DISTANCE BETWEEN WINNER & PLACE HORSE

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Back to the original premise.

1. We have 2 horses running 6F.

Horse A has the lead at the top of the stretch by 1 length over horse B. They both go into a drive and horse B draws off and wins by 5 lengths.

2. Same 2 horses, this time at 12F.

The theory says that horse B should win by 10 lengths this time because the race is twice as long.

What happens?

Most likely horse B will time his move at approximately the same point in the race as last time. He may win by more than 5 lengths this time depending on the exact timing, but he won't win by 10 because he's using the other horse as a target for when to make his move. He won't have a 5 length lead after 6F like his did in the 6F race and he won't draw off by 10 in just the length of the stretch.

Let's just say he won by 7 lengths instead of 10.

Let's say the winner ran 100 in both races.

In the 6F race the runner up gets about an 88.

In the 12F race the runner up gets about a 92.

Same horses, same performances, but the figures change.

I may be off by a point or so because I don't have the latest charts, but that's the problem and why it occurs. Race are not sprints with horses trying to optimize their final time. They are using each other as positional prompters and making moves at the appropriate time. The margin of victory and final time depends on what happened before.

It is almost impossible to accurately predict how a horse will perform at 10 furlongs based on his 6 furlong performance. You could say that if horse a beats horse b by 5 lengths that MIGHT mean he has a slight advantage over horse b but here are too many variables to consider including ability at the distance, running style, what the pace will be, etc,etc,etc. At the very least I would need to see how a horse performs at about 1 furlong of the longer distance and how the pace scenario suites his running style. Speculation with anything less is little more than guess work. Trying to make a prediction based on so little information would be, as Ainslie said, bad for the digestion.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Back to the original premise.

1. We have 2 horses running 6F.

Horse A has the lead at the top of the stretch by 1 length over horse B. They both go into a drive and horse B draws off and wins by 5 lengths.

2. Same 2 horses, this time at 12F.

The theory says that horse B should win by 10 lengths this time because the race is twice as long.

What happens?

Most likely horse B will time his move at approximately the same point in the race as last time. He may win by more than 5 lengths this time depending on the exact timing, but he won't win by 10 because he's using the other horse as a target for when to make his move. He won't have a 5 length lead after 6F like his did in the 6F race and he won't draw off by 10 in just the length of the stretch.

Let's just say he won by 7 lengths instead of 10.

Let's say the winner ran 100 in both races.

In the 6F race the runner up gets about an 88.

In the 12F race the runner up gets about a 92.

Same horses, same performances, but the figures change.

I may be off by a point or so because I don't have the latest charts, but that's the problem and why it occurs. Race are not sprints with horses trying to optimize their final time. They are using each other as positional prompters and making moves at the appropriate time. The margin of victory and final time depends on what happened before.

That is, from a handicapper's viewpoint, the statement of the thread. Every bit as important, the jockey, who is directing the animal, isn't racing against the clock. The jock is constantly asking the horse to slow down, relax, accelerate, switch, re-direct, and a multitude of other things that are effecting not only the final time, but the fractions.

The objective is to get to the wire first. The purse distribution isn't effected by how quickly or slothly (is that a word?) the winner gets there, and therefore, that element isn't a priority of the effort.

In many ways, from a jockey's standpoint, a horse race is more akin to a game of chess than a comparison of speed.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Back to the original premise.

1. We have 2 horses running 6F.

Horse A has the lead at the top of the stretch by 1 length over horse B. They both go into a drive and horse B draws off and wins by 5 lengths.

2. Same 2 horses, this time at 12F.

The theory says that horse B should win by 10 lengths this time because the race is twice as long.

What happens?

Most likely horse B will time his move at approximately the same point in the race as last time. He may win by more than 5 lengths this time depending on the exact timing, but he won't win by 10 because he's using the other horse as a target for when to make his move. He won't have a 5 length lead after 6F like his did in the 6F race and he won't draw off by 10 in just the length of the stretch.

Let's just say he won by 7 lengths instead of 10.

Let's say the winner ran 100 in both races.

In the 6F race the runner up gets about an 88.

In the 12F race the runner up gets about a 92.

Same horses, same performances, but the figures change.

I may be off by a point or so because I don't have the latest charts, but that's the problem and why it occurs. Race are not sprints with horses trying to optimize their final time. They are using each other as positional prompters and making moves at the appropriate time. The margin of victory and final time depends on what happened before.

have not we just been through all that?
not the same two horses, as that is too improbable but we have been yakking about that theory, the whole thread basically.

[cj]

Originally Posted by steveb

have not we just been through all that?
not the same two horses, as that is too improbable but we have been yakking about that theory, the whole thread basically.

That is what I thought also.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

It is almost impossible to accurately predict how a horse will perform at 10 furlongs based on his 6 furlong performance. You could say that if horse a beats horse b by 5 lengths that MIGHT mean he has a slight advantage over horse b but here are too many variables to consider including ability at the distance, running style, what the pace will be, etc,etc,etc. At the very least I would need to see how a horse performs at about 1 furlong of the longer distance and how the pace scenario suites his running style. Speculation with anything less is little more than guess work. Trying to make a prediction based on so little information would be, as Ainslie said, bad for the digestion.

I wasn't handicapping a race. I was presenting the reason why the data does not match the beaten length theory.

It's because the theory is wrong!

The theory assumes that jockeys/horses are trying to maximize their final time, the jockeys are smart enough to know how to distribute that specific horse's energy perfectly on that specific surface to maximize its time, and that the horses cooperate. None of that is true.

What happens is some horses go out and the rest sit off whatever pace develops. Then they do their best late in the race when they are trying to win. The best horse is typically only gong to win by as much as he can outrun the others in the stretch drive (given his position coming into the stretch) regardless of whether it's 5F or 5 miles.

That's why average win margins don't expand sharply the way the theory suggests.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

That is, from a handicapper's viewpoint, the statement of the thread. Every bit as important, the jockey, who is directing the animal, isn't racing against the clock. The jock is constantly asking the horse to slow down, relax, accelerate, switch, re-direct, and a multitude of other things that are effecting not only the final time, but the fractions.

The objective is to get to the wire first. The purse distribution isn't effected by how quickly or slothly (is that a word?) the winner gets there, and therefore, that element isn't a priority of the effort.

In many ways, from a jockey's standpoint, a horse race is more akin to a game of chess than a comparison of speed.

All this is true but it does not change the act that it is the horse with the fastest time in the race that wins. More races are lost by jockeys riding the other guys horse rather than getting the best performance from their own. Nor does it change the fact that speed figures based on time are very good evaluators and predictors of a horse's performance and must be respected.

The fact remains that unlike a game of chess where both players start out equal, the faster horses have an advantage which is hard to overcome except for poor racing luck or a bad ride. Even the best riders say they cannot get a better performance from a horse than it is capable of. All they can do is ride their best and hope that the faster horses have poor luck or get bad rides. If they have the best horse, all they have to do is ride it for it's best performance and not get in it's way.

I forget who first said these wise words that "The race is not always to the swift nor the fight to the strong, but that's the way to bet".

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by steveb

have not we just been through all that?
not the same two horses, as that is too improbable but we have been yakking about that theory, the whole thread basically.

I was explaining WHY the theory is wrong even though we already know from the data that the theory is wrong.

For the record, I don't have a better way of measuring these things using time.

I think what typically happens is that speed figure makers eventually move away from using the clock because of all the problems and start making performance figures instead by changing the value of beaten lengths, changing the value of a 1/5th of a second, breaking races out because of extreme paces, breaking figures out on the assumption the speed of the track changed because a figure doesn't make sense, etc..

I have no problem with that because the goal is to produce figures that reflect how good these horses are. I would just say they aren't speed figures.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I wasn't handicapping a race. I was presenting the reason why the data does not match the beaten length theory.

It's because the theory is wrong!

The theory assumes that jockeys/horses are trying to maximize their final time, the jockeys are smart enough to know how to distribute that specific horse's energy perfectly on that specific surface to maximize its time, and that the horses cooperate. None of that is true.

What happens is some horses go out and the rest sit off whatever pace develops. Then they do their best late in the race when they are trying to win. The best horse is typically only gong to win by as much as he can outrun the others in the stretch drive (given his position coming into the stretch) regardless of whether it's 5F or 5 miles.

That's why average win margins don't expand sharply the way the theory suggests.

That depends on how the race is run. In sprint races horses are typically won by riding a horse to it's best time. In longer slow paced races the timing of a horse's run are very important, which is why races like the Belmont are often called a rider's race. In slow paced distance races, frequently on grass, the real running begins in the last 2 or 3 furlongs making them more like sprints. This is why Beyer has changed his beaten lengths adjustment for grass routes.
The point however that he misses is that beaten lengths only increase slightly with distance since the longest routes are not as long compared to sprints as for the human track events where the range of distances he cites are much, much wider.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I was explaining WHY the theory is wrong even though we already know from the data that the theory is wrong.

For the record, I don't have a better way of measuring these things using time.

I think what typically happens is that speed figure makers eventually move away from using the clock because of all the problems and start making performance figures instead by changing the value of beaten lengths, changing the value of a 1/5th of a second, breaking races out because of extreme paces, breaking figures out on the assumption the speed of the track changed because a figure doesn't make sense, etc..

I have no problem with that because the goal is to produce figures that reflect how good these horses are. I would just say they aren't speed figures.

They're not. They are still called speed figures in a generic sense because that's what they originally were. I agree when other important factors such as pace, pace patterns and ground loss in particular are included, they become performance figures.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

That depends on how the race is run. In sprint races horses are typically won by riding a horse to it's best time. In longer slow paced races the timing of a horse's run are very important, which is why races like the Belmont are often called a rider's race. In slow paced distance races, frequently on grass, the real running begins in the last 2 or 3 furlongs making them more like sprints. This is why Beyer has changed his beaten lengths adjustment for grass routes.
The point however that he misses is that beaten lengths only increase slightly with distance since the longest routes are not as long compared to sprints as for the human track events where the range of distances he cites are much, much wider.

No jockey sits on a horse and says my goal is to maximize this horse's time. What he says is, I want to maximize this horse's chances of winning. They are obviously very related, but they are different things even in sprints.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

No jockey sits on a horse and says my goal is to maximize this horse's time. What he says is, I want to maximize this horse's chances of winning. They are obviously very related, but they are different things even in sprints.

In sprints, they are so close to the same thing that the way to maximize a horses chances of winning is virtually to maximize a horse's time. If a horse is faster than it's competition all a rider has to do is primarily keeping a horse within its pace comfort zone and pattern and avoiding trouble and unnecessary wide trips. The same applies to longer distances but to a lessor extent. In longer distances the main thing is to maintain an energy efficient even pace pattern for that horse and get the best possible trip. The exception in both distances is that for a front runner if it can get away with a slow early pace it may be running at less than an optimal pace time-wise but is forcing the closers to run even more inefficiently.
In sprints one can get away with a faster than even early pace, probably because the momentum built up by a fast early pace will counteract the fatigue caused by running inefficiently fast early. All the rules of Physics still apply.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

They're not. They are still called speed figures in a generic sense because that's what they originally were. I agree when other important factors such as pace, pace patterns and ground loss in particular are included, they become performance figures.

I will add that they are still speed figures since the starting point is time which is adjusted for variants, pace, pace patterns, ground loss, etc. So they could be called adjusted speed figures as well as performance figures.
As more and more tracks adopt more improved technology we will have exact times and sectionals for all horses, not just the leaders so the matter of the value of beaten lengths ceases to be a problem as well as ground loss. The adjustments for pace and pace patterns will also become more accurate as the principles of Physics are applied rather than depending on pars. I believe that further research and application of Bioenergetics has the potential to be a quantum leap in handicapping like speed figures were.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

In sprints, they are so close to the same thing that the way to maximize a horses chances of winning is virtually to maximize a horse's time. If a horse is faster than it's competition all a rider has to do is primarily keeping a horse within its pace comfort zone and pattern and avoiding trouble and unnecessary wide trips. The same applies to longer distances but to a lessor extent. In longer distances the main thing is to maintain an energy efficient even pace pattern for that horse and get the best possible trip. The exception in both distances is that for a front runner if it can get away with a slow early pace it may be running at less than an optimal pace time-wise but is forcing the closers to run even more inefficiently.
In sprints one can get away with a faster than even early pace, probably because the momentum built up by a fast early pace will counteract the fatigue caused by running inefficiently fast early. All the rules of Physics still apply.

I'm not going to debate with you any more.

You have theories and contort all the data and evidence to fit them.

I look at what's going on, the data and results.

Sprint or route, dirt or turf, the only thing the riders are thinking about is winning. And though they are related, maximizing final time is NOT always the way to do it and the riders know that. They will back down the pace or get more aggressive as need be depending on how the track is playing and what the other riders are doing. The time is the simply the outcome of the general abilities of the horses and that race development. If some rider can get away being loose in a slow half in a sprint, he couldn't care less what the final time is when it knows it will be much more difficult for even a superior horse in the back to close him down.

[Tom]

Time only matters if you are in jail.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not going to debate with you any more.

You have theories and contort all the data and evidence to fit them.

I look at what's going on, the data and results.

Sprint or route, dirt or turf, the only thing the riders are thinking about is winning. And though they are related, maximizing final time is NOT always the way to do it and the riders know that. They will back down the pace or get more aggressive as need be depending on how the track is playing and what the other riders are doing. The time is the simply the outcome of the general abilities of the horses and that race development. If some rider can get away being loose in a slow half in a sprint, he couldn't care less what the final time is when it knows it will be much more difficult for even a superior horse in the back to close him down.

If this post is what you call civil debating, I'm glad you are done with it. So am I.

You obviously are not reading my posts before reacting to them. I DID say that in the case of front runners it is to the riders' advantage to slow the pace, even if it means running inefficiently because that forces the closers to run even more inefficiently.

Please don't make this personal by accusing me of contorting the data. I am not contorting anything. Do not imply that you are the only one who uses data and results. What I am doing, and you are not, is critically examining certain beliefs to see if they stand up to scientific scrutiny to better understand the data and results.