TimeformUS

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This term "need the lead" is everywhere in handicapping...but I don't see many horses who really need the lead in order to win the race. The vast majority seem quite capable of sitting behind a contested lead, or even close from further back...when given a competent and patient ride.

It is overused for sure, but certainly many of these types exist.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

It is overused for sure, but certainly many of these types exist.

Sure they exist...but this effect doesn't play the role that those who invented the term "need the lead" have suggested that it plays. This notion that rating is for routes only, and that the sprint horses with speed are all gung-ho for the early lead at the sound of the bell, is a great exaggeration made in order to simplify the complicated process of proper pace handicapping.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Sure they exist...but this effect doesn't play the role that those who invented the term "need the lead" have suggested that it plays. This notion that rating is for routes only, and that the sprint horses with speed are all gung-ho for the early lead at the sound of the bell, is a great exaggeration made in order to simplify the complicated process of proper pace handicapping.

That's why I use the standard "E", "E/P", "P", and "S" running style designations. An "E" can be a true "need to lead" horse, who has never been successful without the lead, or a horse that is generally in contention for the lead and has been successful as a leader but has also run as a close presser. There is an overlap between E and E/P horses also, as both types can lead if the situation dictates or allows. IMO, running styles must be taken as a general rating, that in conjunction with a horse's early velocity ratings, compared with those of the other runners, tells the story of the early pace, if things run within the range of "normality" of course. Nothing works all the time as you know, that's why we lose more races than we win, as players.

I might add that, the trainers and jockeys know all this stuff too, and may decide to run differently than normal, depending on the makeup of the race. That can cause big problems for those of us who do our best to figure out how the early running will take place, and between which horses, and who will be advantaged and disadvantaged by that predicted early running scenario.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by raybo

That's why I use the standard "E", "E/P", "P", and "S" running style designations. An "E" can be a true "need to lead" horse, who has never been successful without the lead, or a horse that is generally in contention for the lead and has been successful as a leader but has also run as a close presser. There is an overlap between E and E/P horses also, as both types can lead if the situation dictates or allows. IMO, running styles must be taken as a general rating, that in conjunction with a horse's early velocity ratings, compared with those of the other runners, tells the story of the early pace, if things run within the range of "normality" of course. Nothing works all the time as you know, that's why we lose more races than we win, as players.

I might add that, the trainers and jockeys know all this stuff too, and may decide to run differently than normal, depending on the makeup of the race. That can cause big problems for those of us who do our best to figure out how the early running will take place, and between which horses, and who will be advantaged and disadvantaged by that predicted early running scenario.

I have noticed that in many races with 2 or 3 speed types,a lot of times the jockey's will just take back. You can't depend on the jockey's to do the right thing or be aggressive in certain spots. In many stake races jockey's ride for 2nd or 3rd. The Pa. Derby was an example of this. A biased track,a lone speed,a slow pace,yet no jockey tried to actually win the race. Years ago,jockey's were more aware and would try to win races and adjust to different situations.

[cj]

Originally Posted by aaron

I have noticed that in many races with 2 or 3 speed types,a lot of times the jockey's will just take back. You can't depend on the jockey's to do the right thing or be aggressive in certain spots. In many stake races jockey's ride for 2nd or 3rd. The Pa. Derby was an example of this. A biased track,a lone speed,a slow pace,yet no jockey tried to actually win the race. Years ago,jockey's were more aware and would try to win races and adjust to different situations.

In a race like that, I blame the riders of the main competition, not whoever rode a horse like C J's Awesome. I understand that type horse not being gunned.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by aaron

I have noticed that in many races with 2 or 3 speed types,a lot of times the jockey's will just take back. You can't depend on the jockey's to do the right thing or be aggressive in certain spots. In many stake races jockey's ride for 2nd or 3rd. The Pa. Derby was an example of this. A biased track,a lone speed,a slow pace,yet no jockey tried to actually win the race. Years ago,jockey's were more aware and would try to win races and adjust to different situations.

It often makes economic sense to ride for 2nd or 3rd, especially if you know there's a good chance you will blow 2nd or 3rd trying to win and probably fail.

I may be the only one that thinks this, but I think riders are being smarter these days. There should only be a duel when there are several "need the lead types" and they are all hoping to outbreak the others or when the field is huge and a lot of horses are trying to get good position.

The big mistake they make these days is not taking main speeds to loose larger leads. They back the pace way down, which IMO is crazy. Cordero would NEVER back it way down and he was the master on the lead.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It often makes economic sense to ride for 2nd or 3rd, especially if you know there's a good chance you will blow 2nd or 3rd trying to win and probably fail.

I may be the only one that thinks this, but I think riders are being smarter these days. There should only be a duel when there are several "need the lead types" and they are all hoping to outbreak the others or when the field is huge and a lot of horses are trying to get good position.

The big mistake they make these days is not taking main speeds to loose larger leads. They back the pace way down, which IMO is crazy. Cordero would NEVER back it way down and he was the master on the lead.

I don't know if jockey's are smarter these days,but I am sure you are right about the economic sense of riding for 2nd or 3rd. The problem with that is there are probably races you would win that you have given up on.Also,there are races you wouldn't blow 2nd or 3rd by challenging. If any rider today had the talent and know how of Cordero,he would win a lot races that today's riders give up on.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The big mistake they make these days is not taking main speeds to loose larger leads. They back the pace way down, which IMO is crazy. Cordero would NEVER back it way down and he was the master on the lead.

I agree, if the horse has proven it can get the distance, assuming a longish race today. Taking the pace down too much allows too many late horses into the picture. But, if a horse is questionable at longer distances, taking the pace down makes a lot of sense, if he can get away with it. That leaves him more energy late, where he will need it the most.

[JustRalph]

Been using Timeform a couple days a week while playing the Bar n Book at Lone Star Park.

Damn best thing going.

The "upcoming races" button is worth the cost of admission, especially when playing multiple tracks.

[cj]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Been using Timeform a couple days a week while playing the Bar n Book at Lone Star Park.

Damn best thing going.

The "upcoming races" button is worth the cost of admission, especially when playing multiple tracks.

Even as somebody that is part of the company, it took a while to get used to everything and adapt some in to my play. I just started using that upcoming races button, it is great!

[cj]

This was not only a winning blog entry, but shows a lot of the features available with TimeformUS:

http://timeformusblog.com/2014/09/26...running-lines/

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by cj

This was not only a winning blog entry, but shows a lot of the features available with TimeformUS:

http://timeformusblog.com/2014/09/26...running-lines/

that was a great call

[cj]

Between Woodbine and Belmont today (the tracks I play regularly), the Pace Projector had the following races identified as Favoring Horses On / Near the Early Lead:

Bel 2 - 7 projected leader, ran 2nd
Bel 3 - 2 projected leader, wins $25.80
Bel 5 - 9 projected leader, wins $7.00
Bel 8 - 7 projected leader, wins $6.10
WO 7 - 9 projected leader, wins $11.20
WO 8 - 3 projected leader, wins $11.80

Every day isn't this good, but it isn't a fluke either. All the horses did in fact lead early as well.

[cj]

Originally Posted by cj

Between Woodbine and Belmont today (the tracks I play regularly), the Pace Projector had the following races identified as Favoring Horses On / Near the Early Lead:

Bel 2 - 7 projected leader, ran 2nd
Bel 3 - 2 projected leader, wins $25.80
Bel 5 - 9 projected leader, wins $7.00
Bel 8 - 7 projected leader, wins $6.10
WO 7 - 9 projected leader, wins $11.20
WO 8 - 3 projected leader, wins $11.80

Every day isn't this good, but it isn't a fluke either. All the horses did in fact lead early as well.

Another in the Beldame today, 9-2 winner.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

Another in the Beldame today, 9-2 winner.

I heard Andy talking about this on TVG before the race, that helped me. Good call.