TimeformUS Figs Key to Belmont Longshot Win

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Interesting comments here, did not play the race myself. So I put the race into the computer and have the ranked the lowest or best (column AM).

So if we average columns B and AM, we get 3.5 or roughly 4th best. You've brought it back full circle.

[Tom]

Lastly, why the cynicism? Does it make you feel better? If so, please offer some up to any of my posts in the future because now I know I am contributing to your betterment.

My lack of understanding of math is only equalled by your lack of understanding of sarcasm. (Hint - that means more sarcasm)

Your formula provided NO insights into the race at all.
The article did.

Deal with it. (catch that one?)

[Tom]

There are 2 things going on.

1. Conserving energy for the finish.

2. Your position relative to the other horses.

The problem is that when a horse doesn't use it natural speed as a weapon and create separation, he risks allowing the closers to stay in range. I've seen many races where a front runner is swallowed up in a slow paced race.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by cj

That race shape is in the minority of races run in North America, especially on dirt. I'm pretty confident that will prove correct. You have to keep in mind that the very nature of the quick opening quarter is already built into the figures. For example, the baseline I use for Belmont at 7f looks like this:

7.0     22.60     45.01       80.98

The raw times don't matter, it is the ratio of the fractions that is important. So in this case we are looking at a flow of fractions of 22.60, 22.40, then 35.97 (23.98 1/4 equivalent). The second quarter being faster than the first is something that is seen more often at 7f than at other distances.

I'll run a query later to see what percentage of races have the following patterns and how many are won by frontrunners.

Basically even, like 82, 81, 80

Descending, 95, 85, 80

Ascending, 70, 75, 80

The "Valley", 80, 70, 80

The "Peak", 80, 90, 80

I like this - actually adds more races shaes than Quirin had.
Opens up a a wider look at how a race was run.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Tom

The problem is that when a horse doesn't use it natural speed as a weapon and create separation, he risks allowing the closers to stay in range. I've seen many races where a front runner is swallowed up in a slow paced race.

The effect of pace is independent of where other horses are. The horses' muscles don't know whether its pursuers are close or not - only how fast it's going. A front runner speeding out of it's comfort zone to achieve "separation" is just inviting later fatigue. If the horse can get far ahead of the field by staying in it's comfort zone, fine. Otherwise it will pay the price later unless it is so superior to its field that it can still win despite running the race inefficiently.

If a front runner is caught after setting what seems like a slow pace, it may either be an inferior horse for whom that pace was not really slow, a horse that set a pace that seemed slow but was inefficiently run in the go - stop - go pattern we discussed earlier, or was caught by superior horses who would have caught it no matter how efficiently it ran.

There is no advantage to separation if it is bought at the price of an inefficiently run race.


Having said that, there are times when it is wise to run a portion of a race inefficiently, such as to avoid trouble, to get position, to avoid going wide, etc.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Not exactly. The reason that the accelerate - decelerate - re-accelerate pattern is so negative is due to the tiring effect of the stop and go accelerations on the horse. This is true without relation to the position of the other horses, though the possible advantages of the scenario you describe may be an incidental by-product.

You are correct however, in saying that the negative effect of this uneven pattern is increased as the pace increases.

Forget about acceleration and deceleration for a moment. I think you are misunderstanding the point I am making.

I am suggesting that the energy a horse consumes per second faster is not linear.

a. If a solid sprinter goes 49 or 48, he'd barely notice the difference in terms of how much energy he has left for the last quarter.

b. If he goes 44 instead of 45, it might be the difference between winning and finishing up the track.

I think most would agree with that.

I'd way rather be 5 lengths ahead after a 48 half (there's close to 0% chance you are catching me if I have anywhere near similar overall ability) than 1 length ahead after 49. With only a 1 length advantage, if you are a little than me, you are close enough to nail me from that position.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I disagree with 91% of what you and bobphilo have stated in this thread. Ciao!

That's a good thing. Not only does that make for more interesting debate and thought provoking conversation, we can both be happy there's less money coming into the pools from people using the same model of thinking.

Read my previous post, I think it spells it out better.

These extreme scenarios don't play themselves out very often on the track, but they are useful to make a point. Most of the time, what's going on is exactly what you are describing.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

The effect of pace is independent of where other horses are. The horses' muscles don't know whether its pursuers are close or not - only how fast it's going. A front runner speeding out of it's comfort zone to achieve "separation" is just inviting later fatigue. If the horse can get far ahead of the field by staying in it's comfort zone, fine. Otherwise it will pay the price later unless it is so superior to its field that it can still win despite running the race inefficiently.

If a front runner is caught after setting what seems like a slow pace, it may either be an inferior horse for whom that pace was not really slow, a horse that set a pace that seemed slow but was inefficiently run in the go - stop - go pattern we discussed earlier, or was caught by superior horses who would have caught it no matter how efficiently it ran.

There is no advantage to separation if it is bought at the price of an inefficiently run race.


Having said that, there are times when it is wise to run a portion of a race inefficiently, such as to avoid trouble, to get position, to avoid going wide, etc.

We aren't talking about how to maximize final time.

We are talking about winning or losing.

It's not just the efficiency of your pace that matters. Your position relative to other horses also matters. A 1 length greater lead is worth more than the difference between running 50 or 50 1/5th.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by Whosonfirst

So if we average columns B and AM, we get 3.5 or roughly 4th best. You've brought it back full circle.

Correct, and it also gives Column B more weight than any other factor in the race. So a handicapper doing this better be sure that column B is a very strong indicator (at least for this race). This page was designed for looking at pace, and only pace. The horse likely to be in the lead at the pace call has a big advantage in this race. It also indicates that the horse controls his energy in a way that will help on the stretch out. Other factors, such as class, and speed figures, should take a back seat. Add the fact that someone else pointed out that the track was helping horses on the lead, you might have been able to come up with this horse.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Tom

The problem is that when a horse doesn't use it natural speed as a weapon and create separation, he risks allowing the closers to stay in range. I've seen many races where a front runner is swallowed up in a slow paced race.

bingo....I can stomach it more when I bet a 50/1 shot. They probably are not good enough to set a real pace and win.

[GMB@BP]

It is very rare indeed that a horse decelerates and then accelerates in a race.

you just dont see 22 24 23 in many races.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

It is very rare indeed that a horse decelerates and then accelerates in a race.

you just dont see 22 24 23 in many races.

Just did a quick look at 4 races I have on my computer, the total number of races is 219 for all the horses, 4 horses showed a race where they had this go, stop, go pattern. One horse won the race where he showed this pattern. (small sample). 3 of the horses were in competing in Stakes races, and the other one that showed this had a trouble call that might explain it. Could a line like this be a class indicator also?

[Tom]

The effect of pace is independent of where other horses are. The horses' muscles don't know whether its pursuers are close or not - only how fast it's going. A front runner speeding out of it's comfort zone to achieve "separation" is just inviting later fatigue.

That is not what I said. I did say anything about speeding out it's comfort zone. I said NOT using its natural weapon - early speed.

And pace is not independent of other horses.
Horse can be used running slower than usual when pressed, or when inside of other horses. These are animals not machines.
You see it everyday - horses running early in very slow time get swallowed up when the last two furlongs go fast and the closers are right there at the top of the stretch.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Forget about acceleration and deceleration for a moment. I think you are misunderstanding the point I am making.

I am suggesting that the energy a horse consumes per second faster is not linear.

a. If a solid sprinter goes 49 or 48, he'd barely notice the difference in terms of how much energy he has left for the last quarter.

b. If he goes 44 instead of 45, it might be the difference between winning and finishing up the track.

I think most would agree with that.

I'd way rather be 5 lengths ahead after a 48 half (there's close to 0% chance you are catching me if I have anywhere near similar overall ability) than 1 length ahead after 49. With only a 1 length advantage, if you are a little than me, you are close enough to nail me from that position.

I will assume, for the sake of argument that it takes a horse a full second to run 5 lengths (actually more like 6). In any case both 48 and 49 half's are too slow for the horses in question and therefore inefficient. Obviously the faster pace is less inefficient and would therefore be the wiser choice for the horse regardless of what the other horses are doing.
I do however, see your point, though in a case like this it would be more of the closer's decision to to lay so many lengths off a slow pace than for the front runner to decide how many lengths to lead by. We can't just assume that the closers be dumb enough to let a leader increase his lead to 5 (or 6) lengths of an already slow pace. The main consideration for the front runner comes back to setting the most efficient pace. It will be up to the closers to decide how intelligently to react to it.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

There is no advantage to separation if it is bought at the price of an inefficiently run race.

This is another I'll query. I think there is a definite edge to being clear even if the pace isn't ideal. There is something to be said for running more relaxed in the clear. Stress makes you tire faster and running next to another horse or two, or in between, adds stress IMO. I know it does for humans.