Using Pace
 

I have so many ways at looking at different racing factors that I confuse myself. I'm back at implementing pace into my rewrite. I have ten different views of pace and probably need to add two more aggregations for it to work. This doesn't count Dave's recent outlook at pace or Giles'. Pace answers at least two things- Can the horse be at the needed call, and the pace rating. Pace rating may not have any value since it is a similar factor to speed and speed triumphs all other factors. Willing to share any successful methods of implementing pace? Is there any value to pace outside of making the call?

Go here and search - the topic if fully discussed www.paceadvantage.com

I guess it's no comment? That's okay.

We can't revisit this Tom? We need to update our info.

Those PA old timers were using Taulbot slide rules and sh*t.

Using last race pace has some benefit as a possible form indicator by answering the question, "Did the horse get to his needed call last race?". Using best pace in a similar race is always good because like gets like is always our best indicators. Now we live in an era of not using key races. I have a problem with using a non-key combination of races like best of last four races or best two out of the last three. I think I'll review Dave's pace video for now. By the way, Ray's calculator does work a bit. Maybe all that's needed is to bring it up-to-date. Handicapping is more sophisticated nowadays. The public is hitting 38% verse 33% in the past. Nothing like a good conversation on horses if we can get one going here.

Before computers, Taulbot had legions of followers with his slide-rule.

As with any point of handicapping--I always use as near the last race as I can get.
I hear some say they don't even look at the last race--doesn't figure into their handicapping approach at all. I say that's a bunch of hooey--if anyone can show me any stat, anything at all....that shows the last race is NOT the most important in the grand scheme of deducing a winner--I'll give them $100.
How can you note improving/declining form, speed, pace, trainer intent--without the last race?

Now having said that---with most of my mechanical approaches--I use the best of last two--almost universally. Going farther back turns what should be a pamphlet---into "War and Peace".

pace is over rated :eek:

Do you play mostly longshots?

Thanks for starting the discussion. I'd like to keep the discussion going on the "use of pace" not pace itself. Let's assume whatever way one comes up with pace works then how would you implement it?

There could be many different uses for a pace fig. The last race might indicate shape. But what if the last race was on a different surface and/or distance? On the other hand, using a similar key race might indicate what a horse could do on today's surface and distance and has long shot potential. But if it is eight races back, we might not be talking about the same horse. Then there are various aggregates such as best of last two or best of last three etc. But many of these combinations may not contain a similar key race and days between races may screw analysis up even more. Just having a pace fig or any other factor(speed, class, etc.) doesn't do the trick all by itself. It's how one uses the stat that counts.

You're playing 5K claimers, and neither know nor care about a trainer's intent?

Come on, Speedy...the horse has no say in what will be a prep race--and what will be a serious win attempt--that's part of Trainer Intent.

And how do you pare down the field to something manageable? You and I are not that different in handicapping methods....somewhere along the line I began using best of last 2---it works for me.
There is so much more to the art of handicapping than just sterile, soulless data. It has to be that way--if not it's just a boring, mindless electronic game.

I guarantee you put a lot more thought into your handicapping than just "playing the numbers over everything else"

have a good day

-NCG

I think it is misleading for one to make the basic assumption (unproven in most cases) that how a particular horse will "distribute its energy" in a given race is predictable enough to be worthwhile. With a (very) few exceptions, horses generally respond to the jockey's urging (or lack thereof) and the trainer's intent (or lack thereof) more than to some hard-coded "pace preference."

Mine a decent size database for information on the races in which a given horse wins or finishes less than a length behind the winner. Correlate that with the horses position and beaten lengths at different points in the race to establish a "pace profile" for that particular horse. Do enough of those, and you will realize that a given horse's "pace preference" is more related to the riding style and preferences of its jockey than to innate characteristics of the horse.

Specifically, unless you have some convincing data to the contrary, to say that "pace is overrated" is an understatement. Again, with a few notable exceptions, horses win races because their jockeys took advantage of opportunities for advancement, and got their mounts to the wire first. (Crude "examples" from a handful of races are not considered "convincing.")

I think every horse has a best way of running and accordingly a best way to distribute energy for its best results. Call those innate characteristics. I would agree that jockeys certainly can alter a horses preference but generally to the detriment of the horse.