Ground Loss as a Handicapping Factor

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

But when ground loss comes while a horse is significantly against the race-flow, you get these exponential, 'lollapalooza effects'. 1+1=3?

I agree with that for sure.

For me, there are two ways of thinking about ground loss.

1. To the speed figure purists, ground loss is part of the trip. They think you should adjust your speed figures for the number of extra feet the horse traveled. That's the thinking of the TG and Ragozin fans.

2. To me, it's more about energy and position. I'm asking how much extra energy did the horse use by racing wide and did it hurt his position.

The extra energy part of it is what you are taking about.

If the horses run a quarter mile around the turn in 23 and your horse was 4 wide and stayed with them, he ran a quarter in approximately 22 2/5. The extra 30 feet (give or take to make the math easy) won't take a ton out of him, but that 22 2/5 instead of 23 sure will.

The position part of it is more complex.

If a horse settles nicely in a slow pace while wide, he theoretically could be a bit closer to the leaders if he was running the same way but on the rail instead. However, in real life I'm not sure that always happens. Horses just kind of settle in spots relative to the other horses regardless of whether they are inside or outside. As long as they are going slow, the extra ground covered doesn't take much out of them. The inside and outside horses both make their move later the same way.

It's when the race picks up that position becomes an issue. All else being equal, if the horse is working hard to improve his position while wide, he won't make up as much ground as the horses inside of him. So being wide is costing him position. (that's kind of the TG/Rags part of it from another direction)

Then of course there are other issues like the fact that the turns are banked, it's easier to make a turn when you are wider, some horses simply prefer not being inside or between horses.

It's all very confusing and hard to quantity.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

To me, it's more about energy and position. ...

Then of course there are other issues like the fact that the turns are banked, it's easier to make a turn when you are wider, some horses simply prefer not being inside or between horses.

I agree.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree with that for sure.

For me, there are two ways of thinking about ground loss.

1. To the speed figure purists, ground loss is part of the trip. They think you should adjust your speed figures for the number of extra feet the horse traveled. That's the thinking of the TG and Ragozin fans.

2. To me, it's more about energy and position. I'm asking how much extra energy did the horse use by racing wide and did it hurt his position.

The extra energy part of it is what you are taking about.

If the horses run a quarter mile around the turn in 23 and your horse was 4 wide and stayed with them, he ran a quarter in approximately 22 2/5. The extra 30 feet (give or take to make the math easy) won't take a ton out of him, but that 22 2/5 instead of 23 sure will.

The position part of it is more complex.

If a horse settles nicely in a slow pace while wide, he theoretically could be a bit closer to the leaders if he was running the same way but on the rail instead. However, in real life I'm not sure that always happens. Horses just kind of settle in spots relative to the other horses regardless of whether they are inside or outside. As long as they are going slow, the extra ground covered doesn't take much out of them. The inside and outside horses both make their move later the same way.

It's when the race picks up that position becomes an issue. All else being equal, if the horse is working hard to improve his position while wide, he won't make up as much ground as the horses inside of him. So being wide is costing him position. (that's kind of the TG/Rags part of it from another direction)

Then of course there are other issues like the fact that the turns are banked, it's easier to make a turn when you are wider, some horses simply prefer not being inside or between horses.

It's all very confusing and hard to quantity.

I agree, infusing the ground-loss concept in a practical way into the handicapping process is a very confusing affair...but this doesn't negate the obvious implications in having to travel a much greater actual distance of ground than your opponent. Yes, there might be some horses out there who actually prefer taking the overland route in a race...but can we say this with any degree of certainty? Speaking for myself, whenever I see my horse making a menacing 5-wide move around the far turn...I always wish that the horse were running along the rail. And, while I realize that the banked racetracks make turning easier...I doubt that this convenience can smooth out the disadvantage facing the overland turners relative to those who are making a rail-skimming turn. When I imagine a race where 2-3 horses are engaged in a tussle for the early lead, and I see two closers of equal ability charging at them from far back...I always think that the inside closer will have a marked advantage over the one who is mounting his charge 5-6 wide.

My main "confusion" when trying to implement the ground-loss concept in a meaningful way stems from two troubling considerations. 1)...When you assign to a particular horse the sizable ground-loss advantage that makes it the "best bet" in a particular race...how do you know that the horse won't be racing far wide again today...thereby wasting the apparent advantage that made this horse "best" to begin with? An "advantage" is an advantage only when the horse utilizes it...and it seems to me that too many of these ground-loss disadvantaged horses keep making these wide runs which always keep them at a disadvantage. And, 2) Since the closers are the ones who suffer the worst fate in the ground-loss game, any ground-loss adjustments that we make to the final figures are liable to inflate the figures of these closers to the extent were these horses would often be considered to be the "best horses" in race after race...whereas we all know that the closers run with an inherently distinct disadvantage on the dirt, in this country.

Confusing, indeed...

[classhandicapper]

Projecting ground loss today is kind of like projecting pace today.

You can evaluate running styles, jockeys, post positions and accumulate data on what typically happens in certain situations, but there are no certainties. All you can do is bend the price you want a bit to fit your estimation of the probabilities.

One of the toughest ones for me is when I think the rail is dead and the horse I like has an inside post (and even worse if he's a speed horse).

I have to estimate how likely I am to be right about the rail, whether the jockey knows and will try to get off it, whether even if he tries the race development will allow it, and whether the other riders are so smart they get more aggressive just to pin him down there on purpose.

It's too hard to quantify all that.

I look at the price and if I think I am getting paid enough to take on extra risk I go for it and if not I pass. Then I pray.

[deelo]

I refuse to use any figures that incorporate ground loss into their algorithms. Any credit given or taken from a performance should be at the discretion of the trip handicapper.

Do you upgrade a horse just because he ran in the 5path? What if the horses mechanics actually prefer the banked surface of the 5path and it's his optimum spot where he expels the least amount of energy? Perhaps if he were closer to the rail he would have expended way too much energy negotiating turns and finished much worse?

Let's say he ran a 70 and in some magic way we can know that he actually ran a 65 because this was his optimal trip. We are off by "5" using our raw figure. The casual bettor comes along and says wow he was wide throughout so I'll uprade his performance to a 75. Now that bettor is off by "10."

The point is you stay more consistent when you leave guesswork out. Ground loss should have to very obviously hurt a horse's performance to be considered.

Have you ever downgraded a horse for hugging the rail and weakening then scratched your head when he goes gate to wire and beats you in the next race. This is why. Ground loss can be easily negated by biases, conditions, horse preferences, styles, multitude of factors etc.

It's the same reason the term 'out-posted' is waaaay overused amongst cappers.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I think there is comparability between auto racing and horse racing. Watch how the drivers deal with turns or pass other cars. The drivers are closer to the "rail" on the straight. They take almost a straight line to the center of the banked curve and then move back toward the inside on the straightaway. This allows them to keep speed up. In order to use any shorter route the driver would have to slow speed more than they way they typically take corners. Go to a stream, find a curve and you'll see the water slows the closer to the inside bank you get.

We've seen horses come wide out of a turn and mow every horse down in the stretch many times. Could the horse have run faster from the inside? I don't know. I just know wide into the stretch didn't hurt his placing.

I did the calculation for outside v inside on a turn in one of my pieces, and I'm just too lazy to find it. Basically in a two-turn race, wide on both turns can be a big disadvantage. In a sprint, any horse no farther out than the 5 path on the turn doesn't really suffer a big disadvantage. Once inside and outside horses hit the straight, they have the exact same distance to the wire. So looking for courage or closing ability in the stretch is important. I give the inside and outside neither credit or penalty as long as no more than four lanes separate the two horses.

I don't know if it makes sense to everyone. If I was at the track and someone said, "Wide on the turn kept him from winning," I'd say, "Sure did."

[classhandicapper]

Lots of fun trying to get ground loss for the CT Classic with a 10 horse field and 3 turns.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Lots of fun trying to get ground loss for the CT Classic with a 10 horse field and 3 turns.

Ground loss is huge at CT.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Ground loss is huge at CT.

It took me about 15 minutes to sort through it all and I'm sure I'm just ballpark right on a few of them.

Now I'm working on the Elkhorn. Same thing. 10 horse field 3 turns.

There's got to be a better way for me do this. Maybe I just need to stop looking at horses that were never part of the pace or in serious contention at some point. I'm being anal about it and overdoing it.

[hracingplyr]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Which best describes your views on ground loss and the amount of time you spend on it.

EW Donaldson wrote a book in 1936 called How to Select Winning Horses. (Book no longer in print)

In one section of the book, he talked about ground loss.

6F. He stated: A horse going 3 paths from the rail will travel 3 /1/2 lengths more than a horse on the rail

2 Turn Races: A horse traveling 4 wide around both turns will loose 9/1/2 lengths compared to a rail tripper.


Bob

[Tom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Lots of fun trying to get ground loss for the CT Classic with a 10 horse field and 3 turns.

Do you think any of the horses other than the first two had any excuse at all serious enough to account for their lackluster performances?

No I ever use that race for anything other to evaluate the first two finishers.

At best, it was a workout for the rest of the field.
No one else did anything worth remembering.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

Do you think any of the horses other than the first two had any excuse at all serious enough to account for their lackluster performances?

No I ever use that race for anything other to evaluate the first two finishers.

At best, it was a workout for the rest of the field.
No one else did anything worth remembering.

I'd say War Story wasn't bad. He started from post #9, was away a bit slowly, and was wide the whole way.

Unbridled Juan started from post #10, was used a bit while very wide early, and probably wasn't as bad as it looks.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's when the race picks up that position becomes an issue. All else being equal, if the horse is working hard to improve his position while wide, he won't make up as much ground as the horses inside of him. So being wide is costing him position. (that's kind of the TG/Rags part of it from another direction)

And also costs him more energy.

This is what Beyer calls "Wide move into hot pace" and is an additional hazard of going wide above and beyond the ground loss.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

One of the toughest ones for me is when I think the rail is dead and the horse I like has an inside post (and even worse if he's a speed horse).

I have to estimate how likely I am to be right about the rail, whether the jockey knows and will try to get off it, whether even if he tries the race development will allow it, and whether the other riders are so smart they get more aggressive just to pin him down there on purpose.

It's too hard to quantify all that.

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

"I look at the price and if I think I am getting paid enough to take on extra risk I go for it and if not I pass. "

I like that

bobby fischer maxims; "--Incorporate an appropriate margin of safety- Only 'significantly' mispriced horses, not trivial close-calls, playing a long game, not a quick game. No emotions. Avoid stupidity. Capitalize on SIMPLE examples/opportunities of Mr. Market's stupidity/mistakes."

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

[RESIZE]



I like that

bobby fischer maxims; "--Incorporate an appropriate margin of safety- Only 'significantly' mispriced horses, not trivial close-calls, playing a long game, not a quick game. No emotions. Avoid stupidity. Capitalize on SIMPLE examples/opportunities of Mr. Market's stupidity/mistakes."

I used to have a large pile of papers on my desk that I called UPO's. Unidentified Piled Objects.