Understanding Running Styles

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Early pace, presser, sustained, closer.... Seems like there are various opinions out there.

Do you base and/or designate running style based on a horse's running position, or go by the lengths (ahead or beaten) at the first call?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Psychotic Parakeet

Early pace, presser, sustained, closer.... Seems like there are various opinions out there.

Do you base and/or designate running style based on a horse's running position, or go by the lengths (ahead or beaten) at the first call?

IMO..."running position" means nothing unless it's related to the lengths behind the leader. The horse that's running 2nd but is 10 lengths behind the leader can't be called a "presser/stalker"...nor can a horse that's running 7th while within 3 lengths of the lead be called a "closer".

[Tom]

Whatever you decide to use is good as long as you are consistent.
If you use designations made by a program, or, say BRIS, you better know what they mean.

[Prof.Factor]

I use lengths back to determine Frontrunner, Pace Presser, Stalker, Closer, Deep Closer, and Wanna-be.
My designation Wanna-be is a horse that is too slow to get where they wanna-be in the herd, with beaten lengths widening throughout.
:-)

[Dave Schwartz]

Early pace, presser, sustained, closer.... Seems like there are various opinions out there.

I subscribe to the Jim Cramer theory. Quite brilliant, actually.

E=a horse that challenges for the lead at the 1st call. (My definition is "within 1 length of the leader.)

EP=a horse that challenges for the lead for the 1st time at the 2nd call.

P=a horse that challenges for the lead for the 1st time at the stretch call.

S=a horse that challenges for the lead for the 1st time in the last furlong.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I subscribe to the Jim Cramer theory. Quite brilliant, actually.

E=a horse that challenges for the lead at the 1st call. (My definition is "within 1 length of the leader.)

EP=a horse that challenges for the lead for the 1st time at the 2nd call.

P=a horse that challenges for the lead for the 1st time at the stretch call.

S=a horse that challenges for the lead for the 1st time in the last furlong.

I really like this approach. Thank you so much!

[traynor]

A more detailed explanation:
http://www.horsedata.com/?q=content/history-rspos-tm

One might take the comment about 65% profit flat betting the top 3 horses at the quarter mile with a BIG grain of salt. Perhaps two or three.

[traynor]

My mistake. It was 65% profit betting only the horse that was actually in the lead at the quarter mile. Apologies to all.

[cj]

Originally Posted by traynor

My mistake. It was 65% profit betting only the horse that was actually in the lead at the quarter mile. Apologies to all.

I take anything that occurs after the bell and relating it betting before the bell as pure folly.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Originally Posted by traynor

A more detailed explanation:
http://www.horsedata.com/?q=content/history-rspos-tm

One might take the comment about 65% profit flat betting the top 3 horses at the quarter mile with a BIG grain of salt. Perhaps two or three.

Thank you for posting this too! It is very useful information!

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I subscribe to the Jim Cramer theory. Quite brilliant, actually.

E=a horse that challenges for the lead at the 1st call. (My definition is "within 1 length of the leader.)

EP=a horse that challenges for the lead for the 1st time at the 2nd call.

P=a horse that challenges for the lead for the 1st time at the stretch call.

S=a horse that challenges for the lead for the 1st time in the last furlong.

I like this organic approach to defining style. And have always HATED that no universal definitions (parameters?) exist for easy track to track comparison.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by cj

I take anything that occurs after the bell and relating it betting before the bell as pure folly.

Bravo. And a rare case of total agreement for us. lol.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by cj

I take anything that occurs after the bell and relating it betting before the bell as pure folly.

Sage advice. There is a similar "statistic" in greyhound racing (over many years) that 80% of the races are won by the leader at the 1/8th position. Unfortunately, the information is pretty much useless because it is "exceedingly difficult" to predict which entry that leader will be.

[JohnGalt1]

Bris rates all horses in the pp's.

I change about 20% of the ratings.

I consider an E horse to have early speed and has NOT passed a horse in any race.

An EP is about 2, and no more than 3 lengths behind at the first call and passes horses.

A P is 3-5 lengths behind at the first call.

An S is 5+ lengths behind.

I ignore the NA horses and rate them. If never passing a horse, but always starting a few lengths back and fading is an E. A horse that comes out of the gate double digits behind and doesn't pass a horse is an S. I very seldom do a pace line figure on these hopeless cases.

I never label maidens. Their running style is not established. I wait for a win.

Shippers from Europe, if no clue in comment lines, I rate a P.

[mountainman]

It's critical to remember that a (reasonably) versatile horse's running style can change with the distance. I've seen lots of frontrunning route horses close with a rush in short sprints loaded with weak speeds. But when some moronic jockey attempts the same strategy in a field of strong routers-or even, sometimes,at 6 furlongs-the animal WILL come up empty. This happens ALL the time. Riders (and trainers) fall in LOVE with whatever tactic worked (or nearly worked) most recently, but often don't understand just WHY it flattered the performance.

Stamina is rarely the main determinant in a horse's distance preference. It's often more about tempo and , especially, field complexion.