Importance of the 3/4 mile call

[jeebus1083]

Why do I claim that the 3/4 mile call is the most important call in harness racing?

Because the race BEFORE the 3/4 mile mark has set the final 1/4 mile up. Horses have been used hard to gain position, drivers have tipped to the rim and have made their challenges, horses trapped inside have been hopelessly shuffled to the rear, rendering their chances moot. By the time the race has gone 3/4's of a mile, the field SHOULD have sorted themselves out for what I term, the "end game" section of the race. That is, most horses will be on or near (within 2 lengths of the lead) for the first time at 3/4s and after. The horses that are in contention will do the real running in the final quarter-mile, while the horses that are burned up or did the shuffle may run a decent final quarter, but are doing so without much pressure.

Thoughts?

[Hanover1]

Reasonable in theory. Not seen in all races.

[wilderness]

call in harness racing?

horses that are in contention will do the real running in the final quarter-mile,

It's been my experience that if they "run" they get disqualified ;)

Perhaps you meant "closing"?

[wilderness]

The final quarter (and the ability of horses to close) is very dependent upon the early-pace and early-fractions of the race.

[harness2008]

It's a known fact that all things being equal, the eventual winner at a majority of racetracks will be in contention at the 3/4 mark. Anyone who tracks winners will notice this immediately. However the key is in locating those horses before the race via the past performances that are the ones that will be in contention at that mark, not necessarily just looking at their ability timewise in the PP's to the 3/4 pole.

I have stated in previous posts that I don't believe that there is a static most important call or calls in harness racing such as last quarter, first quarter, first half, back 3/4's. Every run is run differently and pace scenarios vary race to race.

I believe that any of the individual fractions or halves can be given that label if the particular fraction(s) in a given race is run faster than average compared to the final time of the race. Any horse running into the teeth of those fast fractions especially when on the outside has run better than their final time indicates.

We had a whole discussion about speed and pace in harness racing back in the day and the thread can be culled from the archives here.

[jeebus1083]

It's a known fact that all things being equal, the eventual winner at a majority of racetracks will be in contention at the 3/4 mark. Anyone who tracks winners will notice this immediately. However the key is in locating those horses before the race via the past performances that are the ones that will be in contention at that mark, not necessarily just looking at their ability timewise in the PP's to the 3/4 pole.

The whole premise behind this stems from my experience as a student of Dave Schwartz's "NewPace" methodology. In his seminar, Dave shoots the "sacred cow" that the 2nd call (EP, turn-time) is the most important in racing. In 3 hours, he not only shows through his intense research that the 2nd call is not the most important call, but proves that it is in actuality, the LEAST important call, and that most of the "price" horses that you see come out of the woodword, come into contention, or win the race, AFTER this call.

The first thing I learned when I applied his method to harness, should have been obvious to me immediately, but it wasn't. The "flow" of a harness race is completely different than a thoroughbred race. In most cases, it's more of a tactical game than a speed game. This very "truth" explained why my "early" horses were not really early, and why this method was faring so poorly compared to thoroughbred racing. Perplexed, I took a step back, and studied the PPs of several races. After some intense scrutiny, I had my Oprah "A Ha!" moment, again, something that should have hit me long before:

The outcome of most races has usually been decided by the time the field hits the 3/4 mile mark.

Coming to this realization, I began to refine Dave's method. I can report that the refinements are quite effective and highly predictive in finding the "win" contenders of a race. However, they are quite effective and highly predictive in finding CHALK "win" contenders, which was not my overall goal. I am still working on further refining this method, and although I am pretty close to where I would like it, it is still far off.

(For those interested in "NewPace", I encourge you to do a search in the PA forums, or simply go to Dave's website).

[harness2008]

I agree with you that it appears that by the time the horses have hit the 3/4 mile mark, the contenders and the pre-tenders have sorted themselves out and the winner in a high majority of races will be the horse that has reached a contending position at this point of the race. The empirical evidence suggests this also but I'm not completely sold on its validity in handicapping a harness race.

When you think about it, isn't this just a function of the point of call compared to the distance of the race? What I mean by this is that the closer that the field is to the finish line, the higher win% horses in contention will naturally have. It would make sense then that if perhaps you would use the stretch call instead of the 3/4's, then the up close horses would have an even higher win%, only because they are closer to the finish line. If you used the 1/2 mile mark, then the win% would naturally be lower since there is more distance left in the race.

The idea of the importance of being up close at the pace call I believe has merits in thoroughbred racing only because of the way that races are run. Harness races are run in a completely different manner unlike the thoroughbreds who run as fast as they can for as long as they can. Sprints are run in such a manner that in 99.9% of all races the actual running time splits will be increasingly slower as the race progresses. Route races follow this pattern also. As we all know harness racing has a completely different pattern and any fraction can be the fastest in a race.

I am not in any way shooting holes in your 3/4 theory however it is my contention that locating a fast quarter or quarters regardless of where it was run during a race and how a particular horse ran against those fast fractions is a far more important factor. Having a horse able to sustain fast pace segments in prior races allows the driver to judge the flow of a race and enables him to adapt the horses running style to what is happening in the race, whether that means to be in contention at the 3/4 mark if the pace is average or slow, or hang off of the pace and be technically out of contention at the 3/4 mark because the pace may be too hot.

In either event he makes the right choice because if he's in contention at the 3/4 mark in an average or slow pace, his previous pace capabilities allow him to kick away in the last quarter. If he is lagging off of a hot pace at the 3/4, he can use his pace capabilities in a last fraction which will be on the slowish side.

From a numbers standpoint for each quarter, who would be considered the best horse? Now if we're focusing on speed to the 3/4 mark, Horse A gets the nod but is he really the best of these two?

Horse A - 80 80 80 80 SR 80
Horse B - 70 90 70 90 SR 80

Even though both horses recorded the same final time speed ratings, Horse B gets the nod because he extended himself beyond what Horse A did in 2 different fractions yet still recorded the same final time speed rating as his counterpart. In this case it wouldn't matter that the horses appeared equal. Somewhere during the running of the race, Horse B with his superior internal speed would have put away Horse A who can run only average quarters.

[jeebus1083]

I don't disagree with you, and you definitely have a point about the stretch call. I will have to look into that somewhat.

One thing that Dave introduced, was a way to "sort" out the fast and slow horses with "90% certainty" level. Depending on the number of running lines, one would use the 3rd best time and the 4th worst time (if 9-10 lines) to get an idea of a horse's capability. It is a powerful concept that I have applied toward the use of the final quarter times. However, I find that it's only powerful when using a lot of running lines (in other words, using condensed PPs dilute its power).

It has "potential" as a value component, because some people use final quarter time incorrectly, but I'm still trying to improve its implementation.

[Hanover1]

I believe it was Kash that posted interviews with some of todays top drivers. They were all asked how they read a program proir to start, in order to develop a race strategy. They were also asked what they look for in a horses final 1/4, both on paper, and during the race that tells them something for future reference i.e. on the improve vs peaked/tailing off. Most all had very similar observations, and this is invaluable information for bettors.
If you could do this again Kash?