Running styles

[Handiman]

I as some of you may know have added a pace module to my new software. I use data files and because of that, I have this question.

How much do you trust the data files running style designations, you know the old E E/P P S ? Or do you construct your own?

If you have experience with different data files which seem to be better in your opinion? This pace module has helped me tremendously, but I am a bit suspect of the designations.

Like to hear what you have to say.


Thanks
Handi:)

[cj]

I as some of you may know have added a pace module to my new software. I use data files and because of that, I have this question.

How much do you trust the data files running style designations, you know the old E E/P P S ? Or do you construct your own?

If you have experience with different data files which seem to be better in your opinion? This pace module has helped me tremendously, but I am a bit suspect of the designations.

Like to hear what you have to say.


Thanks
Handi:)

I make my own based on what I consider "good" performances. I've considered adding a second style for "recent" performances but haven't done it yet. The first one is a better indicator for finding horses that can or cannot contend today, while the second one might better help predict today's probable pace. The jury is out on that one though.

In any case, I don't think assigned running styles mean much when it comes to horses that are lightly raced no matter what method is doing the assigning.

[Handiman]

For 2yo they aren't old enough and experienced enough to really have a style yet. And that holds true for lightly raced 3yo too. But this is mainly the only time of the year you have to put up with 2yo. Lightly raced 3yo can pop up anytime.

I'm just trying to get a handle on whether or not I should even fool around with trying to make my own or if the data supplier designations are sufficient.

[Robert Fischer]

I make my own based on what I consider "good" performances.

sounds interesting...

a couple questions/ examples/ ideas come to mind:

- the horse that shows some variety and has most of his good performances with a certain style

- the slow horse who is called a P or S type because they get out-run every time, but really are should be considered an "NA" style

[Robert Goren]

When you start checking the PP of claiming horses, you will find out that when most of them win they go wire to wire. One of the biggest holes in anyone's betting(including mine) is thinking that a cheap horse has been sitting close to pace in its recents and finishing 2nd or 3rd, but whose only wins are wire to wire will somehow sit just off the pace today and win. In order to find a horse's winning style you must look at its wins.

[cj]

In order to find a horse's winning style you must look at its wins.

So how about when they lose by a neck, or a head, or a nose in a head bob?

To answer Handiman, as with most things, the ratings provided are good only if they accomplish what you want them to accomplish. Do you know how they are made? The good thing about doing them yourself is you know EXACTLY how they are made and what flaws/problems they may have.

[thaskalos]

I as some of you may know have added a pace module to my new software. I use data files and because of that, I have this question.

How much do you trust the data files running style designations, you know the old E E/P P S ? Or do you construct your own?

If you have experience with different data files which seem to be better in your opinion? This pace module has helped me tremendously, but I am a bit suspect of the designations.

Like to hear what you have to say.


Thanks
Handi:)
Why does a horseplayer need running-style designations at all? Don't accurate pace figures do an adequate job of filling the void?

I often read about how the Quirin speed points are able to better identify the leader at the 2 furlong marker than the corresponding pace figures do; so what?

They don't pay you for picking the leader at the first call...they pay you for the END of the race. And if your horse is lacking in the "pace figure" department, he doesn't figure to control the pace at the half mile (where it counts)...no matter what the Quirin speed points say.

In his zeal to better make sense of this game, the horseplayer has invented running-line labels like "Early, Early-presser, Presser, Sustained", etc...and the horses are expected to play along.

IMO...the game is much harder than that.

In sprint races (where these running-style designations are thought to be most effective) a lot depends on the pace of the race...and on the ability of the jockeys involved.

If the pace is soft, then the stretch runner will often be much closer to the front than normal in the early going...eventhough he figures to have a harder time making up ground down the stretch, when the pace figures to heat up.

If the pace is fast, then our "E" horse (with the 8 Quirin speed points) better have a pace figure edge at the half mile...otherwise, I don't fancy his chances for the win.

IMO...horses have more flexible running styles than we have been led to believe.

I often observe $2,500 claiming speed horses at Portland Meadows winning while coming from well back in a sprint race...because of a jockey's patient and competent ride.

If it can be done at Portland Meadows...how hard can it be?

[Greyfox]

Why does a horseplayer need running-style designations at all? Don't accurate pace figures do an adequate job of filling the void?



Lone Speed runners can be dangerous in any race and often lead to good payoffs if you can identify them.

[thaskalos]

Lone Speed runners can be dangerous in any race and often lead to good payoffs if you can identify them.
I know that Greyfox...

But I don't consider "lone speed" to be dangerous when the horse is running all out in order to lead at the 2 furlong marker...

"Lone speed" is truly dangerous when the horse is able to maintain it to the half mile...and neither Quirin speed points nor running-line designations can help us to determine that.

Only accurate pace figures can...

The question should not be..."who will lead at the 2 furlongs?"

The question should be..."who can control the early pace?"

It's not the same thing...

[cj]

Why does a horseplayer need running-style designations at all? Don't accurate pace figures do an adequate job of filling the void?

I give them because my customers want them. Since I did, I've tested them thoroughly both alone and in company with pace figures. I've found if I had to pick one, hands down it would be the figures...it isn't even close. However, the styles can add some benefit. Here is just one example, looking at every dirt race for winners over the last several years. The styles are those I assigned:

Runners ROI Style
233031 78.92% E
276149 76.94% EP
204083 75.02% P
136346 71.31% PS
58731 65.28% S
47389 59.08% NA
1312 58.90% 1st


There is a clear decline based on style only, and those are rating horses on their good races.

[Handiman]

Some very good points. But here are two examples from yesterday at Mountaineer.

In one race my Pace meter said there was a lone early horse in a mile, filled with a couple of e/p's and the rest S type. The early ran out to the lead and the 1/4 went in 24.4 and the 1/2 in about 48.3 The horse cruised to a win and paid a decent price.

Then another race the old meter said the 1 and 7 would enter a speed duel in a 6F and that the lone presser would sit off and come running by top of the stretch. Exactly what happened and paid around $11.40

Without my Pace Meter as I call it, I would have not known these two setups. Bad enough in the 2nd example I let doubts enter and didn't trust my reading of the meter and went with the 1 only to see the 5 blow by just like I thought would happen.

I am trying to get the best handle on this pace stuff as possible, cause it seems to fit in with my Pegasus software extremely well. A very nice addition but want to make sure I am really doing things right.

[Dave Schwartz]

Why does a horseplayer need running-style designations at all? Don't accurate pace figures do an adequate job of filling the void?

In my opinion, they do not.

[Handiman]

Dave I know from watching your videos if I remember right, on New Pace that running style is not all that important. And while Pegasus does present 4 contenders, I am looking right now at narrowing down to 1 horse to use with Bet Magic.

New Pace is not built for just one horse selection. So that being said, if not using New Pace, isn't how a race sets up important when in search of the single horse winner?

[classhandicapper]

One of the biggest holes in anyone's betting(including mine) is thinking that a cheap horse has been sitting close to pace in its recents and finishing 2nd or 3rd, but whose only wins are wire to wire will somehow sit just off the pace today and win. In order to find a horse's winning style you must look at its wins.

I tend to agree, but IMO enough of a drop in class seems to override some of those running style and sucker horse tendencies. They tend to mean more in competitive situations.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave I know from watching your videos if I remember right, on New Pace that running style is not all that important.

In fact, it is precisely about running style. If you mean "are quirin ES points" important, no. But it does, in fact, address running style.



Dave

[classhandicapper]

I think the biggest value in running style analysis is determining when a horse may run faster or slower early than it looks off a fractional analysis of its recent races.

Most horses only go as fast early as they have to in order to secure their desired position.

If you see a horse that makes the lead in almost all its races, there's a decent chance it's capable of running faster early than it has been lately if asked. It might wind up dueling with some other horse that looks like it's going to get a clear lead off a fractional analysis.

On the flip side, if you see a horse that rarely goes to the lead that ran some fast fractions last time from off the pace, it may sit off a much slower pace the next time.

[Handiman]

I understand Dave but what I was talking about is that you don't take into account quirin numbers nor the running style designations.

[cdax]

I don't trust the designations in data files and choose to assign them myself. In either case they give me a general idea of how the race will play out, but I can not use them solely to make a decision.

I have to view the fractional times to know for sure who will go to the front. If your program is going to look at two E horses and tells you there is a speed duel, both horses fractions need to be near identical, one of 'em running 24 and 48.4 won't be dueling with another running 22.3 and 47.3.

Just my approach.

Chris

Pegasus sounds interesting, would like to take it for a spin when it's ready. :ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

I know that Greyfox...

But I don't consider "lone speed" to be dangerous when the horse is running all out in order to lead at the 2 furlong marker...

"Lone speed" is truly dangerous when the horse is able to maintain it to the half mile...and neither Quirin speed points nor running-line designations can help us to determine that.

Only accurate pace figures can...

The question should not be..."who will lead at the 2 furlongs?"

The question should be..."who can control the early pace?"

It's not the same thing...

I agree. Who can control the early pace and who can overcome it are questions I always ask.
However, a lone early speed type among a bunch of pressers and closers can be dangerous. It will not likely have to go all out to take the front for 2 or 4 furlongs.
An examination of running styles can give you a rough idea as to who will vie for the lead and how much "pace pressure" they will be under to earn it.
If you have several similar early types who will go for each other's throats for the pace, then the chances of pressers and closers increase.
I also find the concept of running styles useful in vertical wagers.
There are also other occasions where the track itself is cut so that front runners die off half a furlong or more before the wire. In those instances, knowing which horses won't go for the lead is also important.

[Dave Schwartz]

I understand Dave but what I was talking about is that you don't take into account quirin numbers nor the running style designations.

I use a loose version of Jim Cramer's approach as a running style designator.

That is:


If a horse challenges for the lead at the 1st call he is an "E"
If a horse challenges for the lead for the 1st time at the 2nd call he is an "EP"
If a horse challenges for the lead for the 1st time at the 3rd call he is a "P"
If a horse challenges for the lead for the 1st time at the finish he is an "S"



IMHO, this has been Jim's greatest contribution to the game, although I am sure he would think it is his Projected Speed Rating. (PSR)


Dave

[Robert Goren]

So how about when they lose by a neck, or a head, or a nose in a head bob? You might look at those especially the head bobbers. As we all know, there a lot of horses out there who are constantly losing by a neck to a length when they don't get to the front early. If I see a horse who only wins have been wire to wire but lately has been a running really close up but not winning coming from second or third, I tend to think he has got to the lead today to win. Sometimes I am wrong and those kind of horses do win after sitting just off the pace, but almost never at decent odds. This is true with claimers. When you move up the class ladder to higher priced horses and stakes horses, it is a different story. I am not betting the 8k claimers whose previous two wins came running wire to wire no matter how many close seconds he has pressing the pace when I don't think he can get the lead. At least that what I keep telling myself until I find another one those horses who looks like he would have too fall down to lose. I have burned a lot of money on those sure fire horses over the years and will probably burn some more even though I know better.

[raybo]

Why does a horseplayer need running-style designations at all? Don't accurate pace figures do an adequate job of filling the void?

I often read about how the Quirin speed points are able to better identify the leader at the 2 furlong marker than the corresponding pace figures do; so what?

They don't pay you for picking the leader at the first call...they pay you for the END of the race. And if your horse is lacking in the "pace figure" department, he doesn't figure to control the pace at the half mile (where it counts)...no matter what the Quirin speed points say.

In his zeal to better make sense of this game, the horseplayer has invented running-line labels like "Early, Early-presser, Presser, Sustained", etc...and the horses are expected to play along.

IMO...the game is much harder than that.

In sprint races (where these running-style designations are thought to be most effective) a lot depends on the pace of the race...and on the ability of the jockeys involved.

If the pace is soft, then the stretch runner will often be much closer to the front than normal in the early going...eventhough he figures to have a harder time making up ground down the stretch, when the pace figures to heat up.

If the pace is fast, then our "E" horse (with the 8 Quirin speed points) better have a pace figure edge at the half mile...otherwise, I don't fancy his chances for the win.

IMO...horses have more flexible running styles than we have been led to believe.

I often observe $2,500 claiming speed horses at Portland Meadows winning while coming from well back in a sprint race...because of a jockey's patient and competent ride.

If it can be done at Portland Meadows...how hard can it be?

I use RS, and velocities to fine tune them. RS helps to see the possible pace matchups that lead to eliminations, while the velocities verify that those horses are really capable of being in the matchup. Often, 3 or 4 horses can be eliminated in FR1 due to the matchups and another or 2 can be eliminated in FR2. Once you have your eliminations, FR3 velocities tell the tale for the remaining horses.

[jasperson]

In my opinion, they do not.
I disagree. The 7th at prx saturday had the following contending horses.
1 E7
4 E8
2 E/P4
One thing I know about E7&E8 horses that they are going to the lead of die tryinto get there. Then looking at bris 4f pace figures the 1 had an 89 the 2 had a 91 and 4 had a 91. From just those number there is going to be a speed duel between the 1 and 4 and there was the 2 horse came along and picked up the win and paid $9.00. The 4 went off the favorite and finish third. The 1 died after the 4f. I wish all races were that easy to handicap, but I look for them all the time. E7&E8 horses are one dimensional speed horses that will not rate and if the jockey trys to rate them they pull the energy out of them and quit quicker. I like E/P type horses that have early pace figure that will give him an early lead and I know he is the type that will rate on the lead.

[Dave Schwartz]

Well, a one-race example. Guess that shows how wrong I am. LOL

Ever seen a horse with the big F1 number who had never been on the lead in his long-legged life? Rarely (in my experience) do they go to the front.

You call 'em your way and I'll call 'em mine.

[jasperson]

Well, a one-race example. Guess that shows how wrong I am. LOL

Ever seen a horse with the big F1 number who had never been on the lead in his long-legged life? Rarely (in my experience) do they go to the front.
n
You call 'em your way and I'll call 'em mine.
All I was trying to say is that I find them useful. I could arrive at the same conclusion from the pp,but I don't need to reinvent the wheel and it works for me. I just think they are useful in determining the shape of the race. I am sure there are others out there that don't need them and would rather invent the wheel another way.

[cj]

I would say for every time they accurately point out the race shape, there are at least three where they don't. The times they do it is usually factored into the odds anyway.

[Dave Schwartz]

All I was trying to say is that I find them useful. I could arrive at the same conclusion from the pp,but I don't need to reinvent the wheel and it works for me. I just think they are useful in determining the shape of the race. I am sure there are others out there that don't need them and would rather invent the wheel another way.

Now you're talking my kind of language!

I totally agree with you now.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I've always used the speed points and running styles since reading Quirin and Brohamer,as gauges of probable pace and in aiding defining a track profile.I think Randy Giles methods are the greatest contribution to probable pace.I use all of the above in conjunction with CJ's pace figures.Most pace scenarios or horses capable of outrunning an extreme pace scenario don't escape me by having access to all this input.I don't see the conflict others do.It all matters in my opinion.

[jasperson]

I would say for every time they accurately point out the race shape, there are at least three where they don't. The times they do it is usually factored into the odds anyway.
I agree a lot of time nothing predicts the shape of the race but we have to use something. Trying to predict the shape the race beats not trying at all.

[fmolf]

I agree a lot of time nothing predicts the shape of the race but we have to use something. Trying to predict the shape the race beats not trying at all.
It's all so subjective to the conditions of the race....who has layed close to the pace in better company dropping down today....has any horse been pressing the pace or in the lead in sprints and is stretching out today,weve all seen horses who can get to the front in routes and fade then never make the lead when running in sprints...in my opinion this is why track change/jockey switch or track change distance or surface switch is so important because it automatically changes a horses running style even if just slightly.I believe jockeys can influence a horses running style just bythe way the ration a horses speed out and their own assessment of the early pace of a race.

[raybo]

Running styles, alone, have little value, but when one analyzes velocities or pace figures, etc., in conjunction with running styles, the early race shape becomes much more apparent.

If one "sees" the early pace shape, and can see which horses are likely to battle one another, many eliminations can be made there. This is the value of running styles, IMO.

In the project I am creating now, the whole thing hinges on running styles, Quirin points and fractional velocities. You can see a "preview" of these factors' use, and worth, on my forum. Something different (http://alldataexcel.freeforums.org/something-different-t138.html)

[thaskalos]

The problem with running styles, as far as I am concerned, is that they often encourage "superficial" handicapping.

If a race features a few "Early" horses...a bias is often created in the player's mind against the front runners, and in favor of the pressers and the closers.

That is not thorough handicapping, in my opinion.

I don't advocate that the player should spend too much of his time splitting hairs trying to find the "speed" of the speed...but he should resist the temptation of looking at all the speed horses as if they are the same.

Most of these horses that we consider "need the lead" types can very easily win from a few lengths back...if the jockey is so disposed.

[Greyfox]

Most of these horses that we consider "need the lead" types can very easily win from a few lengths back...if the jockey is so disposed.

You raise some interesting points Thaskalos.
But whether it's superficial handicapping or not, I want the jockeys on my selections to have a rough idea of each horse's preferences with respect to the rest of the pack and optimal performance.
I think that the top jockey's read the racing form and have a general idea as to how their steeds perform best with respect to running style. (Maidens excepted.)

The lesser jockeys I'm not so sure about. I wonder sometimes if they've even bothered to look at the past performance lines.

[fmolf]

You raise some interesting points Thaskalos.
But whether it's superficial handicapping or not, I want the jockeys on my selections to have a rough idea of each horse's preferences with respect to the rest of the pack and optimal performance.
I think that the top jockey's read the racing form and have a general idea as to how their steeds perform best with respect to running style. (Maidens excepted.)

The lesser jockeys I'm not so sure about. I wonder sometimes if they've even bothered to look at the past performance lines.
horses do not have running styles.....the style they run in is taught to them by their trainers exercise riders and jockeys......the natural running style for all thoroughbreds is to run as fast as they can for as long as they can.this is why one never ever sees the front runner fighting the jock.....you do see horses even older horses fighting the reigns when asked to rate,for this reason pace handicapping is only a guesstimate at best as is too much reliance on speed figs or any other one dimensional handicapping method..

[Greyfox]

horses do not have running styles.....the style they run in is taught to them by their trainers exercise riders and jockeys......the natural running style for all thoroughbreds is to run as fast as they can for as long as they can.this is why one never ever sees the front runner fighting the jock.....you do see horses even older horses fighting the reigns when asked to rate,for this reason pace handicapping is only a guesstimate at best as is too much reliance on speed figs or any other one dimensional handicapping method..

Poppycock. Your comments suggest that you don't know much about kinetics, physiology, aerobics, fast and slow twitch muscles and genetics.
Simply stated, you can't train a pig to quack.

Horses have inherited wiring systems that go back millions of years.
Also they have a herd instinct.
Yes they can run fast. They have to learn to race.
Trainers can bring out the most of their racing ability, but they can't go against heredity very far.

[Robert Fischer]

Your comments suggest that you don't know much about kinetics, physiology, aerobics, fast and slow twitch muscles and genetics.
You used a lot of if buzzwords, and it was a cool intro, even if fmolf didn't suggest a knowledge of any of those factors or even suggest that those factors played a role in running styles, other than maybe an indirect reference to genetics.

Simply stated, you can't train a pig to quack.

Why was this stated? Are you and fmolf both trainers? Have you been in some long standing feud regarding training. This is an honest question, and if you are it would be fascinating, i haven't followed every post, but this came up out of the blue.

[Robert Fischer]

The problem with running styles, as far as I am concerned, is that they often encourage "superficial" handicapping.

If a race features a few "Early" horses...a bias is often created in the player's mind against the front runners, and in favor of the pressers and the closers.

That is not thorough handicapping, in my opinion.

I don't advocate that the player should spend too much of his time splitting hairs trying to find the "speed" of the speed...but he should resist the temptation of looking at all the speed horses as if they are the same.

Most of these horses that we consider "need the lead" types can very easily win from a few lengths back...if the jockey is so disposed.

good post.

-------------------------
RUNNING STYLES HORSE

When we study running styles, the first step is to watch a few races of that horse. Either he runs with the herd or he doesn't. (doesn't group contains BOLT and REFUSE;; herd group contains ALL THE REST) That is the first category.
With Herd?Yes/No

NOTE: new horses require a little common sense if the distance is a short-sprint. Do not confuse lack of speed-ability with running style.

in a short sprint, an untalented slow horse could be midpack with a "bolting running style". When he stretches out he will be considered a "need to lead".

In a short sprint, an untalented slow horse could be dead last with a "with the herd" runningstyle. When he stretches out he will run with the herd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRAINER INTENT
for example, a talented runner has been a disappointment. He is naturally a with-the-herd runner. Today he is stepping up in distance. There is a fair chance the trainer will instruct the jockey to put that with-the-herd runner on the lead and go for the win. With some trainers this is predictable.
Do these types of "artificial" running styles fare better or worse?? - it depends on the individual horse and how that particular race sets up.
Usually in the scenario given, he'll be competitive if he doesn't have problems - he's basically thought of as a classier animal, and if gets the distance, he'll be in great shape in that particular race to contend for the win.
As conditions get tougher these horses face challenges such as pace pressure from naturally quicker faster rivals...

beyond things like stamina and talent, some horses do well or poorly in traffic. That alone can be a reason to put the horse up on the pace, or occasional back. Post Position draw can even play a role in some races.

[Greyfox]

Why was this stated? Are you and fmolf both trainers? Have you been in some long standing feud regarding training. This is an honest question, and if you are it would be fascinating, i haven't followed every post, but this came up out of the blue.

The statement I made was "You can't teach a pig to quack."
Let me know when you can RobertF.


I made the comment to emphasize the importance of heredity and in response to fmolf's stated belief:
.....".the style they run in is taught to them by their trainers exercise riders and jockeys.....".

I believe that the style horses run is much more hard wired in than trainers and exercise riders can teach. Trainers simply try to maximize the potential of the animal they are working with.

(To my knowledge, I've never commented on any of fmolf's posts before.
We are not feuding.)

[Robert Fischer]

pretty good. :ThmbUp:

i "read" that one completely different :D

The statement I made was "You can't teach a pig to quack."

...

I believe that the style horses run is much more hard wired in than trainers and exercise riders can teach. Trainers simply try to maximize the potential of the animal they are working with.
..

[fmolf]

i suppose we just agree to disagree....i do not take anything personally nor will i be swayed from my beliefs of what i see on the racetrack especially from watching baby races....you always hear the phrase "when this horse learns to rate" the horses instincts tell him /her to run and run as fast as they can...so how can you say their running styles are inborn.Do they come from the sire or the dam?If you know the answer to this please pass it along.I see horses in the pp's win with different running styles all the time usually when a new trainer takes over or a new jockey rides...just my opinion, before somebody else jumps down my throat or worse, lops my head off!.... :D

[cj]

You can (occasionally) teach a horse to rate, but why are none ever taught to go to the front?

I'm trying to remember the last time I heard a trainer say, "My horse has a lot of talent, he just is too slow early. I'm going to teach him to lead."

[fmolf]

You can (occasionally) teach a horse to rate, but why are none ever taught to go to the front?

I'm trying to remember the last time I heard a trainer say, "My horse has a lot of talent, he just is too slow early. I'm going to teach him to lead."
my point exactly!...a horse needs to be taught to rate thus developing or learning to press or close.Most if not all two yr olds especially in spring/early summer will try to vie for the lead and then the slower horses will peel off as they lose speed to those with better stamina.

[Greyfox]

my point exactly!...a horse needs to be taught to rate thus developing or learning to press or close.Most if not all two yr olds especially in spring/early summer will try to vie for the lead and then the slower horses will peel off as they lose speed to those with better stamina.

I didn't mean to imply that horses are stupid.
I've seen milk wagon horses that knew every house on a route.
We agree some with a preference for front running can "learn to rate."
Having said that their overall running style will be determined more by heredity
than training.

[fmolf]

I didn't mean to imply that horses are stupid.
I've seen milk wagon horses that knew every house on a route.
We agree some with a preference for front running can "learn to rate."
Having said that their overall running style will be determined more by heredity
than training.
I am not sold on the fact that running styles are hereditary...i believe that horses that do not have the stamina and/or lung capacity to earn their keep on the front end will be taught to rate out of necessity.Horses that run well on the front end and win races that way early on in their careers are not tampered with by good successful horseman.they may be taught or learn to rate as they progress thru their conditions and meet horses just as fast as they are.

[Greyfox]

I am not sold on the fact that running styles are hereditary...i believe that horses that do not have the stamina and/or lung capacity to earn their keep on the front end will be taught to rate out of necessity.

Well you are entitled to that belief.

[Robert Fischer]

You can (occasionally) teach a horse to rate, but why are none ever taught to go to the front?

I'm trying to remember the last time I heard a trainer say, "My horse has a lot of talent, he just is too slow early. I'm going to teach him to lead."

some trainers will stretch a horse out for this reason.

At sprints the horse may want to run with the herd, but with enough of a stretch out, that same horse will be on the lead(sometimes a clear lead) with some urging.

[classhandicapper]

This is the way I see it.

Horses have different degrees of natural speed.

Horses have different levels of natural stamina.

Horses have different levels of stamina even when when their natural speed is similar (and vice versa).

I think it's the trainer's job to figure out how much of each the horse has, try to maximize it, and try to get the best results by placing it at a distance and running in a style that best matches it's abilities.

[Greyfox]

some trainers will stretch a horse out for this reason.

At sprints the horse may want to run with the herd, but with enough of a stretch out, that same horse will be on the lead(sometimes a clear lead) with some urging.

Of course the horse might be on the lead having been accustomed to running shorter distances against a faster pace. We know trainers can put some stamina into a horse by stretching them out. Similarly they can put some speed into a horse by having them go shorter.
The horse may be on the lead in his first couple of stretchouts, simply because when it leaves the gate it may not know how far it is being asked to run.
Many first time stretchouts fly and die.
Tell us where it runs after more than three stretchouts.

[Greyfox]

This is the way I see it.

Horses have different degrees of natural speed.

Horses have different levels of natural stamina.

Horses have different levels of stamina even when when their natural speed is similar (and vice versa).

I think it's the trainer's job to figure out how much of each the horse has, try to maximize it, and try to get the best results by placing it at a distance and running in a style that best matches it's abilities.

Precisely. :ThmbUp:

[fmolf]

Precisely. :ThmbUp:
so we are in agreement that running styles are learned...horses will naturally run as fast as they can until they tire

[fmolf]

This is the way I see it.

Horses have different degrees of natural speed.

Horses have different levels of natural stamina.

Horses have different levels of stamina even when when their natural speed is similar (and vice versa).

I think it's the trainer's job to figure out how much of each the horse has, try to maximize it, and try to get the best results by placing it at a distance and running in a style that best matches it's abilities.
this is precisely what makes some horseman better than others.....

[Robert Fischer]

Of course the horse might be on the lead having been accustomed to running shorter distances against a faster pace. We know trainers can put some stamina into a horse by stretching them out. Similarly they can put some speed into a horse by having them go shorter.
The horse may be on the lead in his first couple of stretchouts, simply because when it leaves the gate it may not know how far it is being asked to run.
Many first time stretchouts fly and die.
Tell us where it runs after more than three stretchouts.

exactly.

I'm not a big fan of trainers who feel the need to stretch horses out and put them on the lead when they feel like the horse isn't coming along the way they had hoped. I guess this satisfies the owner and the breeding operation who see it as wins and losses. I also don't like to see it in a horse, even if the ensuing impressive wire-wire win gets a big figure, as these grab-wins could have been used for an education if the horse was really that good. Lesser barns will do the stretch out pace-set thing as an education moreso than grabbing a high% win, but they generally are reaches, like a stretch-out to 9f turf where they are "sent" for as long as possible... Not the kind you see with once well-menat MSW types where the horse is simply asked to run evenly for their high% trainer along on the lead to pick up a win. Certain trainers revert to the stretch out pace-setter move quite a bit, often prematurely in a decent horse's development, and have success with it. However it is important to notice. In general it often falls in line with moves that a trainer makes (as well as some moves that happen by chance) where the horse shows improvement when some form of adversity is removed. When you see specific horses that have all their "good efforts" with some form of help, it tells you valuable possibilities about that horse. This is one of the more basic straightforward clues, but you will still see horses that fit this pattern credited with more early speed than they really have once they cutback or even face real speed at the same distance. On there first stretch outs you still see horses like this unnacounted for in the early pace scenarios. Usually the mistakes by the public are a result of not actually knowing the true nature of the horses. The trainer's moves can be valuable to those players who don't have time to see the inner workings, because the trainer will often show his true opinion of a horse(especially useful for a well thought of horse with big connections.).

some horseplayers will rate(or handicap) a horse down to very specific degrees! in multiple areas, and I've seen others who stick to classifying the most significant of differences into general "types" and have as much if not more success.

[fmolf]

exactly.

I'm not a big fan of trainers who feel the need to stretch horses out and put them on the lead when they feel like the horse isn't coming along the way they had hoped. I guess this satisfies the owner and the breeding operation who see it as wins and losses. I also don't like to see it in a horse, even if the ensuing impressive wire-wire win gets a big figure, as these grab-wins could have been used for an education if the horse was really that good. Lesser barns will do the stretch out pace-set thing as an education moreso than grabbing a high% win, but they generally are reaches, like a stretch-out to 9f turf where they are "sent" for as long as possible... Not the kind you see with once well-menat MSW types where the horse is simply asked to run evenly for their high% trainer along on the lead to pick up a win. Certain trainers revert to the stretch out pace-setter move quite a bit, often prematurely in a decent horse's development, and have success with it. However it is important to notice. In general it often falls in line with moves that a trainer makes (as well as some moves that happen by chance) where the horse shows improvement when some form of adversity is removed. When you see specific horses that have all their "good efforts" with some form of help, it tells you valuable possibilities about that horse. This is one of the more basic straightforward clues, but you will still see horses that fit this pattern credited with more early speed than they really have once they cutback or even face real speed at the same distance. On there first stretch outs you still see horses like this unnacounted for in the early pace scenarios. Usually the mistakes by the public are a result of not actually knowing the true nature of the horses. The trainer's moves can be valuable to those players who don't have time to see the inner workings, because the trainer will often show his true opinion of a horse(especially useful for a well thought of horse with big connections.).

some horseplayers will rate(or handicap) a horse down to very specific degrees! in multiple areas, and I've seen others who stick to classifying the most significant of differences into general "types" and have as much if not more success.
one of my favorite angles is a horse who shows early speed and fades in sprints...then runs in a route from one of the inner posts....he will often be able to get the lead and carry his speed to the finish due to the slower pace which naturally rations his energy....

[Greyfox]

so we are in agreement that running styles are learned...horses will naturally run as fast as they can until they tire

NO we are not in agreement on that.
The major variance of a horse's predominant style is inherited.
Training can have a minor influence.

[PhantomOnTour]

some trainers will stretch a horse out for this reason.

At sprints the horse may want to run with the herd, but with enough of a stretch out, that same horse will be on the lead(sometimes a clear lead) with some urging.
Which is why i love the drop-n-stretch angle...gimme a classy horse and put him on or near the lead.

[fmolf]

NO we are not in agreement on that.
The major variance of a horse's predominant style is inherited.
Training can have a minor influence.
I never heard anyone ever say that a horses offspring inherited his running style....they inherit their penchant for turf....or off tracks.... or longer races or sprints and perhaps some personality traits...Tell me who are some of the predominant early speed sires and then which sires predominantly sire closers?....i am interested in this information and how you have arrived at it.

[Greyfox]

I never heard anyone ever say that a horses offspring inherited his running style....they inherit their penchant for turf....or off tracks.... or longer races or sprints and perhaps some personality traits...Tell me who are some of the predominant early speed sires and then which sires predominantly sire closers?....i am interested in this information and how you have arrived at it.

Genetics is a "pig in a poke" as to which specific traits are inherited.
Breeders payed large money to breed their mares to stallions like Storm Cat.
That didn't mean that their offspring would inherit his specific traits, or his great grandmothers. Some would and some wouldn't. In general, his offspring had a higher ratio of Stakes winning horses than a lot of other sires. However,
he also produced a lot of duds who never made it to the races and if they did they didn't win. Secretariat, was never known to be a prolific sire in terms of the victories of his offspring.

Essentially, I go by what I see in each horse's performance on the track, knowing full well that how they run is contributed to by genetics (heart, lungs, muscles, skeletal).

The main complaint re: North American horses is that "speed is being bred into them at the expense of stamina." There's probably some truth to that, though it has taken multiple generations of offspring to bring that about.
You just can't go out and try that over one generation. As a result, if you tell me "so and so" is a "Speed Sire," I'll wait and see what happens on the track.

Don't forget, we are talking of millions of years of genetic wiring here.

[fmolf]

Genetics is a "pig in a poke" as to which specific traits are inherited.
Breeders payed large money to breed their mares to stallions like Storm Cat.
That didn't mean that their offspring would inherit his specific traits, or his great grandmothers. Some would and some wouldn't. In general, his offspring had a higher ratio of Stakes winning horses than a lot of other sires. However,
he also produced a lot of duds who never made it to the races and if they did they didn't win. Secretariat, was never known to be a prolific sire in terms of the victories of his offspring.

Essentially, I go by what I see in each horse's performance on the track, knowing full well that how they run is contributed to by genetics (heart, lungs, muscles, skeletal).

The main complaint re: North American horses is that "speed is being bred into them at the expense of stamina." There's probably some truth to that, though it has taken multiple generations of offspring to bring that about.
You just can't go out and try that over one generation. As a result, if you tell me "so and so" is a "Speed Sire," I'll wait and see what happens on the track.

Don't forget, we are talking of millions of years of genetic wiring here.
speed being bred to speed has nothing to do with individual running styles..if anything horses bred for speed exhibit their natural running style of going as fast as possible till they tire..those with larger lung capacity and bigger hearts can generally carry their speed further...horses are taught to ration their speed by the trainer, jockey and exercise riders,thats all i am saying.Being a closer is not an inborn trait that can be bred into a horse.

[Greyfox]

.Being a closer is not an inborn trait that can be bred into a horse.

If you think so.
Horses have different aerobic systems (lungs heart oxygen processing), different ratios of fast to slow twitch muscles, and different skeletal advantages. Those are the prime determinants as to whether or not a horse will be a closer.
They are not trained to "rate" back by trainers and "close" as you keep suggesting.
With respect to where an Alpha Male might prefer to run in the wild, you might want to check Desmond Morris (Horse Watching) and others.
Training against a horse's naturally inherited running instincts is a fools game.

To me, as a bettor, it doesn't really matter whether or not re: heredity vs. environment issues.....I just want jockeys on my selections to maximize the horse's potential by doing what that runner has been successful at before. When I see a jock put a wonderful closer on the lead, I know that it is doubtful that I am going to cash.

[fmolf]

who trains them to rate then... or to ration their energy as some may say...this is what makes horses rank, when their instincts take over and they fight the efforts of the jockey to slow them down. i understand about smaller horses and larger bigger horses and the sturdy body of routers versus the sleeker more agile body of the sprinter,I do not believe horses are born with the instincts to run from behind.. this in my opinion is a learned behavior.Yes horses have differing aerobic capacities and the ones with the bigger and better aerobic capacity which enables them to run faster for longer will generally run in better races....their are many horses if you look at their lifetime pp's whose running style has changed more than once in their racing careers.these changes are not caused by any inherit breeding but usually due to a change in jockeys or trainer or training methods or perhaps simply adding or removing blinkers.

[Tom]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=824900&highlight=energy+distribution#post824900

Post #215
..... their energy distribution dictates it. The HORSE runs and the rider just steers. You try and change the style of a 1200 pound animal


How soon we forget.

[Greyfox]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=824900&highlight=energy+distribution#post824900

Post #215


How soon we forget.

"The first two furlongs are to the horse" (Chris McCarrron- it may have been true with him, but when I see my selections jump started by others...tear up dem tickets.).
No forgetting here. I didn't check the link but that sounds very "Zilly."
There is more to racing than the jockey just steering.

(P.S. After what I posted above, I checked the link. It was "Zilly." I miss his :rolleyes: contributions. He was a snoot, but not totally out to lunch.
As an aside, I'm going too limit my replies to posters (Not you Tom) who continually are to lazy to capitalize sentences and do not seem to know when to end paragraphs. Their run on stuff is eye straining and would lead to headaches. )

[fmolf]

so horses that are e/p types or p/cl types i guess the horse decides how he should rate himself then.....no i believe the jockey decides how to use the horses tactical speed... i use running styles and pace as a general handicapping tool...they are not the be all or end all in handicapping because one can never really determine which style a jockey might employ with the horses who have inherited more than one running style!

[Greyfox]

so horses that are e/p types or p/cl types i guess the horse decides how he should rate himself then.....no i believe the jockey decides how to use the horses tactical speed... i use running styles and pace as a general handicapping tool...they are not the be all or end all in handicapping because one can never really determine which style a jockey might employ with the horses who have inherited more than one running style!

If horses learn from trainers, why didn't you learn in school to start your sentences with capitals and know when to make paragraphs??
At least the milk horse knew when to stop at the right houses.
Enough from me in this indulgence. All the best.
Greyfox

[fmolf]

If horses learn from trainers, why didn't you learn in school to start your sentences with capitals and know when to make paragraphs??
At least the milk horse knew when to stop at the right houses.
Enough from me in this indulgence. All the best.
Greyfox
I am not the typist that most are....capitals here just seem unnecessary...what does horses learning from trainers have to do with me learning my lessons in school,besides being a personal attack and an insult to me...i heard their were lots of big egos on this particular forum and i am finding this out now first hand...horses need to learn everything about racing... from how to rate... to how to break from the gate... how to race in tight quarters ....how to act in the paddock....goodnight

[PaceAdvantage]

I am not the typist that most are....capitals here just seem unnecessary...what does horses learning from trainers have to do with me learning my lessons in school,besides being a personal attack and an insult to me...i heard their were lots of big egos on this particular forum and i am finding this out now first hand...horses need to learn everything about racing... from how to rate... to how to break from the gate... how to race in tight quarters ....how to act in the paddock....goodnightIt really has nothing to do with typing. However, if you want others to read and understand what you are trying to say, it helps when the text is readable.

You've been here since 2009 and have many posts, and yet you're still coming out with that tired ol' "I heard this was a shit place..." :lol:

I urge you to apply for a refund of your registration fee ASAP... :lol: :lol:

[Robert Fischer]

Greyfox
Fmolf
and Tom :ThmbUp:

are all correct here.

And as long as their "debates" continue to run parallel and not perpendicular this can continue.

Reading along, I can understand the frustration of fmolf as "running styles" was sidetracked into an (informative) discussion on genetic traits and breeding to speed in particular.

I would like to hear more from greyfox about his studies into breeding and how they affect "early speed" running styles compared with closers.

Unfortunately one poster was criticized for capitalization, while the one doing the correcting was having difficulty with reading comprehension. Capitalization (specifically a lack of it) is a common trend across the internet, especially in the younger crowd who may have learned with, and currently be using a mobile device rather than a PC.

in 10 yrs mst psts wll b in lowr case

If my posting(see gaffe a few pages back) and others are any clue, - it won't matter because we won't be able to comprehend them anyway. :D

It seems logical that RUNNING STYLES are greatly influenced by conditioning. A response to stimuli. Training. Exposure to environmental stressors.
Genetic speed certainly has a role, even if it is an indirect role. - Fast horses (most likely bred for speed) are much more likely to be trained to sprint. These fast well bred horses are often sold at in-training sales where trainers who want juvenile champions, and ready-made sprinters are willing to pay top dollar. They are conditioned to sprint from the gate or at the very least the riders 1st urging. Then they are expected to use that speed to win sprints when they are purchased. Horses that are bred to run a route are not always brought up this way as yearlings...

[Tom]

The bottom line is does your definition of RS pay off at the windows for your use of them?

[fmolf]

I will certainly take my time while typing now.This is the first time my literary skills have ever been questioned. I will certainly dot every I and cross every T from now on.

Mr. Fischer a very well written post.

Tom I only use running styles as general guide,in conjunction with pace and final speed.Trainer intent and trainer maneuvering also play a part in how I handicap.

Robert I am not a young person typing on an Iphone,i do not even have a cellphone.

I hope i have paragraphed properly!

[classhandicapper]

I'm going to make one comment and then hopefully escape from this thread.

I've been reading a lot of debates on different forums these days (basketball strike, Euro crisis etc..). There seems to be a common denominator to the ones that degenerate a little. Sometimes people think in terms of black and white even though the reality may be gray.

I don't mean that to be insulting to anyone because I'm sure I'm guilty of that too. But sometimes everyone is bringing a valid point to the table and once we recognize it, the debate can more or less end. That's a skill I'm going to try to work on myself.

[Handiman]

Geez.... All I really wanted to know is Bris R/S better or worse than JCapper R/S and/or HDW R/S? Is there any difference? Do they all use E E/P P S or are their designations different?

Also CJ makes his own, should I make my own or are the ones in data files good enough?


Handi:)

[PhantomOnTour]

Geez.... All I really wanted to know is Bris R/S better or worse than JCapper R/S and/or HDW R/S? Is there any difference? Do they all use E E/P P S or are their designations different?

Also CJ makes his own, should I make my own or are the ones in data files good enough?


Handi:)
If you have a set of pp's in front of you when you handicap you can assign run styles yourself by studying what the horse has done in the past.
How long does it take someone to look at a set of pp's and determine what style a horse has....about 60secs?
I make it a point to NOT have a computer do for me what I can do for myself in a short amount of time.

[raybo]

Geez.... All I really wanted to know is Bris R/S better or worse than JCapper R/S and/or HDW R/S? Is there any difference? Do they all use E E/P P S or are their designations different?

Also CJ makes his own, should I make my own or are the ones in data files good enough?


Handi:)

Handi,

As long as you know how the designations are arrived at, make your own decision as to whether or not they make sense to you. If you have different ideas for what the designations should really mean, or how the calculations for each should be done, then create your own.

I think Randy Giles has about 7 different designations, instead of the standard 4. I'm not real sure how he calculates them, haven't read his book.

I use Brisnet's run styles and feel that they suffice, for my purposes.

I think the key to run style analysis is not whether or not you think they are inherited or learned, but rather, when a horse is truly competitive, how does he usually run those competitive races; early leader, early leader or presser, early presser, or early off the pace, etc.. Some horses are competitive using more than 1 running style, like E/P, P/C, etc., these horses should be given credit for having "dual" run styles, or "multiple" run styles, and, IMO, they are the most dangerous types of horses, as they have the ability to do whatever is needed, in the context of the race's actual pace makeup. Things happen in races that can be very negative for single run style horses, whereas, the "dual"s and "multiple"s are not negatively affected as much.

[Blenheim]

I think Raybo pretty much got it . . . I'd add the condition of the racetrack surface. Can't bet a speed horse on a surface favoring closers, can't bet a closer on a surface favoring speed. Gotta go w/the running style data set presented in the past peformances and of course make your own decisions.

[fmolf]

Handi,

As long as you know how the designations are arrived at, make your own decision as to whether or not they make sense to you. If you have different ideas for what the designations should really mean, or how the calculations for each should be done, then create your own.

I think Randy Giles has about 7 different designations, instead of the standard 4. I'm not real sure how he calculates them, haven't read his book.

I use Brisnet's run styles and feel that they suffice, for my purposes.

I think the key to run style analysis is not whether or not you think they are inherited or learned, but rather, when a horse is truly competitive, how does he usually run those competitive races; early leader, early leader or presser, early presser, or early off the pace, etc.. Some horses are competitive using more than 1 running style, like E/P, P/C, etc., these horses should be given credit for having "dual" run styles, or "multiple" run styles, and, IMO, they are the most dangerous types of horses, as they have the ability to do whatever is needed, in the context of the race's actual pace makeup. Things happen in races that can be very negative for single run style horses, whereas, the "dual"s and "multiple"s are not negatively affected as much.
Back to running styles.I have read Giles book and i do think his method is excellent ,his styles are E...E/P...P...P/C and S. Where his method differs is that he uses only races where the horse has finished in the money or within a length of the leader,more or less all of his/her competitive races.

I do not rely too much on the speed points provided by bris,in some instances i have found them to be way off.I prefer to calculate them myself.

If i was responsible for this thread getting off topic i apologize for it.I thought we were just exchanging ideas until it became a bit more than that!

[mountainman]

For me, the difficulty in conducting a discussion like this is that there are no universally accepted definitions of running styles. And probably, none are possible that suit every purpose and encompass all modes of attack. That makes it hard to compare profiles from track to track.

I do believe a horse's style is best ascertained from wins, not competitive placings or otherwise impressive efforts. Lots of thoroughbreds finish close and earn checks with various styles, but can win running just one way. Widespread failure to grasp that distinction leads to many underlays.

In addition, I think it's important to realize that style and distance are inextricably linked. When instructing novices-or brushing myself up on basics- I like to envision an imaginary horse that alters its style in accordance with distance. The horse would, for instance, go gate to wire at 9-furlongs; prompt the issue at a flat mile; rally from striking distance at 6-furlongs, and close from the rear at 5/8. True, few horses are that versatile, but this excercise helps illuminate the dynamics of distance as relate to pace and field composition.

I also find it useful to distinguish between speed-types. Those defined as 'strong' can't consistently secure the lead, but are rarely caught when they do. Conversely, 'swift' speeds habitually dash to the top, but are often nabbed from behind.

One thing, however, that makes it harder to identify early leaders than some authors would have you believe is that early speed is often a byproduct of sharpness or superiority. Not always an intrinsic trait.

Tactics and intent also come into play. Riders invariably revert to a style that has worked before with a specific horse while eschewing strategy that has recently backfired. And they think in simplistic terms. How many times have you projected a horse to dominate the pace, only to see the animal wrestled back early-probably because it dueled and tired in a recent outing when faced with more strenuous fractions?

The final step in dealing with tactics is, for me, to take notes on how horses were ridden. Not merely on who sat where, but more specifically, who was ASKED to advance at what point in the race. In many cases, you have to interpret intent and attempt to read minds just a bit in order to predict raceflow.

[fmolf]

For me, the difficulty in conducting a disscusion like this is that there are no universally accepted definitions of running styles. And probably, none are possible that suit every purpose and encompass all modes of attack. That makes it hard to compare profiles from track to track.

I do believe a horse's style is best ascertained from wins, not competitive placings or otherwise impressive efforts. Lots of thoroughbreds finish close and earn checks with various styles, but can win running just one way. Widespread failure to grasp that distinction leads to many underlays.

In addition, I think it's important to realize that style and distance are inextricably linked. When instructing novices-or brushing myself up on basics- I like to envision an imaginary horse that alters its style in accordance with distance. The horse would, for instance, go gate to wire at 9-furlongs; prompt the issue at a flat mile; rally from striking distance at 6-furlongs, and close from the rear at 5/8. True, few horses are that versatile, but this excercise helps illuminate the dynamics of distance as relate to pace and field composition.

I also find it useful to distinguish between speed-types. Those defined as 'strong' can't consistently secure the lead, but are rarely caught when they do. Conversely 'swift' speeds habitually dash to the top, but are often nabbed from behind.

One thing, however, that makes it harder to identify early leaders than some authors would have you believe is that early speed is often a byproduct of sharpness or superiority. Not always an intrinsic trait.

Tactics and intent also come into play. Riders invariably revert to a style that has worked before with a specific horse while eschewing strategy that has recently backfired. And they think in simplistic terms. How many times have you projected a horse to dominate the pace, only to see the animal wrestled back early-probably because it dueled and tired in a recent outing when faced with more strenuous fractions?

The final step in following up on tactics is, for me, to take notes on how horses were ridden. Not merely on who sat where, but more specifically who was ASKED to advance at what point in the race. In many cases, you have to interpret intent and attempt to read minds just a bit in order to predict raceflow.
Precisely.That is why a good middle move for a presser or closer is a sign of impending good form.Same can be said about aa early runner who has carried his speed further in last race than in previous one.

[cj]

I do believe a horse's style is best ascertained from wins, not competitive placings or otherwise impressive efforts. Lots of thoroughbreds finish close and earn checks with various styles, but can win running just one way. Widespread failure to grasp that distinction leads to many underlays.


I would argue is a horse's best style might be the style where he is able to run the fastest regardless of finish position.

[raybo]

For me, the difficulty in conducting a discussion like this is that there are no universally accepted definitions of running styles. And probably, none are possible that suit every purpose and encompass all modes of attack. That makes it hard to compare profiles from track to track.

I do believe a horse's style is best ascertained from wins, not competitive placings or otherwise impressive efforts. Lots of thoroughbreds finish close and earn checks with various styles, but can win running just one way. Widespread failure to grasp that distinction leads to many underlays.

In addition, I think it's important to realize that style and distance are inextricably linked. When instructing novices-or brushing myself up on basics- I like to envision an imaginary horse that alters its style in accordance with distance. The horse would, for instance, go gate to wire at 9-furlongs; prompt the issue at a flat mile; rally from striking distance at 6-furlongs, and close from the rear at 5/8. True, few horses are that versatile, but this excercise helps illuminate the dynamics of distance as relate to pace and field composition.

I also find it useful to distinguish between speed-types. Those defined as 'strong' can't consistently secure the lead, but are rarely caught when they do. Conversely, 'swift' speeds habitually dash to the top, but are often nabbed from behind.

One thing, however, that makes it harder to identify early leaders than some authors would have you believe is that early speed is often a byproduct of sharpness or superiority. Not always an intrinsic trait.

Tactics and intent also come into play. Riders invariably revert to a style that has worked before with a specific horse while eschewing strategy that has recently backfired. And they think in simplistic terms. How many times have you projected a horse to dominate the pace, only to see the animal wrestled back early-probably because it dueled and tired in a recent outing when faced with more strenuous fractions?

The final step in dealing with tactics is, for me, to take notes on how horses were ridden. Not merely on who sat where, but more specifically, who was ASKED to advance at what point in the race. In many cases, you have to interpret intent and attempt to read minds just a bit in order to predict raceflow.

I think, and I may be wrong regarding your meaning, that the reason horses may run their race different at different distances, is that the pace at different distances is, different. Of course a horse can't run the same pace at a long distance as it does at a shorter distance. Even if the horse likes to take the early lead, he may take the lead in a short race and go on to win, however, if he takes the lead in a longer distance and another horse or 2 runs that early portion too fast, this horse may try to run that faster pace also and then it dies later. What I'm getting at is that the pace in every race pretty much regulates what a horse can do, regarding how it likes to run.

Within what I stated in the previous paragraph, "matchups" within portions of races, many times, cause superior horses to lose, if they are involved in a matchup, or cause a lesser horse to win, if they are not involved in a matchup. I realize that one cannot guarantee that a matchup, that should happen, actually does happen, but, ignoring possible matchups is far worse than taking them into consideration, or even assuming they will actually happen.

The more I study running styles, fractional velocities, and try to "see" the big picture, the more convinced I am that I, personally, will live or die with those pace matchups. The best part is that most players do not consider matchups, and when they happen they are on the short priced horses that lose, and the horse that is the beneficiary of the results of the matchup, and wins, are longer priced horses.

It's like having an automatic "value" system, built into your method.

[fmolf]

I would argue is a horse's best style might be the style where he is able to run the fastest regardless of finish position.
Again i would say that one needs to view the the running lines in the context of the pace of the race,most front runners run their best when not challenged and can lope along with a comfortable stride.When pressed they might fade ,yet would still be considered frontrunners.I do understand your point and i do believe it may apply more to pressers and closers.The pace that they can overcome then becomes their favored style.

Randy Giles has a concept he calls "pace comfort zone" simply stated this is the number of lengths back a horse has sat and still won.I believe that this is a very subjective topic with many different ways of arriving at basically the same point.

[mountainman]

I think, and I may be wrong regarding your meaning, that the reason horses may run their race different at different distances, is that the pace at different distances is, different. Of course a horse can't run the same pace at a long distance as it does at a shorter distance. Even if the horse likes to take the early lead, he may take the lead in a short race and go on to win, however, if he takes the lead in a longer distance and another horse or 2 runs that early portion too fast, this horse may try to run that faster pace also and then it dies later. What I'm getting at is that the pace in every race pretty much regulates what a horse can do, regarding how it likes to run.

Within what I stated in the previous paragraph, "matchups" within portions of races, many times, cause superior horses to lose, if they are involved in a matchup, or cause a lesser horse to win, if they are not involved in a matchup. I realize that one cannot guarantee that a matchup, that should happen, actually does happen, but, ignoring possible matchups is far worse than taking them into consideration, or even assuming they will actually happen.

The more I study running styles, fractional velocities, and try to "see" the big picture, the more convinced I am that I, personally, will live or die with those pace matchups. The best part is that most players do not consider matchups, and when they happen they are on the short priced horses that lose, and the horse that is the beneficiary of the results of the matchup, and wins, are longer priced horses.

It's like having an automatic "value" system, built into your method.

While your theories seem to center on fractions and level of exertion, I was more referring to field-makeup and intrinsic stamina. Given the temperament to pass opponents, a frontrunning rt horse, for instance, can become a closer versus the weaker stock that populates a short sprint. Let me simplify with an old adage: In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king.

[mountainman]

I would argue is a horse's best style might be the style where he is able to run the fastest regardless of finish position.

I disagree. Fast numbers are notorious for telling lies of ommision about a thoroughbred's true aptitude and limitations. Many sucker horses, for instance, run as fast as possible while still managing to lose.

[thaskalos]

Again i would say that one needs to view the the running lines in the context of the pace of the race,most front runners run their best when not challenged and can lope along with a comfortable stride.When pressed they might fade ,yet would still be considered frontrunners.I do understand your point and i do believe it may apply more to pressers and closers.The pace that they can overcome then becomes their favored style.

Randy Giles has a concept he calls "pace comfort zone" simply stated this is the number of lengths back a horse has sat and still won.I believe that this is a very subjective topic with many different ways of arriving at basically the same point.
IMO, not only does one need to view the running lines in the context of the pace of the race...he needs to view them in the context of the CLASS of the race as well.

Horses that take impressive leads (in fast times) in one race, seldom repeat the effort when they are asked to run next out at a higher class...and it's not because the pace of the classier race is more demanding.

In my own pace handicapping, I refuse to rate a horse off a race which is "cheaper" than the race the horse is asked to compete in today.

I don't know if it's class limitations or trainer intent...but horses do not run the same when they are raised in class -- even if the rise seems insignificant at first view.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think, and I may be wrong regarding your meaning, that the reason horses may run their race different at different distances, is that the pace at different distances is, different. Of course a horse can't run the same pace at a long distance as it does at a shorter distance. Even if the horse likes to take the early lead, he may take the lead in a short race and go on to win, however, if he takes the lead in a longer distance and another horse or 2 runs that early portion too fast, this horse may try to run that faster pace also and then it dies later. What I'm getting at is that the pace in every race pretty much regulates what a horse can do, regarding how it likes to run.

Within what I stated in the previous paragraph, "matchups" within portions of races, many times, cause superior horses to lose, if they are involved in a matchup, or cause a lesser horse to win, if they are not involved in a matchup. I realize that one cannot guarantee that a matchup, that should happen, actually does happen, but, ignoring possible matchups is far worse than taking them into consideration, or even assuming they will actually happen.

The more I study running styles, fractional velocities, and try to "see" the big picture, the more convinced I am that I, personally, will live or die with those pace matchups. The best part is that most players do not consider matchups, and when they happen they are on the short priced horses that lose, and the horse that is the beneficiary of the results of the matchup, and wins, are longer priced horses.

It's like having an automatic "value" system, built into your method.

Excellent point Raybo.I pass on short prices anyway nearly all the time.But the horses I do bet I'm surprised at some of the odds when the pace environment fits a horses comfort zone to a T.

[jasperson]

I am going to dusillusion some of you about early speed horse. There are 3 types of ep horses. !. Ep horses that will not rate period. We have all seen these types they go of to a lead of 15 or 20 lenghts and die. You can't train them out of this because I have tried. 2 EP horses that will rate if the have and uncontested lead. 3rd a horse that will get the lead and surrender it and relax and come again in the stretch. I trained the number one horse tried everthing to get her to relax but as training progressed even with no horses on the track she pulled so hard her large intestine come out about a foot and flapped in breeze. This was a speed crazy horse and there is nothing a trainer or jockey can do about it. The second type of horse I have seen plenty of and back in the fify Adios Harry was one of them. He was a world champion
pacer and he raced a lot a Veron down bacause it was a 3/4 mile track and he had a full quarter to get to the lead. He was the type that would rate on top but would not allow a horse to be ahead of him. As for heridity go I have seen plenty of it some sires sired hard harded speed types and other charactoristics. A noted and top sire in the 50's and 60's it was said do not be behind an Adios at the finish because the slide all four feet right after the wire and a lot of them did. My point being there somethings that a trainer and jockey know matter how good they can't do.
on you wlill run into them.

[fmolf]

I am going to dusillusion some of you about early speed horse. There are 3 types of ep horses. !. Ep horses that will not rate period. We have all seen these types they go of to a lead of 15 or 20 lenghts and die. You can't train them out of this because I have tried. 2 EP horses that will rate if the have and uncontested lead. 3rd a horse that will get the lead and surrender it and relax and come again in the stretch. I trained the number one horse tried everthing to get her to relax but as training progressed even with no horses on the track she pulled so hard her large intestine come out about a foot and flapped in breeze. This was a speed crazy horse and there is nothing a trainer or jockey can do about it. The second type of horse I have seen plenty of and back in the fify Adios Harry was one of them. He was a world champion
pacer and he raced a lot a Veron down bacause it was a 3/4 mile track and he had a full quarter to get to the lead. He was the type that would rate on top but would not allow a horse to be ahead of him. As for heridity go I have seen plenty of it some sires sired hard harded speed types and other charactoristics. A noted and top sire in the 50's and 60's it was said do not be behind an Adios at the finish because the slide all four feet right after the wire and a lot of them did. My point being there somethings that a trainer and jockey know matter how good they can't do.
on you wlill run into them.I am not quite sure i understand where this fits in since standard bred races are run with a totally different pace dynamic than thoroughbred races and standard breds are a totally different breed than thoroughbreds as well.I do agree that their are different running styles when talking about E types.There is the total speedball,the horse who can only win when on an uncontested lead...then there is the horse who can run with pace pressure on the front end and outlast his opponents.....then the speed horse that maybe sits in the garden spot waiting for his opening.

[LottaKash]

so ...they are not the be all or end all in handicapping because one can never really determine which style a jockey might employ with the horses who have inherited more than one running style!


Like this style ?..........:D

http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/cartoonracehorsepleadswiththejockeydrawnbyWillardM ullin_thumb.jpg

[fmolf]

well done.....and a reminder to us all.... :lol: ...... :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: