How will the race run today

[dkithore]

Ray,

Race shape analysis, I realize is a vast topic to put your hands around but I am inviting you and others to share how you and others do it, to find and wager for value. I have used running style as a start, Early_Presser_Sustain etc. It gets hairy for me when assigning speed numbers to the running style (energy distribution) and then hoping for the bests.

Is there a sequence to follow?

DK

[raybo]

DK,

I can only state what I do, there are many ways as you know.

I use a modified Randy Giles Pace Pressure Gauge (PPG), which includes, in the first of 2 numbers in the PPG, the sum of the early speed points for all E, E/P, and P running style horses in a race, that also have at least 5 early speed points. The second number, in Randy's original version, is the number of horses that have an E running style, and also have at least 5 early speed points. I don't use the 5 early speed point requirement in my second number, just all the E running styles in the race, regardless of early speed points. My thinking on this is that, even though an E horse has low speed points, he might have high early velocities when compared to the horses in this race, and his propensity for getting or contending the early lead can make him an early speed contender for that lead.

So, now you have a representation of the pace pressure for the entire field in the race, of course late scratches will require you to recalculate the PPG, which often changes the pace pressure and can change the horses that are advantaged or disadvantaged by that pace pressure, and thus your win contenders.

Randy, at least the last time I checked, which was quite some time ago, well before his latest work, used 20 as the dividing line between the pace pressure (the first number in the PPG) that advantages early horses, or disadvantages them. I believe, 20 points or higher meant that the pace pressure favored non-early horses, and less than 20 favored early horses. My modified method takes it quite a bit further.

My method combines the 1st fraction (start to 1st call) adjusted velocity ,and the 2nd fraction (1st call to 2nd call) adjusted velocity, along with the running styles and early speed point ranges that have won the vast majority of those races having the same PPG as today's race. I have 20 categories of PPGs, which are looked-up in a database of races of various PPGs ,and gathers the running styles and early speed point ranges of the vast majority of those winners. This gives me the individual running styles, comprised in that "lookup", along with the ranges of their early speed points. So, I could have 1 or more advantaged running style(s) and 1 or more advantaged early speed point range(s) (which could range from 0 to 8, each) that are returned as a result of that database "lookup" (true db guys call this a query, but I'm no true db guy).

I use that returned lookup data to eliminate horses as win contenders (eliminated from win only contention).

The next step in my process is to determine if the "early" horses who should be contending for the early lead, actually have the ability to contend, versus the other horses in the race. I use the 1st fraction and 2nd fraction adjusted velocities of those horses to determine their early lead contention abilities versus the other horses in the race. That can mean that an E8 horse, for example, cannot even contend for the lead because his early velocities are too low, etc..

But, more important than that, I use those 2 velocities, compared to every other horse in the race, to find possible early speed "matchups", "races within races" which often tire those involved, to the point of causing "later" horses to become advantaged. I determine possible matchups for the 1st fraction, and if there is two or more horses that fit that, then they are flagged as possible eliminations. If any of those "flagged horses, from the first fraction, remain in a "matchup" condition in the second fraction, then they are eliminated from win contention.

Those horses who are not eliminated, either by running style/early speed points, or matchups, become the win contenders in the race. They are then ranked by my own total velocity formula, from which my bets are determined.

[DJofSD]

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5715

[cj]

This year I've been keeping it pretty simple. I assign running styles to the horses: Leader (Need the lead), Speed, Tracker, Midpack, Closer, Plodder, No Form.

To determine how the race "may" shape up, I assign each Leader and Speed horse 2 points, and each Tracker 1. I add them up, and then I add an extra point for all horses with one of the three styles and within 5 points on my top early speed rating. I max it out at 10 because above that, the results don't really vary much. When it comes to pace pressure, running styles usually outweigh any velocity ratings.

I only use it as a secondary factor. If the race is rated a 10 and I'm close between a Speed and a Closer, I'll favor the Closer. If it is rated a 2 and the same horses are the contenders, I'll favor the speed horse.

[thaskalos]

Pace pressure to me means velocities, not speed points.

I am not only looking for horses who will take the uncontested lead at the first quarter; I am also looking for horses who might elect to sit off the early lead, and pounce at the half-mile point...when the real running begins. It occurs to me that these are the most dangerous horses in the race...and I can only find them by looking deeper.

I look at sprints as if they were 3 races in 1...looking at each fraction separately. I have separate pars for each separate fraction...and I assign a numerical value to them...which I then weigh in a certain way, which is consistent with my opinion and philosophy. Some fractions are given more weight than others...with the objective being, to identify and account for any bursts of speed WITHIN the race -- which might otherwise go unnoticed.

I find myself short of time right now...but I will expand on this a little further later on...

[raybo]

CJ,

Are you doing any eliminations in your primary process, before you look at the secondary one? If so, how are you determining those eliminations? No deep dark secrets required. :)

[raybo]

Pace pressure to me means velocities, not speed points.

I am not only looking for horses who will take the uncontested lead at the first quarter; I am also looking for horses who might elect to sit off the early lead, and pounce at the half-mile point...when the real running begins. It occurs to me that these are the most dangerous horses in the race...and I can only find them by looking deeper.

I look at sprints as if they were 3 races in 1...looking at each fraction separately. I have separate pars for each separate fraction...and I assign a numerical value to them...which I then weigh in a certain way, which is consistent with my opinion and philosophy. Some fractions are given more weight than others...with the objective being, to identify and account for any bursts of speed WITHIN the race -- which might otherwise go unnoticed.

I find myself short of time right now...but I will expand on this a little further later on...

I tend to agree that fractional velocities, if accurately calculated and adjusted, are as important ,or more important, than early speed points. I use the speed points (ranges of speed points rather than an individual number) for "gross" eliminations, and then rely on my adjusted velocities for finer comparisons between the remaining runners. I also use all 3 fractional velocities in my final total velocity figures, and I don't use a single paceline for those velocities, but multiple lines. I want to know how bad a horse can run as well as how good he can run, again another "range" rather than an individual event.

[Tom]

I use position for the early first call analysis.
Horses that want or need the lead can run all out for two furlongs.
I use the turn time to start separating them, along with the second call pace figures.

[cj]

CJ,

Are you doing any eliminations in your primary process, before you look at the secondary one? If so, how are you determining those eliminations? No deep dark secrets required. :)

No, the only eliminations are based on running style. I guess I could probably eliminate horses that are too slow despite style, but I haven't gotten around to testing it yet. It is working well as is.

[dkithore]

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5715

Thanks for the link. I have read it before but I stray from the strict adherence over time. I have evolved into New Pace (Dave's recently) and adopted to Australian Racing where sectional times are available at a high price and that too for a limited number of tracks in Metro areas. But thanks anyway for the link.

[dkithore]

DK,

I can only state what I do, there are many ways as you know.

I use a modified Randy Giles Pace Pressure Gauge (PPG), which includes, in the first of 2 numbers in the PPG, the sum of the early speed points for all E, E/P, and P running style horses in a race, that also have at least 5 early speed points. The second number, in Randy's original version, is the number of horses that have an E running style, and also have at least 5 early speed points. I don't use the 5 early speed point requirement in my second number, just all the E running styles in the race, regardless of early speed points. My thinking on this is that, even though an E horse has low speed points, he might have high early velocities when compared to the horses in this race, and his propensity for getting or contending the early lead can make him an early speed contender for that lead.

So, now you have a representation of the pace pressure for the entire field in the race, of course late scratches will require you to recalculate the PPG, which often changes the pace pressure and can change the horses that are advantaged or disadvantaged by that pace pressure, and thus your win contenders.

Randy, at least the last time I checked, which was quite some time ago, well before his latest work, used 20 as the dividing line between the pace pressure (the first number in the PPG) that advantages early horses, or disadvantages them. I believe, 20 points or higher meant that the pace pressure favored non-early horses, and less than 20 favored early horses. My modified method takes it quite a bit further.

My method combines the 1st fraction (start to 1st call) adjusted velocity ,and the 2nd fraction (1st call to 2nd call) adjusted velocity, along with the running styles and early speed point ranges that have won the vast majority of those races having the same PPG as today's race. I have 20 categories of PPGs, which are looked-up in a database of races of various PPGs ,and gathers the running styles and early speed point ranges of the vast majority of those winners. This gives me the individual running styles, comprised in that "lookup", along with the ranges of their early speed points. So, I could have 1 or more advantaged running style(s) and 1 or more advantaged early speed point range(s) (which could range from 0 to 8, each) that are returned as a result of that database "lookup" (true db guys call this a query, but I'm no true db guy).

I use that returned lookup data to eliminate horses as win contenders (eliminated from win only contention).

The next step in my process is to determine if the "early" horses who should be contending for the early lead, actually have the ability to contend, versus the other horses in the race. I use the 1st fraction and 2nd fraction adjusted velocities of those horses to determine their early lead contention abilities versus the other horses in the race. That can mean that an E8 horse, for example, cannot even contend for the lead because his early velocities are too low, etc..

But, more important than that, I use those 2 velocities, compared to every other horse in the race, to find possible early speed "matchups", "races within races" which often tire those involved, to the point of causing "later" horses to become advantaged. I determine possible matchups for the 1st fraction, and if there is two or more horses that fit that, then they are flagged as possible eliminations. If any of those "flagged horses, from the first fraction, remain in a "matchup" condition in the second fraction, then they are eliminated from win contention.

Those horses who are not eliminated, either by running style/early speed points, or matchups, become the win contenders in the race. They are then ranked by my own total velocity formula, from which my bets are determined.

Thanks for generously sharing how you dissect the race. I guess I will need to revisit Randy's explanations and examples of pace pressure guage etc. and revisit Matchup methodology and velocity numbers, It will take me time to digest the above. Thanks again.

[dkithore]

This year I've been keeping it pretty simple. I assign running styles to the horses: Leader (Need the lead), Speed, Tracker, Midpack, Closer, Plodder, No Form.

To determine how the race "may" shape up, I assign each Leader and Speed horse 2 points, and each Tracker 1. I add them up, and then I add an extra point for all horses with one of the three styles and within 5 points on my top early speed rating. I max it out at 10 because above that, the results don't really vary much. When it comes to pace pressure, running styles usually outweigh any velocity ratings.

I only use it as a secondary factor. If the race is rated a 10 and I'm close between a Speed and a Closer, I'll favor the Closer. If it is rated a 2 and the same horses are the contenders, I'll favor the speed horse.

This is simpler for a paper and a pencil guy, thanks.

[dkithore]

Pace pressure to me means velocities, not speed points.

I look at sprints as if they were 3 races in 1...looking at each fraction separately. I have separate pars for each separate fraction...and I assign a numerical value to them...which I then weigh in a certain way, which is consistent with my opinion and philosophy. Some fractions are given more weight than others...with the objective being, to identify and account for any bursts of speed WITHIN the race -- which might otherwise go unnoticed.



I appreciate guys, taking the time to share the science and art of determining race shape and personal insights that go with it.

[raybo]

No, the only eliminations are based on running style. I guess I could probably eliminate horses that are too slow despite style, but I haven't gotten around to testing it yet. It is working well as is.

Yeah, I started RS that way, just eliminating by running style, but found it wasn't getting me to the real contenders often enough. You know, the race looks like it boils down to 1 of several earlier type horses, and then you start trying to figure out which of those is "the one". Then the one you figured had the worst chance of being "the one" wins the race. Not just in 1 or 2 races, but in many races, and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out how that was happening. Then I started messing around with their early velocities, looking for horses that might try very hard early due to having good early competition from others, and things started becoming clearer. It wasn't the best early horse that I should have been looking for to win, I should have been looking for those that would run each other in the ground, eliminating themselves from win contention.

My real goal, in the beginning was to find the top 4 horses at the stretch call, because, when tracks are running normally, 1 of these top 4 horses wins the race about 80% of the time. Those were the horses I was looking for, the real contenders.

Well, the hit rate started going up and the prices on them really went up. That convinced me that, if I wanted to improve my hit rate in supers, and wanted to hit more of the big payouts on them, this method would help.

Then I just kept working on it and that brought the method to where it is now.

[cj]

Yeah, I started RS that way, just eliminating by running style, but found it wasn't getting me to the real contenders often enough.

I don't use it to get to contenders, just to give a rough idea what the expected pace will be.

[raybo]

I don't use it to get to contenders, just to give a rough idea what the expected pace will be.

I see, so you just want to know what the pace will be, should be, and then you use other methods to determine which horses can perform against that pace?

[dkithore]

Raybo,

I am at the stage wherein I can not judge the most likely that will be in contention as they turn for home. So my question is how I do I construct the early velocity figs manually, since BRIS data (pdf files) for Aussy racing are at best unusable in any of the handicapping software.

Could I use use excel to generate velocity figs?

[raybo]

Raybo,

I am at the stage wherein I can not judge the most likely that will be in contention as they turn for home. So my question is how I do I construct the early velocity figs manually, since BRIS data (pdf files) for Aussy racing are at best unusable in any of the handicapping software.

Could I use use excel to generate velocity figs?

Only if you have the fractional distances and times, and beaten lengths, and preferably a daily variant.

How could you possibly predict which horses will be in contention, at top of the stretch, if you have no idea of what they might do prior to that point?

[eurocapper]

For Aussie racing the pace that would interest me is the last fraction, and I think that's also available (since they have only turf). Don't know if they move the rail like in the US, but the running style (favoring closers) is probably the same. It should be easier than in the UK at least (with the weird height and track differences).

[andicap]

I am a great fan of Randy Giles' material, but the more races I look at the less effect of pace that I see EXCEPT in the extreme circumstances. Randy himself says he looks for "extreme" pace scenarios but I've tightened up my definition of what that means.

I've seen far too many races where there a bunch of speed types; you are expecting a meltdown and it never happens except on tracks that are favoring mid-pack or closing runners.

I agree with CJ in using pace scenarios very conservatively. I will eliminate need-to-lead horses with weak first fraction figures (and even trackers who won't be able to keep up with today's -- grossly -- estimated pace). And of course you have to pay attention to lone speed/lone presser types.

I tried to follow Ray's explanation and just felt bewildered. For me, the mantra these days is KISS. Keep it simple.

[Tom]

I agree, Andy. The extremes are where you get the most bang for your pace bucks. I use +/- a half second - 5 tenths - for my race shapes instead of the 2 points Quirrin recommended. That is +/- points in PAC for HTR. I want to be sure the shape is extreme. I am tinkering with going to +/- 8 for routes.
I'm re-doing all my multipliers now while we have some down time at the majors tracks. I am letting the data tell me what is fast or slow.

[andicap]

I agree, Andy. The extremes are where you get the most bang for your pace bucks. I use +/- a half second - 5 tenths - for my race shapes instead of the 2 points Quirrin recommended. That is +/- points in PAC for HTR. I want to be sure the shape is extreme. I am tinkering with going to +/- 8 for routes.
I'm re-doing all my multipliers now while we have some down time at the majors tracks. I am letting the data tell me what is fast or slow.

I can't prove it, but I wonder if that has changed since Randy first began advancing his ideas about 10-15 years ago. I wonder if the increased use of ever more sophisticated drugs/milk shakes/hormones, etc. has increased horses' stamina for a single race. Before they break down from the drug use.

[cj]

Here was a good example from today at PRX, a 75k stakes race.

The 1 and 5 scratched, but I still had the race as an 8 pressure wise. It was 10 before scratches. 8 is very likely to favor off the pace types if they are good enough, and disadvantage those that like to be up front, even at the distance of 6f.

The best back runner was the 6 horse, and he was certainly a contender on my numbers. The 8, Poseidon's Warrior, was a horrible favorite at 4 to 5. You may note that the 2, while not really a contender for anything, was a pace factor as predicted.

[cj]

And the next race the opposite. The rating was a 3, only two trackers close on early speed. But, the 2nd of the two was badly off form and not really a contender. Those two set the slow place, the other dropped out late, and the contender had enough late to hold off the late runners.

Neither of these were life changing scores or anything, 7 to 2 and 4 to 1. It just shows that pace is still a pretty important part of the race and can often explain why horses win and lose.

[DeltaLover]

CJ, can you please explain what each figure is expressing ?

[cj]

CJ, can you please explain what each figure is expressing ?

Next to the surface, Dirt in these cases, are two numbers. The first is a track profile number on a 0 to 100 scale. The higher it is, the more likely the winner will be near the front early. The 46 for Parx at 6f is about average. The next is the rating I outlined early in this thread predicting pace pressure.

For each horse, I list the following:

Running style, overall early speed rating / overall late speed rating, then each number after that represents a performance figure for individual race, the most recent race first.

[DeltaLover]

Next to the surface, Dirt in these cases, are two numbers. The first is a track profile number on a 0 to 100 scale. The higher it is, the more likely the winner will be near the front early. The 46 for Parx at 6f is about average. The next is the rating I outlined early in this thread predicting pace pressure.

For each horse, I list the following:

Running style, overall early speed rating / overall late speed rating, then each number after that represents a performance figure for individual race, the most recent race first.

Sweet

[cj]

Sweet

Here are a couple upcoming races at TuP that have pace scenarios that could impact the outcome. The 1 is scratched in the 9th, so the pace rating would be 7, not 9. 11 is also a scratch but that doesn't change the rating.

[DeltaLover]

The 6 in the 8th looks pretty good bet at 6-1....

[cj]

The 6 in the 8th looks pretty good bet at 6-1....

I was thinking the same, and the 4 in the 9th might get a setup too. Morning lines don't mean much at TuP, so I'll be checking the board.

[Capper Al]

Analyzing if your horse will run today is pretty much a waste of time after eliminating the obvious ones. There isn't any nuances to figure on. It's all imagined and luck after that. Pick four contenders and two or three will run. It becomes random to the handicapper from that point on. This is what separates the men from the boys.

[bisket]

i take a contrarian view to pace... surprised ;) i look for horses that run a particular way based on their position on the track. in particular i'm looking for a horse that will usually rate, but figures to be on the rail today. sometimes a horse just want to go when they're on the rail. there's also the opposite to this analysis. sometimes a horse that wants to go early, will rate when he/she is outside the other early runners. so the race has a good chance to set up different than any pace figures project it set up... then you have a scenario where a horse with some plus odds ends up in the winners circle or lands in the tri or exacta.$$$

[cj]

Analyzing if your horse will run today is pretty much a waste of time after eliminating the obvious ones. There isn't any nuances to figure on. It's all imagined and luck after that. Pick four contenders and two or three will run. It becomes random to the handicapper from that point on. This is what separates the men from the boys.

What does all this mean? Seriously, I have no idea and/or if it relates to the thread topic at all.

[Capper Al]

What does all this mean? Seriously, I have no idea and/or if it relates to the thread topic at all.

It means that attempting to figure out how your horse will run is a waste of time beyond eliminating the obvious ones. The connections have the best guess, but even this is subject to racing luck.

[cj]

It means that attempting to figure out how your horse will run is a waste of time beyond eliminating the obvious ones. The connections have the best guess, but even this is subject to racing luck.

Connections rarely know as much as many seem to think they do. Usually, they know less than a competent handicapper.

[barn32]

It means that attempting to figure out how your horse will run is a waste of time beyond eliminating the obvious ones. The connections have the best guess, but even this is subject to racing luck.Connections rarely know as much as many seem to think they do. Usually, they know less than a competent handicapper.Or as Jim Bradshaw once told me, "Trainers are just guessin about where to run their horses most of the time anyway."

[tophatmert]

Thank you Cj and Raybo-this is good stuff. This is the first time I have posted on the board even though I signed up about a year ago. I learned this game at Arlington Park in the late eighties and early nineties from Rag and TG players.In the mid nineties I started to project pace and race shapes similar to your method and it really helped in finding bettable races . I play NY racing on a daily basis and I am usually looking for something at the other major tracks.Even quick pace analysis will lead me to races that I should look into and perhaps play.Factoring in pace will get one looking at sheet numbers in a different manner.How did that horse earn that lifetime top? In ideal conditions? Can I expect that type of scenario today? I agree with CJ about the connections .Most people have a bit of an idea about how their horse will run and no idea about the other horses in the race.

Rich

[raybo]

In my experience, if you don't attempt to project how the race will be run and how each horse will run, you're shooting blind. Remember, you onlt have to be right enough to make more than you bet.

[dkithore]

Only if you have the fractional distances and times, and beaten lengths, and preferably a daily variant.

How could you possibly predict which horses will be in contention, at top of the stretch, if you have no idea of what they might do prior to that point?

Yes, Bris does give fractional times for Metro (big) tracks (1st call and last call. In 6 f races, 1st call is at 3f and 3f for last call. Last call at all dist is 3f). Data also gives positions at these calls and final time with lengths behind etc. and I did find method to calculate velocities, I recalled from my Sartin days.
So, I will keep searching for affordable programs applicable for down under racing. Thanks.

[dkithore]

For Aussie racing the pace that would interest me is the last fraction, and I think that's also available (since they have only turf). Don't know if they move the rail like in the US, but the running style (favoring closers) is probably the same. It should be easier than in the UK at least (with the weird height and track differences).

Euro:

Isn't final fraction a function of how fast or slow they went in the first? For instance, I see a good number coming home in 34 to 35 seconds but when I look at their first fraction, the real truth is revealed, whether they came home fast or slow..

[Capper Al]

Or as Jim Bradshaw once told me, "Trainers are just guessin about where to run their horses most of the time anyway."

They are guessing or just want to exercise their horse. That's why, for the most part, it can't be figured out. When it can be figured, the horse pays under $4.00.

[thaskalos]

Euro:

Isn't final fraction a function of how fast or slow they went in the first? For instance, I see a good number coming home in 34 to 35 seconds but when I look at their first fraction, the real truth is revealed, whether they came home fast or slow..

The last fraction cannot stand on its own...because, as you say, it is only a reflection of what has transpired during the earlier part of the race. The horse that is allowed to loaf during the first and second fractions is EXPECTED to post a fast last fraction...while the horse who contributed to the early pace of the race will record a final fraction that will be deemed inferior by comparison.

IMO...no one fraction is more important than another. Only by analyzing ALL the fractions in the race can the horseplayer really judge the level of the horse's performance.

And this applies to turf, as well as to dirt races.

[eurocapper]

Euro:

Isn't final fraction a function of how fast or slow they went in the first? For instance, I see a good number coming home in 34 to 35 seconds but when I look at their first fraction, the real truth is revealed, whether they came home fast or slow..

I believe it can be known from final time and final fraction too. Also I believe 3f furlong is too long for the stretch run, I think there is info at least for the equivalent of 2 furlongs. 3f is before the bend at some distances and it would be stupid to start accelerating there.

[dkithore]

I believe it can be known from final time and final fraction too. Also I believe 3f furlong is too long for the stretch run, I think there is info at least for the equivalent of 2 furlongs. 3f is before the bend at some distances and it would be stupid to start accelerating there.

The 2f fractions are not part of BRIS data. I am sure other commercial vendors have them. Nice to have that for sure. Nice to know this providers.

[dkithore]

It means that attempting to figure out how your horse will run is a waste of time beyond eliminating the obvious ones. The connections have the best guess, but even this is subject to racing luck.

Al, like to know, how do you eliminate horses if not by the traditional approach of class, form, speed and may be trainer stats (patterns) or intent?
Or are you saying racing game is preordained and only few are previledged to peek at it/ I know you are a serious capper by the avatar and many threads you have initiated, so I am not mocking with my questions.

[raybo]

Yes, Bris does give fractional times for Metro (big) tracks (1st call and last call. In 6 f races, 1st call is at 3f and 3f for last call. Last call at all dist is 3f). Data also gives positions at these calls and final time with lengths behind etc. and I did find method to calculate velocities, I recalled from my Sartin days.
So, I will keep searching for affordable programs applicable for down under racing. Thanks.

velocity (in feet per second - "fps") = distance of fraction (in feet) / adjusted time for that fraction (in seconds)

V=D/T

example: D = 3f (1980 feet), T = 36 seconds (after adjusting for beaten lengths)

V = 1980 / 36

V = 55 fps

[Capper Al]

Al, like to know, how do you eliminate horses if not by the traditional approach of class, form, speed and may be trainer stats (patterns) or intent?
Or are you saying racing game is preordained and only few are previledged to peek at it/ I know you are a serious capper by the avatar and many threads you have initiated, so I am not mocking with my questions.

By eliminating the obvious, I mean just that. These horses are usually 30/1 in the morning line and most serious cappers know that the horse doesn't belong in the race. After that we are guessing and I'm guessing also.

[raybo]

Euro:

Isn't final fraction a function of how fast or slow they went in the first? For instance, I see a good number coming home in 34 to 35 seconds but when I look at their first fraction, the real truth is revealed, whether they came home fast or slow..

Basically, you are correct. Consider a horse running the same race twice. If the horse is in the same physical condition, and barring any other differences between the 2 races (surface condition, traffic, etc.), if the horse runs as fast as he can in the final fraction (in both races), he will run that final fraction faster if the prior distance was run slower, and vice versa, he will run that final fraction slower if the prior distance was run faster.

In the slower early pace race the horse expends less energy early and has more energy left for the final fraction, and vice versa.

[raybo]

They are guessing or just want to exercise their horse. That's why, for the most part, it can't be figured out. When it can be figured, the horse pays under $4.00.

Really?

[raybo]

The last fraction cannot stand on its own...because, as you say, it is only a reflection of what has transpired during the earlier part of the race. The horse that is allowed to loaf during the first and second fractions is EXPECTED to post a fast last fraction...while the horse who contributed to the early pace of the race will record a final fraction that will be deemed inferior by comparison.

IMO...no one fraction is more important than another. Only by analyzing ALL the fractions in the race can the horseplayer really judge the level of the horse's performance.

And this applies to turf, as well as to dirt races.

Exactly!

[raybo]

I believe it can be known from final time and final fraction too. Also I believe 3f furlong is too long for the stretch run, I think there is info at least for the equivalent of 2 furlongs. 3f is before the bend at some distances and it would be stupid to start accelerating there.

Final fraction doesn't necessarily have to start at the top of the stretch, obviously, it depends , among other things, on the layout of the track, length of the straights, position of the turn in relation to the finish line, etc.. An example might be seen at Belmont, for example where, if a jockey that has never run on that track before and starts his run at the end of the turn as he normally would at other tracks, he will start his run too early and often the horse will fade before the wire due to the larger track at Belmont.

[cj]

By eliminating the obvious, I mean just that. These horses are usually 30/1 in the morning line and most serious cappers know that the horse doesn't belong in the race. After that we are guessing and I'm guessing also.

May as well play roulette then, no? The takout is much better.

[raybo]

I believe it can be known from final time and final fraction too. Also I believe 3f furlong is too long for the stretch run, I think there is info at least for the equivalent of 2 furlongs. 3f is before the bend at some distances and it would be stupid to start accelerating there.

Many jockeys/horses start their fianl run in the middle of the turn, and still win. It depends on his position and how fast he had to run early. If he was dead last early, he has to start his run earlier in order to make up all those lengths on the leaders.

[raybo]

By eliminating the obvious, I mean just that. These horses are usually 30/1 in the morning line and most serious cappers know that the horse doesn't belong in the race. After that we are guessing and I'm guessing also.

Dang, you mean I've been doing all this work, all these years, for nothing? Hell, I'll just quit.

[thaskalos]

By eliminating the obvious, I mean just that. These horses are usually 30/1 in the morning line and most serious cappers know that the horse doesn't belong in the race. After that we are guessing and I'm guessing also.
Come on Al...I know you don't believe that.

I've seen you with your laptop at the track...and you certainly don't need a laptop to eliminate these 30/1 shots -- or to guess on the rest.

[raybo]

Come on Al...I know you don't believe that.

I've seen you with your laptop at the track...and you certainly don't need a laptop to eliminate these 30/1 shots -- or to guess on the rest.

I'm hoping that he's saying that we don't know, for 100% sure, who will win races, because there are so many variables involved. I hope that's what he means anyway. But, "guessing", that's taking it too far.

[Capper Al]

Really?

You mean to tell me you pick four contenders and at a minimum half the time your contenders come in the top four. I'm not even saying in the right order. You wouldn't need to do anything more than box the superfecta and you'd be rich and not need to hang around a forum.

[Capper Al]

Come on Al...I know you don't believe that.

I've seen you with your laptop at the track...and you certainly don't need a laptop to eliminate these 30/1 shots -- or to guess on the rest.

I do go through the motions but won't claim more than 50% success for being correct about my contenders making it into the top 3/4. I'm looking at a complete set of all my contenders making in the top 3 or 4. And I'll hold up my contender picks to anybodies. So to claim one can figure out how your horse will run today is just non-sense beyond the obvious eliminations.

[Tom]

So to claim one can figure out how your horse will run today is just non-sense beyond the obvious eliminations.

People are doing it everyday.
CJ posted three examples at one track yesterday.

[raybo]

You mean to tell me you pick four contenders and at a minimum half the time your contenders come in the top four. I'm not even saying in the right order. You wouldn't need to do anything more than box the superfecta and you'd be rich and not need to hang around a forum.

Hell, no! But, I'm not guessing either. I get the horses in the right order enough of the time to make a profit, that's all any of us need. If I was just guessing, I can guarantee I would not make a profit.

Anybody who just boxes 4 horses, in a superfecta ticket, better have a very large bankroll and be able to handle extremely long losing streaks, extremely long.

[Capper Al]

Hell, no! But, I'm not guessing either. I get the horses in the right order enough of the time to make a profit, that's all any of us need. If I was just guessing, I can guarantee I would not make a profit.

Anybody who just boxes 4 horses, in a superfecta ticket, better have a very large bankroll and be able to handle extremely long losing streaks, extremely long.

I agree. That's why we need value because we just don't know if our horse is going to run today.

[raybo]

I agree. That's why we need value because we just don't know if our horse is going to run today.

That's a given, and has been since day one. And where did the 50% that your contenders come in the top 4 come from? If you can get your 4 contenders in the top 4 50% of the time, my hat is off to you, even though I will bet everything I own that you, or anybody else, can't do that. It's not necessary anyway. Maybe if your 4 contenders are the 4 lowest prices in the race, but mine damn sure aren't, almost never, and if they are, I'm not about to bet them. Everybody in the house would have them too. That's insanity!

[Capper Al]

That's a given, and has been since day one. And where did the 50% that your contenders come in the top 4 come from? If you can get your 4 contenders in the top 4 50% of the time, my hat is off to you, even though I will bet everything I own that you, or anybody else, can't do that. It's not necessary anyway. Maybe if your 4 contenders are the 4 lowest prices in the race, but mine damn sure aren't, almost never, and if they are, I'm not about to bet them. Everybody in the house would have them too. That's insanity!

That was my point. I don't have records on this and just threw it out as a ballpark figure, but if we can't hit a 50% how can we say we have advise for how will your horse run today?

[Tom]

Getting all your contenders in the top 4 is not the same thing as selecting the winner. What good is getting all of them in the top 4 unless you are betting supers?

[Capper Al]

Getting all your contenders in the top 4 is not the same thing as selecting the winner. What good is getting all of them in the top 4 unless you are betting supers?

It reflects our ability to determine how horses will run today.

[bob60566]

It reflects our ability to determine how horses will run today.
Al
You say you have four contenders per race and can tell how they will run today, And 50 % of the time they will finish in the top three any positions?.
My question is being a win bettor how do you bet your contenders.
Or maybe there is more handicapping involved with your contenders?.

[raybo]

Getting all your contenders in the top 4 is not the same thing as selecting the winner. What good is getting all of them in the top 4 unless you are betting supers?

Correct!

[cj]

It reflects our ability to determine how horses will run today.

I didn't even think that was what this thread was about. I thought it was about how the race will be run in terms of pace and/or setup. Maybe that is why I've been confused by your posts.

[raybo]

It reflects our ability to determine how horses will run today.

When your projected pace versus the field favors a certain kind of horse, that projected pace may bring complete havoc to the rest of the field. In such cases, getting the other in the money horses, probably isn't going to happen. That doesn't mean that one can't be successful betting exacta, trifecta, superfecta, etc., unless you are betting very small tickets. The key to winning with these kinds of wagers is, either very large payouts when you hit with a low hit rate, or good enough coverage to account for the chaos in the race, for the finishers below the winner, with a higher hit rate.

If you're a win only player, you're only concerned with getting the winner, at high enough odds to cover your bets, plus some, if you bet more than one horse to win. I might have 3 contenders that I bet, that all could possibly win, depending on how the race actually runs. If it runs in a way that favors one contender, then the other 2 might finish up the track, but if it runs differently ,one of those other 2 would be advantaged and the first horse might finish up the track. To me, that's the advantage of betting multiple horses to win, you can cover more than 1 possible pace scenario, as long as the odds, on the horses you bet, are good enough to cover all the bets, plus some, regardless of which one wins.

[raybo]

I didn't even think that was what this thread was about. I thought it was about how the race will be run in terms of pace and/or setup. Maybe that is why I've been confused by your posts.

Analyzing and projecting how the race should run is the subject of this thread, Al is saying it's a waste of time, because we're just guessing anyway. :bang:

[cj]

Analyzing and projecting how the race should run is the subject of this thread, Al is saying it's a waste of time, because we're just guessing anyway. :bang:

It is a lot easier to guess how horses will run in the beginning of the race than it is in the end.

[DeltaLover]

Here was a good example from today at PRX, a 75k stakes race.

The 1 and 5 scratched, but I still had the race as an 8 pressure wise. It was 10 before scratches. 8 is very likely to favor off the pace types if they are good enough, and disadvantage those that like to be up front, even at the distance of 6f.

The best back runner was the 6 horse, and he was certainly a contender on my numbers. The 8, Poseidon's Warrior, was a horrible favorite at 4 to 5. You may note that the 2, while not really a contender for anything, was a pace factor as predicted.

CJ,
are you going to post some more screen shots of your numbers? They look very interesting....

[cj]

CJ,
are you going to post some more screen shots of your numbers? They look very interesting....

I'll post a few cards this weekend, whole cards. No time today.

[DeltaLover]

I'll post a few cards this weekend, whole cards. No time today.

This is cool... :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

It is a lot easier to guess how horses will run in the beginning of the race than it is in the end.

I agree, so if you start with that, when you get it right, the outcome becomes easier to predict.