you go back to pick your prime contenders?


I never use a single line. The multiple possibilities of any race require you to evaluate how the horse did multiple times. not just once.

FORM cycles will help differentiate the nearest ones.

Most turf horses, like Pizzolla enlightened me to in Handicapping Magic, have far less distinct form cycles and you should look at all their turf contests...then find the best two to evaluate (that is unless they have completely gone off form).

[Jay Trotter]

I've noticed that quite regularly I'll see a horse's number rise significantly on an off track.

Coming into the off race the numbers might be 67 - 69 - 65 and then an 81 (BRIS) on the "off track". Obviously, the 81 is an inflated number due to the surface change and I'll toss the number.

What I would like to know is why that number would inflate -- whether it be Beyer or Bris -- based on the off track? I thought the methods for achieving these numbers were supposed to level things out so that you could in fact compare efforts from any give day to another.

Trotter:ThmbUp:

Caveat -- I havn't done a study but have noticed this antidotely

[skate]

I'll go back 1 race, if a margin (2nd C/late pace) is not up to or close to the second PP back, ill look at the second race back.


W.O. and the trainer/Jock will let me decide if i need the second race back.

the odds play a Big part, always.

[PhantomOnTour]

I look at every race in a horses' pps and rate 'em all unless beaten badly. It helps define whether a horse is improving or declining....as Zilly said, no fig stands alone.

[raybo]

Whew!

In my personal approach to paceline selection, not that of AllData's auto-paceline selection method, I could write a short book. But, in the interest of brevity, I will just say that my first step, and primary interest, is in determining each horse's current condition. I start with a horse's most distant paceline, concentrating on track, surface, distance, segmental velocities, positions and beaten lengths, trainer changes and significant jockey changes, layoffs, and comments. I try to determine, in each of the pacelines, if the horse performed well, if not, where was he/she lacking, then, did the trainer work on that phase of the horse's condition before the next paceline or during the next paceline? If the trainer did what he should have done to improve the horse's condition, did it work and how much did it improve? Then I move up one paceline and repeat the process, until I have analyzed all of it's pacelines.

This gives me a pretty good idea of the condition the horse was in, in that most recent race. Now, if the horse was not in top form in that race, did the trainer do what needed to be done, via rest, workouts, change of track, surface, or distance, or class today, etc., to enable the horse to be competitive in today's race?

Once I have gone through all the horses in the race, then I start looking for a paceline that most closely approximates today's current condition, track, surface, distance, etc., and that's the paceline I use.

This is a simplification, of course, but that's the general process I use for paceline selection.

[Learned Hand35]

Data that I'm familiar with found the best results in terms of the spread and flow of top-to-bottom field rankings by using an average of the Beyers from those races out of the horse's last three starts (irrespective of dates or distances) that were run on the same surface as today's race.

Can you elaborate? I use the last five and was curious as to what your numbers show.

When I first started handicapping, I seemed to get good results with five. I tinkered with others, but to be honest I never kept real data and my "results" were from an inappropriate sample size.

[Overlay]

Can you elaborate? I use the last five and was curious as to what your numbers show.

When I first started handicapping, I seemed to get good results with five. I tinkered with others, but to be honest I never kept real data and my "results" were from an inappropriate sample size.

Impact values and winning percentages in my data by rank for the speed-figure average calculated as I described earlier were:

1 2.37 / 27.14
2 1.60 / 18.31
3 1.25 / 14.29
Front Half (but not in Top Three) .79 / 9.06
Rear Half .57 / 6.52

The above were values for the overall sample, and showed some variance when broken out by factors such as the distance and surface of today's race, and the age of the horses. However, all twelve subcategories in the data showed similar smooth impact value flows, with no top value below 2.00, and no rear-half value above .61.

[Storm Cadet]

I never use a single line. The multiple possibilities of any race require you to evaluate how the horse did multiple times. not just once.

FORM cycles will help differentiate the nearest ones.

Most turf horses, like Pizzolla enlightened me to in Handicapping Magic, have far less distinct form cycles and you should look at all their turf contests...then find the best two to evaluate (that is unless they have completely gone off form).


I do the same...I look at form cycles and use Cary Fotias' theories of pace tops and others using CJ figs.

[Tom]

I do the same...I look at form cycles and use Cary Fotias' theories of pace tops and others using CJ figs.

Agree - I start at the bottom PP line and work up, looking the pace figures and the "sheets" column for PFs. I just wish I could have more pace lines!

[Learned Hand35]

Impact values and winning percentages in my data by rank for the speed-figure average calculated as I described earlier were:

1 2.37 / 27.14
2 1.60 / 18.31
3 1.25 / 14.29
Front Half (but not in Top Three) .79 / 9.06
Rear Half .57 / 6.52

The above were values for the overall sample, and showed some variance when broken out by factors such as the distance and surface of today's race, and the age of the horses. However, all twelve subcategories in the data showed similar smooth impact value flows, with no top value below 2.00, and no rear-half value above .61.

Thanks. Very interesting and much appreciated.

[Beachbabe]

Rarely use speed figures for turf races unless they're from a track like Saratoga that will card something like 4 or 5 turf races in a day.
Most tracks run possibly 2 grass races in a day & I think with that few specific events a real variant & thus a meaningful figure can't be determined.
In turf races at those tracks I tend to look more at class; post position; jockey and pace; etc.

[speculus]

................That is, I will prefer a race that is (say) 2nd-hd from 8 races back to 1st-5len in the last race...........
Dave
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[harness2008]

I use a completely different approach.

Although it is more complicated than this, the simple version is I use the tight finishes first.

That is, I will prefer a race that is (say) 2nd-hd from 8 races back to 1st-5len in the last race.


My reasoning is that I want to know how good the horse is when he is in shape, well-suited for the race, etc. Form cycle and these other issues are a function of the other handicapping. In other words, decide who the real contenders are THEN select the pacelines for those contenders.

This approach works because when horses win they generally run back to a previous very good race. It has the added benefit of increasing prices.


Dave

This sounds interesting Dave, can you elaborate further without divulging all of your secrets?

[Dave Schwartz]

This sounds interesting Dave, can you elaborate further without divulging all of your secrets?


Probably not, but I believe I have posted the complete system before on PA. It has about 8 rules based upon the idea of "prefer this" and if not then move to the next rule. When there are no tight finishes I always average pacelines.

But the most interesting thing is really in the selection of the factors (i.e. column to select from). And that must remain secret for now.

[harness2008]

I did some digging in the archives and ran across your thread concerning this topic. Not much feedback though concerning what you wrote which surprises me since I think this is a breath of fresh air concerning paceline selection.

For some reason I missed this thread back in the day to comment on it, but what your program creates concerning pacelines makes sense, I never looked at it this way before. Thanks for posting a little bit of it.

[Dave Schwartz]

You are welcome. I am working on some new stuff for this right now, actually.

Wait a couple of months.