Identifying Early leaders
 

After some deep thinking, observation, and soul-searching, I have to agree with Dave Schwartz about "EP" (pace call time) as an irrelevant factor (ripped from a previous thread). Let me first say this: I did not purchase "NewPace", so I'm not passing on any ideas or research of Dave's, nor is this an attempt to solicit some of those ideas in a public forum setting. Instead, I'm agreeing with Dave based on my past and present handicapping experiences, and explaining why. Agree or disagree if you wish. If you have your own personal ideas to expound upon, fire away. If you can piggy-back on my statements, also good.

For starters, I find EP times are very race-sensitive. Let's looks at two runners: Horse A has an EP of 58.00 fps, and Horse B is 56.66 fps, and are matched up based on those lines. The seemingly correct assumption is that Horse A has a clear advantage on Horse B. Game over. Or is it?

A wise man once told me: "every race is a unique event - the race is run once, only once, and never repeated again." Just like speed handicappers try and figure out how a horse earned a particular figure, pace handicappers have to do the same. Even though Horse A's 58.00 EP looks superior, a 58.00 on a clear lead might not paint an accurate picture of the horse's abilities under pressure. Furthermore, if Horse A's running style is to sit a few lengths behind the lead, and Horse B's mojo is the front, matching the 58.00 with the 56.66 will ultimately cause frustration. In all likelihood, if Horse B runs to the front and repeats the 56.66, and Horse A assumes his normal stalking position, Horse A naturally has to run a slower EP than Horse B, regardless of previous EPs. Sometimes, a horse happens to be "faster by default", and run style will be rendered irrelevant, but more often than not, taking the 58.00 over the 56.66 is an incorrect majority position.

EP is an irrelevant predictor for who will go to the front, because in most cases, the race is either 1/2 or 2/3rds complete. The race for the early lead will and forever always, start right out of the gate. Take this example of horse's early sprint lines - without using times:

Horse A: PP2 - Start: 5, 1/4 Pos: 1
Horse B: PP2 - Start: 1, 1/4 Pos: 1
Horse C: PP8 - Start: 1, 1/4 Pos: 1

Using Horse A's line, is he really a true "E" horse? Let's say that we watched the race replay. He broke slower than several of the outside horses, and then preceeded to rush forward. For a horse to rush up usually means an earlier expediture of energy, as they are suddenly trying to "catch up" with those who outbroke him. If I gave someone a head start in a running sprint, I would have to run much harder to catch up, which would empty the tank sooner, with little in reserve. I'm changing my pace to assume my rightful position, and I'm not comfortable. This is why I would favor Horse B if I matched these lines up. He got the jump over the slower starter. He can run "his race" without having to jump out of his comfort zone. Since he's inside, he only had to outbreak the rail runner to get that lead. Horse C has to outbreak a possible 7 other runners, and get inside to avoid losing ground, which means he'll usually have to use more energy. I'm not saying that outside post front-runners are bad bets (I don't have the stats or ROI to back up such a claim, so I won't go there - many outside runners can outbreak a field with no problem and are still comfortable), but the further away from the inside that one is, the harder one usually has to work.

Having dragged on, I ask myself these questions when trying to put a horse or horses on the lead:

Were they advantaged/disadvantaged by post position in previous races?
Will a change in karma (jockey/trainer/work pattern/post) change the habit?
Do other horses usually get the initial jump or is this horse on the engine from the gate?
Has the front-running style succeeded in similar track conditions?
Who tends to run faster first fractions on the lead?

This is the trickiest part, because 22.2 at one track might be 23.0 elsewhere, and 22.2 on a fast surface might equal 23.0 in a bog. Having said that, I think it's possible to use the raw fraction, but one has to really know how each individual track plays (par times help a lot, but so does regular play of several circuits). Times can also be run-up dependent, so that throws another wrinkle.

Speed Points do a good job, but going deeper IMO enhances those numbers, and exposes possible flaws that the points do not address.

Now, it's everyone's turn. Fire away.

I always pay attention to the start call - with no beaten lengths - in sprints.
Sometimes, a horse can speed pop and leave the other earlies behind enough to put them out of their comfort zones. Back in the 70's and 80's, FL was a speed favoring track like no other. Whoever got out first had a huge advantage. Closers were horse who were worse than second out of the gate. :rolleyes:

Brohammer touches on what you are getting at in his book if I believe ... that is if I understand what you are saying.

He says that you cannot just compare FPS against one another to determine who will be where or who will get the lead. You also have to consider running styles. Because as you said above, a horse who tracked in 3rd in a 58.00 first fraction isn't automatically going to the lead next time out even that first fraction is slower.

Tom-

Good memories of Les Hulet on the Lone Speed at FL.
Cashed a few of those at a price.

mike pizzolla's software black magic has both postional and velocity measurements as a basis for his methodology, actually both are good indicators imo but are not mutually inclusive

Jeebus,

Since the entire NewPace concept is based upon using NO PACE RATINGS, imagine what happens if we can do this well - then you add good pace numbers.

You REALLY need to look at NewPace.


Dave

New Pace
 

This concept must have been out there somewhere if not Dave has A gem.
Has changed my complete outlook in last seven days since receiving DVD and grasping the tutorial.
Golden Gate today Early and late and tonight at Charles Town same thing.
Time and patience as New pace is consitent in your Handicapping a race.
Mac:) :) :)

The golden goose was a drop from MSW to M15000 or to M7500, with early speed. Hulet, and that girl rider....Pinky Smith.....she was a master at speed popping and having horse left at the wire. The good old days.

Thanks, Mac.

It is a pretty amazing difference, isn't it. I can only assume that it will get better as we expand it.

To give credit where credit is due, it was Jim Cramer's concept of "where the winner takes the lead for the first time" that paved the way for this. I am still surprised at how different the race looks when compared to "Where the winner is."


Jim has some other principles, which he graciously taught me last week on my Kentucky trip. I look forward to spending some time working on some of those ideas in the coming months.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

I know that Jim Cramer is HDW, but does he have another website? Kind of curious.

As far as NewPace is concerned, I'll probably buy in the next couple of days. I'm busy all weekend, but may have time to do some exploring on Monday.

In my thinking, EP isn't supposed to tell me who's going to get the lead. It tells me who should be winning at the quarter pole or thereabouts. Knowing/trying to figure out who has the lead at the top of the stretch is very important to me.
I make my own Quirin style figs and the pace fig is still important to me. I have begun making a 1fr fig to help me with this early speed thing....it's the same old question I have always had: running style vs figs...which one takes precedence?

The key to winning in horse racing is: bet more on the winning horse.

While pace call analysis can be used as a balancing point, I think some call it a fulcrum point, it certainly doesn't tell you who will be on the lead at the stretch call or the 1/4 pole.

My experience tells me that, who is leading at the 2nd call or who is leading at the stretch call, isn't nearly as important as which 3 or 4 horses will be at the front, at the stretch call. I have posted several times in the past, and probably some others have mentioned it also, about 80% of all winners are in the top 4 positions at the stretch call. And, the vast majority of the winners who come from farther back at the stretch call, are the beneficiaries of the excess energy expenditures of several early speed horses.

So, if we can figure the 3 or 4 horses, depending on field size, that will be on top at the stretch, all that is left is deciding which of those 3 or 4 will have the strongest final run.

It's really an energy/positional problem, not just a "running style/pace" problem. How much energy can a horse expend in order to get to the front 4, at the stretch, and after expanding that amount of energy, how much energy will he have left?

Smart Ass
 

Do us all a favor and don't be a smart ass!!!!


Turfbar

By the way, when you figure out how to determine this, DON'T TELL ANYONE!

Don't listen to that Raybo guy! Tell us everything!


Seriously, your "how much energy" quote makes perfect sense. The entire problem breaks down when you even try to discuss this further. See, you actually need a workable energy calculation.

To my knowledge there are no published, workable, viable formulas to compute such a thing accurately. (Emphasis on the important word.)

If you know of such a formula, please post it - I'd love to see it.

I have one but it is rudimentary at best. Compared to how good it should be, it is pitifully weak.

If one has such a formula, one should be able to capture a high percentage of winners, including the longer-priced horses. Picking individual winners becomes more problematic because of the form factor but as a group the "contenders" should hit an amazing percentage of winners.

The approach I am using (and marketing) is truly hitting over 80% among the contenders (about 4.5 per race).

I'm not about to pull an Andy Beyer and neither should anyone else.

The key to current available energy is highlighted in the quote. After that, you can figure the formula.

In regard to identifying early leaders, has anyone used the theories or ratings suggested in " The Power Of Early Speed" by Steve Klein of DRF.
I off and on have tried the pace ratings in one of Beyers books but did not find they made a big difference in the bottom line. Has anyone tried these for an extended period? I feel the ratings are probably as correct as you can get but I believe they also may prove as has been mentioned often here that the numerical knowledge of pace may not be as important as knowing for example---Ok, in this field X amount of horses are gonig to try to go right to the front and X are not??

Pace handicapping...
 

This post examplifies the mistake that most people make concerning pace handicapping.

It is widely assumed that pace handicapping is all about "which horses are going to try to go right to the front"...or, "which horses figure to come from behind"...and that's just not true.

Have you ever watched a longer distance race in the Olympics...and have seen the runners looking at their wrist watches at key points in the race?

Why do they do it?

They do it because they know that, unless they pace themselves properly during the race, their individual performances will suffer.

If they are on the lead, they have to run "within themselves", and not try to set too fast a pace...otherwise, they won't have their customary late kick when that late kick is called for. Energy expended early is not available late.

If the runners are trailing the field, they want to make sure that the pace leaders are not setting too SLOW a pace...because then, their customary late kick may not be good enough to overcome the advantage of these "well rested" front runners.

It works exactly the same way in horseracing...with the exception that there are no wrist watches on the scene -- although some jockeys claim to have a clock "in their head".

When a horse gets an easy, uncontested lead, and is able to slow the pace down to a comfortable level...then this horse will deliver the very best race it is capable of...and the other horses in the race are placed at a distinct disadvantage.

If a "heated" pace duel develops...or if the lone frontrunner "gets away" from the jockey, and runs a much faster pace than is ideal for the circumstances...then the race's advantage switches to the trailing horses...and our frontrunner finds himself with a tall mountain to climb in the stretch.

That's where competent pace handicapping comes in!

Proper pace handicapping is not just used in order to predict what is likely to happen in TODAY'S race...it is also used to identify these distinct advantages and disadvantages, which have developed in PAST races...so the horseplayer can form an accurate opinion about the REAL abilities, and the TRUE condition of the horses in today's field.

That's where accurate pace FIGURES...and proper pace figure INTERPRETATION play a crucial role.

There is a lot more to pace handicapping than "who is going to the front"...and "who figures to close in the stretch".

I cannot disagree with that statement. However, I have found that with just the above info, you can beat the game if you wager them properly.

Dave,

Are you saying that information, solely? No speed figures, pace figures, class consideration, current form, etc?

Thanks,

Mike

Mike
I use New Pace Daves product for about month now.
Yes I use speed figures and pace figs from Bris pp nothing else and this clearly gives me the early horses and the late horses that are competive in any given race using his formula.
One thing I found with New Pace you want to be selective in handicapping races even after month it takes time but for me the effort is paying off.
Mac:confused:

Looks like I'll have to spend a little bit and get new pace for myself.

Thanks,

Mike

No, and I did not intentionally mislead you. Sorry.

Obviously, you need SOME numbers to keep things straight. Truly, I have been using NewPace myself for awhile and it absolutely beats the game. Speed figures are a part of it, as they tell you who simply does not figure (no pun intended) to run to today's pace.

Ironically, I do not find that you need pace figures for that, although I admit I am trying to improve things with Jim Cramer's pace numbers, which are the absolute best I have ever seen. To date I have not been able to, but I think eventually I will.

And let me make this clear - I CAN do a better job of picking the winning horse with Jim's pace figures - that is what they do. I just cannot make as much money because it takes me off of the less obvious horse that sometimes winds up paying big prices.


So, in NewPace you need:

1. The last 10 speed ratings (Beyers, BRIS, par-based, Cramer, all should be fine).

2. The last 10 running lines (positions and lengths).

3. Jockey's win percentage.

I don't think I've let anything out.


Dave

Thanks for the clarification. :ThmbUp:

For the record, it doesn't work exactly the same way in human racing and thoroughbred racing, although the basic physiological reactions to exertions are similar between horses and humans. Tactically, they're quite different. Especially when it comes to dirt horse racing.

Would you mind expanding on your comment a little...so I can see where our disagreement lies?

Why not pull and Andy Beyer?
 

It is completely relevant to the discussion.

The Beyer is a measure of energy - as would be any speed fig.

fffastt

I know you know what you are ..............
 

....talking about; but I disagree with you about: That you need a numerical measurement of pace to determine the pace scenarios that you outlined above.

You can do this by the method that you said was too 'primitive' in a sense.

It's simple in concept really. If a horse always has the lead by the 1/4in a 6f sprint - he will again today.

You can separate horses by their stalking preferences. You can be good at determining raceshape by the horse's PP's.

Having said the above, I like you do use a quantitative measurement to determine ability - a speed fig. We are measuring the same thing.

My argument is you can accurately measure raceshape w/out numerical ratings.

fffastt

Casual attention to the Olympic events makes someone knowledgeable on human racing to about the same extent that watching the Triple Crown makes someone an expert on horse racing.

Regarding tactical differences, here's a hint: go watch video of every Olympic or World Championship 800-metre or 1500-metre that you can find, see how (in)frequently the winners lead from start to finish compared to gate-to-wire thoroughbreds-- especially dirt horses-- and then tell me if you still think it "works exactly the same."

All this time and I had no idea Violet had a devout fan in Tom. I love old threads; can't wait to tell her a basterd like Tom remembers her. :cool:

You missed my meaning. Andy Beyer taught anyone who could afford his book how to make speed figures. What happened next you should be able to figure out.

14% is not an eye opener
 

I have no agenda and have been absent from handicapping for about 8 years. I was a former customer of Dave's but left to raise my family and be a good daddy.

I do enjoy his work and I'm sure he'll get a call from me someday out of the blue.

Anyways, I must say I was "initially" intrigued by Daves "New Pace".

The figures sounded amazing 40%/60%/14%. I admit, I thought there was a nugget especially after seeing early speed profitabitability disappear from most players toolbox.

There probably is.

But upon thinking about it - nothing so far pertaining to those percentages is that enlightening - at least on the surface. I mean, the math and the 14 percent at 2nd call mean so little. No disrespect.

ROI - yes it might. But this new enlightenment of 40/60 and 14% in middle mean little.

I'm not provoking a challenge. Actually, the other way around. Set me straight.

At the mercy of no longer having a database and current horseracing figures I'll give it shot to explain:

What is average field size now days 8.24 horses a race per a google search?

That means 12.13% by shear randomness being first at any call or a random horse winning a race.

So 40% of the winners are first at the first call per Dave.

60% of the winners are not first at the first call per Dave.

I think Dave said 14% of the winners "TAKE" the lead at the 2nd call.

Not to be confused with x% of the winners were first at the first call and first at the second call.

No matter how you look at it, the horses are closer to the finish at the 2nd call so naturally that horse has a greater chance of winning then any other horse in the race. This is whether the horse was 1st at the 1st and maintained it at the second call or took the lead at the second. This number is greater then 50%....it's gotta be like 54% (40 plus 14). It's less then 60% as Dave includes the second call in his math.

So, 14% taking the lead at the second and 12.13% are pretty close. I was initially intrigued, I thought I was supposed to be but upon thinking I don't see anything that enlightening there. Maybe I just misunderstood the point.

Now to elaborate on Dave's 60% Late pace.

If the average field size is 8.24 (?).
60% of horse win who aren't 1st at the first call.
This means about 7.24 horses who aren't 1st at the 1st have 60% chance of winning.
This means 1 horse who is first accounts for 40% of the winning chances.
This also means that 1 other horse accounts for 14% of the winning chances who takes over 1st at the second call yet is included in Dave's 60% LP.
This then might mean 6.24 horse have 46% chance of winning.
This means ROUGHLY 7.37% chance for each of the remaining 6.24 horses to win.

So a 14% chance of the horse taking the lead at the second call and winnign - THAT's a big number though almost random (12%) but not an eye opener.
40% is big too. Not a big eye opener.
So therefore, 60% isn't either especially each remaining horse has just a ROUGH 7.37% chance of winning.

I will say I did watch a couple of other very interesting videos of Dave on his website. I think he mentioned a high odds horse essentially eliminating. So let's assume there's one of those in everyone of these races....

(for the sake of making the point I'm not going to back and retreive the exact number but maybe 2% chance of winning if over X odds)

Maybe then 5.24 horses have 44% chance of winning. Now we're at 8.4% chance of winning.

I'm really not trying to discredit Dave! Not at all, just seeing that the percentages aren't all that enlightening. Just trying to decipher things.

I personally found my sweet spot with about 15% winners in my heyday. I think if one tries betting 8.4% horses they'll go crazy and I'm sure that's not what Dave is preaching!

I keep thinking there's someway to combine the public percentages with handicapping principles...don't mean to over simplify.

So maybe I'll succumb and buy the book.

But in the meantime....can someone tell me where my math is wrong?

I think I'm right, but the point I'm sure which will be preached is profit.

Hopefully you pick up on my points.

Skeptic,

I kinda-sorta followed your math. Doesn't seem wrong.

Here's the thing...

Most approaches, especially those that are based upon pace, pick early horses.

The average mutuel for all winners is around $13 and change. The average mutuel for horses that win early is probably slight more than half that - which is why players that bet early horses wind up on so many horses that pay $7 or less.

The average mutuel on horses that run late is probably more like $22-$23. So, finding a way to bet good late horses makes it a lot easier to be profitable.

The early horses have a tendency to be somewhat obvious, hence the $6-$7 mutuels. Besides, there are usually only 2-3 to choose from in the conventional pace approach (i.e. velocity or pace ratings).

Late horses are way less obvious. They often pay a price because they are far from obvious. Many of them win not on visible merit but because the other horses failed. But there are simply too many to bet them all. Remember, there are usually 3 early horses, which leaves 5 late horses.

(Who are the late horses? - The ones that are not early.)

So, NewPace explains how to get these higher-priced mutuels.


Our expectation is that we will get 80%+ of all winners in our top 4 horses per race!

In addition, we expect to get 80% of the winners above 4/1, gradually scaling down as the odds go way up. But even way up, to the $60 and up prices we expect to get pretty close to half of them. (Admittedly, some of these come in an ancillary plays - what we call "price only" horses." This adds about .5 horses per race.)

The important thing to look at is that when the day is done you see two groups of horses: Our contenders and the non-contenders. When you look at the non-contenders below 8/1 or so you will see that they are winning almost no races and losing about 40% per wagered dollar or more. This includes low-priced horses!

If you did nothing but play against our low-priced toss-outs you could probably make a living.

Rarely, you will see a race where the play actually calls for 6 horses as contenders. In order to have that, you must have at least 2 and probably 3 or 4 double-digit odds horses. These are the ultimate "chaos races." The average price in these races is gigantic.


Hope this makes sense.

Dave

Dave, where is this "40% of winners are first at the first call" stat coming from? I don't get anything nearly that high.

I looked at about the last 25,000 races from 2010, asking the question, where did the winner first challenge for the lead. The definition of "challenge" was to be within 1 length (inclusive) at the first call.

"First call" to me is defined as 2f in a sprint, 4f in a route. In other words, the standard for pace calls in pace handicapping for the last 2 decades.

Okay, thank you, because that's very different from 40% winning when leading at the first call, which is how some people were interpreting it. (I took that quote in my previous post from the one directly above your penultimate post.)

Although there is a semantical difference, the implication is still pretty clear.

Here are a couple of graphics to make it even clearer:

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NewApp-0214.png

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NewApp-0215.png

Thanks Dave.

I figured you'd have a great answer like you normally do.

Glad the point wasn't lost in my public message....you got it. The math.

Your point and my next, profits.

Hope to be in touch but SO BUSY to delve into this game again!

For me it was a 20 hour work day, 7 days a week. I never should have quit because it was also when I was happiest (with of course an obvious exception, family).

I left when I discovered some things I wasn't happy about, family, Kyle and people kept figuring out what I was figuring out!

Ahhhhh, pardon me.....
 

....I see what U are saying :)

fffastt