The Value of Drafting in Horse Racing

[classhandicapper]

Interesting read

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5381/scientists-figure-out-how-win-a-horse-race

[BIG49010]

If I remember my Harness days, didn't the program used to show you if they were covered up? I think the trip notes used to say stuff like parked 3 wide with cover, etc. also.

[cj]

I think it plays a big part on turf, but the results on dirt would seem to make it a minor factor at best...real dirt that is.

[davew]

how many feet are saved by 'covering up' vs going another couple lanes wide on a corner?

[thaskalos]

IMO...handicapping factors should be analysed with their predictive values in mind.

It has always been my contention that the stretch-runner's trip is more grueling on the horse than the front-runner's trip is...eventhough conventional wisdom says otherwise.

The argument has always been that, since the front-runner's affect is imposed for most of the race -- whereas the stretch-runner only does "serious" running during the last quarter -- the front-runner has the more taxing trip. The evidence, however, says otherwise. The front-runners win more than their fair share of races on dirt...and the stretch-runners do not.

But the most damning evidence, IMO, is the fact that the stretch-runners are way more inconsistent than their front-running counterparts.

While front-runners can be counted upon to display their front-running style every single time...the same cannot be said about the stretch-runners, and their late surge. In most of his races, the stretch-runner fails to deliver his patented late kick...and runs what amounts to an "even" race. Why is that? Why does the stretch-runner seem to "bounce" more often than the front-runner does?

I submit that, eventhough the stretch-runner reserves his energy for a longer period -- and to a greater extent -- than a front-runner does during the running of the race...the fact that the stretch-runner is asked to expend that energy in one short burst, leaves him more exhausted at the end...and less likely to repeat that performance next time out.

[Robert Fischer]

pace of race
pace of horse
track weight (surface)
ground loss
wind resistance ("drafting")

[thaskalos]

pace of race
pace of horse
track weight (surface)
ground loss
wind resistance ("drafting")


Every one of these factors -- with the exception of ground loss -- can work against the front-runner too...and the front-runner is still MUCH more successful than the stretch-runner on dirt.

And a stretch-runner's "ground loss" is not as unambiguous a factor as some may think...

[Robert Fischer]

Every one of these factors -- with the exception of ground loss -- can work against the front-runner too...and the front-runner is still MUCH more successful than the stretch-runner on dirt.

And a stretch-runner's "ground loss" is not as unambiguous a factor as some may think...

Have found that comparing factors like ground loss only among like running styles (within the current race) greatly simplifies the issue.

[classhandicapper]

I think it plays a big part on turf, but the results on dirt would seem to make it a minor factor at best...real dirt that is.

I have a tough time separating the impact of ground loss from the impact of drafting.

If you are sitting inside behind horses, you are both saving ground and drafting.

On turf, it usually doesn't get any better than that.

On dirt, ground loss is sometimes less of a factor because of biased tracks where the outside paths are a little faster than the inside paths (which offsets the ground loss or more) and because dirt tracks are banked on the turns.

It may be that the impact of drafting is equal on both surfaces, but the inside cover up trip is better on turf because the combination of ground loss and drafting is sometimes greater on turf than dirt. I don't know though.

[classhandicapper]

I submit that, even though the stretch-runner reserves his energy for a longer period -- and to a greater extent -- than a front-runner does during the running of the race...the fact that the stretch-runner is asked to expend that energy in one short burst, leaves him more exhausted at the end...and less likely to repeat that performance next time out.

I think the closer a horse gets to going all out and the longer it does it for, the more it's going to take out of the horse. I don't think it matters whether it's early or late, though it may happen more often at some stages.

It's tricky though.

A horses that's capable of 22 in the opening quarter is probably coasting if he goes 22 3/5, but he might be killing himself at 23 in the middle quarter after having already run a quarter (if that makes sense).

[classhandicapper]

Have found that comparing factors like ground loss only among like running styles (within the current race) greatly simplifies the issue.

Agreed.

The only problem is the limited sample in many races. You don't always have horses of similar ability and style that had similar trips.

[Valuist]

If you are sitting inside behind horses, you are both saving ground and drafting.

On turf, it usually doesn't get any better than that.

On dirt, ground loss is sometimes less of a factor because of biased tracks where the outside paths are a little faster than the inside paths (which offsets the ground loss or more) and because dirt tracks are banked on the turns.



How often do you hear "so and so is crying out for room" turning for home when in fact the horse has slowed himself/herself down, as it sees the traffic in front of it? Many times this gets mistaken for a check, or steady, but the horse is conserving energy on its own, until a hole opens and the rider asks it for run. Amazing how often those runners end up winning.

[mountainman]

I've always thought the pocket trip somewhat dicey in american turf events. Racing covered is no guarantee that a horse will relax and not fight the bit or climb, or that an opening will even materialize. And sooo many jocks turn timid in congested quarters on turf. At mnr, in fact, the same riders who can't WAIT to steer down to the rail on dirt-because it's often dead and there's plenty of room in there-invariably swing wide on turf. Rex Stokes, when he was here, comes to mind as a good example.

On dirt, a relaxed trip, running alone and unchallenged for position, trumps any drafting effect. Not all duels take place on the lead, and a stalker accosted by other stalkers often expends too much energy, as can a closer racing abreast other trailers. Horses are ultra-competitive creatures, and the fewer rivals they have to face down directly the better. My brother, Gary, has been a successful jocks agent for years, and one thing he stresses to his riders is to never put their mount eyeball to eyeball with a foe. That just makes a fight out of things and gives the other horse a reason to get brave.

[classhandicapper]

I've always thought the pocket trip somewhat dicey in american turf events. Racing covered is no guarantee that a horse will relax and not fight the bit or climb, or that an opening will even materialize. And sooo many jocks turn timid in congested quarters on turf. At mnr, in fact, the same riders who can't WAIT to steer down to the rail on dirt-because it's often dead and there's plenty of room in there-invariably swing wide on turf. Rex Stokes, when he was here, comes to mind as a good example.



The implication of my post was that horse was not rank or trapped etc... The probabilities of getting trapped, blocked etc.. are another issue.

[thaskalos]

A horses that's capable of 22 in the opening quarter is probably coasting if he goes 22 3/5, but he might be killing himself at 23 in the middle quarter after having already run a quarter (if that makes sense).

Yes...but the front-runner who is capable of running a 22-second first quarter does so every time it's needed.

Why can't the stretch-runner, who is capable of running a 24-second LAST quarter, do it with the same consistency?

[Valuist]

I have a tough time separating the impact of ground loss from the impact of drafting.

If you are sitting inside behind horses, you are both saving ground and drafting.

On turf, it usually doesn't get any better than that.

On dirt, ground loss is sometimes less of a factor because of biased tracks where the outside paths are a little faster than the inside paths (which offsets the ground loss or more) and because dirt tracks are banked on the turns.

It may be that the impact of drafting is equal on both surfaces, but the inside cover up trip is better on turf because the combination of ground loss and drafting is sometimes greater on turf than dirt. I don't know though.

There's one advantage pocketed horses, or those behind a wall of horses have, assuming they are within striking distance: the rider and horse can see the targets in front of them, while the battling leaders only see each other.

Turf racing is about the final burst of speed. Some say its the best final quarter. It may even be the best final 250-300 yards.

[mountainman]

The implication of my post was that horse was not rank or trapped etc... The probabilities of getting trapped, blocked etc.. are another issue.

On dirt, a lonely trip, not EATING KICKBACK or eyeballing a rival abreast is far better than drafting. At least in my opinion. And regardless of position or running style.

[bob60566]

I've always thought the pocket trip somewhat dicey in american turf events. Racing covered is no guarantee that a horse will relax and not fight the bit or climb, or that an opening will even materialize. And sooo many jocks turn timid in congested quarters on turf. At mnr, in fact, the same riders who can't WAIT to steer down to the rail on dirt-because it's often dead and there's plenty of room in there-invariably swing wide on turf. Rex Stokes, when he was here, comes to mind as a good example.

On dirt, a relaxed trip, running alone and unchallenged for position, trumps any drafting effect. Not all duels take place on the lead, and a stalker accosted by other stalkers often expends too much energy, as can a closer racing abreast other trailers. Horses are ultra-competitive creatures, and the fewer rivals they have to face down directly the better. My brother, Gary, has been a successful jocks agent for years, and one thing he stresses to his riders is to never put their mount eyeball to eyeball with a foe. That just makes a fight out of things and gives the other horse a reason to get brave.

Marc
Excellent insight on this subject from the other side.

Mac:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[wisconsin]

The front runner has a very good advantage. So often the speed of the speed will get lose while the pressers battle each other into the ground. Think about how often the leader goes on, and the closer chunks up for second because of the above.

[Robert Fischer]

Agreed.

The only problem is the limited sample in many races. You don't always have horses of similar ability and style that had similar trips.

here is an example for anyone interested:
http://oi41.tinypic.com/e9zwon.jpg

[Fastracehorse]

IMO...handicapping factors should be analysed with their predictive values in mind.

It has always been my contention that the stretch-runner's trip is more grueling on the horse than the front-runner's trip is...eventhough conventional wisdom says otherwise.

The argument has always been that, since the front-runner's affect is imposed for most of the race -- whereas the stretch-runner only does "serious" running during the last quarter -- the front-runner has the more taxing trip. The evidence, however, says otherwise. The front-runners win more than their fair share of races on dirt...and the stretch-runners do not.

But the most damning evidence, IMO, is the fact that the stretch-runners are way more inconsistent than their front-running counterparts.





While front-runners can be counted upon to display their front-running style every single time...the same cannot be said about the stretch-runners, and their late surge. In most of his races, the stretch-runner fails to deliver his patented late kick...and runs what amounts to an "even" race. Why is that? Why does the stretch-runner seem to "bounce" more often than the front-runner does?

I submit that, eventhough the stretch-runner reserves his energy for a longer period -- and to a greater extent -- than a front-runner does during the running of the race...the fact that the stretch-runner is asked to expend that energy in one short burst, leaves him more exhausted at the end...and less likely to repeat that performance next time out.

the fact that a front runner shows his style doesn't mean that he is necessarily more sharp on average than a late runner

front runners have such a serious advantage on the rest of the field because they don't run into trouble; and in this way seem to fire more often but aren't really ; a front runner that dies just before the wire is probably not sharp

a late runner that doesn't meet expectations could be flat or ran into trouble; much like THIRTYFIRSTSTREET's trouble in the Santa Anita H.

a late runner is also at the mercy of the pace dynamics - even if said late runner is sharp

a late runner may appear more inconsistent on average; but figures would say not so; if consistency is measured by only the finish position then i would say u r right

Zenyatta was the victim of a late running night-mare ( pardon the pun ); to somehow just miss

so, i'm saying the reason why late runners don't get up as much is:not because the final quarter is more taxing stamina wise; but because of the nature of trouble that horses like 31st st. and Z incur - and because front runners often get easier trips, they seems to run better, because they hang on to the wire, but if they don't get there, they probably aren't sharp, unless they r just headed

fffastt

[Robert Goren]

I've always thought the pocket trip somewhat dicey in american turf events. Racing covered is no guarantee that a horse will relax and not fight the bit or climb, or that an opening will even materialize. And sooo many jocks turn timid in congested quarters on turf. At mnr, in fact, the same riders who can't WAIT to steer down to the rail on dirt-because it's often dead and there's plenty of room in there-invariably swing wide on turf. Rex Stokes, when he was here, comes to mind as a good example.

On dirt, a relaxed trip, running alone and unchallenged for position, trumps any drafting effect. Not all duels take place on the lead, and a stalker accosted by other stalkers often expends too much energy, as can a closer racing abreast other trailers. Horses are ultra-competitive creatures, and the fewer rivals they have to face down directly the better. My brother, Gary, has been a successful jocks agent for years, and one thing he stresses to his riders is to never put their mount eyeball to eyeball with a foe. That just makes a fight out of things and gives the other horse a reason to get brave.Thanks for posting that. I am glad to see that someone else shares that opinion. I have seen many a jockey crititized for taking a horse wide over the years when in fact he was doing the right thing by avoiding an eyeball to eyeball situtation in deep stretch.

[classhandicapper]

On dirt, a lonely trip, not EATING KICKBACK or eyeballing a rival abreast is far better than drafting. At least in my opinion. And regardless of position or running style.

There's no question that's a great trip on most dirt tracks.

[classhandicapper]

Yes...but the front-runner who is capable of running a 22-second first quarter does so every time it's needed.

Why can't the stretch-runner, who is capable of running a 24-second LAST quarter, do it with the same consistency?

At least part of the problem is that closers are dependent on the pace in front of them and can also lose a lot of ground while working hard just to get into contention in the middle of the race.

That was one of the things I thought made Zenyatta so amazing. A few times when the pace was very slow, she was forced to make a gigantic wide middle move to get into contention just as the pace was picking up. Most horses can't finish well after that. They are doing in the middle what those front runners are sometimes doing in the first quarter. But she was able to finish anyway (sometimes even faster).

[pondman]

IMO...handicapping factors should be analysed with their predictive


But the most damning evidence, IMO, is the fact that the Hstretch-runners are way more inconsistent than their front-running counterparts.

t.

There are physiological differences between horses. as there are differences between humans. Some horses have a higher % of fast twitch muscle and are breed for American racing. The Downside to this is the injury rate is high on front runners, when on a compaign to run long, such as in the triple crown. It's the horses with lean muscle fibers, which win the triple crowns and break the records. It's more likely for a front runner to be injured and be forced into retirement.

Much of the style of a horse can be attributed to breeding and genetics, so you've got to be carefully when reading stories from outside your own area of ply

[cj]

As a figure guy, I've often wondered why giving off the pace runners credit for running fast early didn't work out well. This probably explains a lot of it.

[Robert Fischer]

here is an example for anyone interested:
http://oi41.tinypic.com/e9zwon.jpg

Oasis of chance may run back 4/01/12 from the Iannotti barn @ Parx.

[classhandicapper]

As a figure guy, I've often wondered why giving off the pace runners credit for running fast early didn't work out well.

Closers tend to run more evenly than speed horses even when they reach the top of the stretch pace call in faster than average time. So they typically have used less energy to get to the same position in the same time as the front runners.

IMO the damage is often actually done to front runners in the very early part of the race (assuming they don't get a good breather in the middle and continue on at a reasonable race).

The thing that kills closers is a faster than average wide move in the middle of the race trying to get into contention.

Assume a 6F race where 23 47 113 is average

IMO 22.1 46.1 will hurt the front runner because the 1st quarter was very fast and 2nd quarter was average leading to a faster than average 1/2 mile time.

In that same race a closer might go 23 46.1. Even though 46.1 is faster than average and equal to the front runner, neither of it's 2 quarters were as extreme as the front runner's 22.1. So it wasn't as bad.

Now let's say the closer runs 23.3 46.1 while making a 3-4 wide sweep to get into contention. That horse was flying in the middle and IMO that move will take a toll.

[pondman]

Oasis of chance may run back 4/01/12 from the Iannotti barn @ Parx.

Be carefull with this one. There are good plays leaving N.Y. But this one doesn't have what it takes for me to look at it. It's got an 18% chance, yet it will be at 6-5. Focus on the owners-- forget about the trainers.

[pondman]

Closers tend to run more evenly than speed horses even when they reach the top of the stretch pace call in faster than average time. So they typically have used less energy to get to the same position in the same time as the front runners.


Don't assume a horse running off the pace is a closer; They may have had problems to overcome in the race. Likewise the front end runners may be the result of a the low percent jockey letting the horse get out because it has no chance of winning, and they've got to do something in order to get a pay check.

The experienced jockey watches the movement of other jockeys. The A level jockey has done it enough to know when to move a horse, they'll hold the horse back, until it's time. Hopefully they've timed it right and got an opening. It doesn't always result in a win. Much of the pace has to do with the talent of the jockeys in a race, and who makes a move, and when. And in many races the horse can toy with the field and run from any position-- front or back. That's why it's important to not overbet and concentrate heavily on the speed horses.

[Robert Fischer]

Be carefull with this one. There are good plays leaving N.Y. But this one doesn't have what it takes for me to look at it. It's got an 18% chance, yet it will be at 6-5. Focus on the owners-- forget about the trainers.

From the looks of the field he is well-placed. With a trip issue like this, I would have preferred that he would run back against the same field as on 3/7 when he was 3rd in spite of doing the most running. Big Fearless was claimed out of that race and should hold form in his new barn as well. Breezed Monday. He may be the one from that race who offers any value.:ThmbUp: