Part 2: SPEED

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Thask,

I did not take that at all from what you said! Not at all.

Rather, I was afraid I was intruding.

I am one of those guys who mistakenly forgets that it is not always necessary to put forth an opinion.

That being said, my opinion (stop laughing!) is that for me everything must ultimately boil down to one number per horse. That number should represent a probability or confidence number.

Okay, I am done. Really. For awhile.

Please, proceed.


Dave

Dave
Is that the same as paint by numbers
Mac

[shoelessjoe]

CJ,

How do you determine +, =, or -?

[cj]

Originally Posted by shoelessjoe

CJ,

How do you determine +, =, or -?

Just my own subjective opinion.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

To me the value of a speed rating (most are comparable) is not in its relative value as a rating per se (for example a 75 is better than a 70). The value of a speed ratings lies in its ability to measure an intensity of a race (for example an 80 is an intense effort for horse A).

After each race, a horse can regress (bounce) or recover a past performance level. The underlying model which can be used to define is not based on the intensity of the race, but in the ability of a particular horse to recover from a performance. If the time is too short, you will have a horse that is bound to regress. If the time is within a time window, the horse will return to peak performance (barring any injuries).

As an example the Sheets and Thorograph attempt to define this as a "top". This is an extremely crude attempt, which in sense makes it a guessing game.

"You know something will happen, but you are not sure of the direction; regress or not".

There is a time, t (recovery) to recover from a race and a time t (for a peak performance).

To model this behaviour is not trivial. Each horse has specific parameters, in a nonlinear multivariate function. The model parameters have to be determined for each horse and recalibrated to the most recent races.

The model has to be updated after each race for each horse.

To be a bit more specific, let's take a horse with the following history of speed ratings:

(90, 80, 78, 84, 79, 87, 83, 79, 69, 81) and 90 is their best rating and their last race rating. Will this horse bounce? Repeat 90 performnce? Or will run a race prior to their 90. The answer is not determined by their 90 performnce, but instead by a complex realtionship between race time intervals and the effect imposed on that particular horse.

Mike (Dr Beav)

Mike...I agree with the crux of what you say here.

That's why I have often stated that the object of the game is not to identify which horses have run the fastest in the PAST...but rather, which horses will run the fastest TODAY!

YES...a horse's performance is determined "by a complex relationship between race time intervals and the effect imposed on the particular horse."

My disagreement with you lies in your statement that "the value of a speed rating lies in its ability to measure an intensity of a race."

You then proceed to list the speed ratings of a particular horse...and you ask the questions: "Will this horse bounce? Repeat its last rating? Or run one of its prior ratings?"

Here is my opinion...in a nutshell:

The speed rating does NOT accurately measure the intensity of the race...nor does it always reflect the quality of the horse's performance.

The horse's figures often fluctuate wildly race-to-race....but these fluctuations are not always the result of sudden changes in the horse's condition...caused by the effects that certain strenuous efforts have on its level of conditioning.

In many cases...the horse's speed figures fluctuate as a result of the "pace"..."trip"...and "track bias" obstacles that the horse is forced to face during the running of the race.

The horse can run a bad speed figure while still at the peak of its form cycle...just because the "dynamics" of the race have conspired against it.

It takes more than just a speed rating to determine the intensity of a race...or the effect that a strenuous effort will have on the horse's subsequent performances.

That's my whole point...I have no other disagreement with you here.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Mike...I agree with what you say here.

That's why I have often stated that the object of the game is not to identify which horses have run the fastest in the PAST...but rather, which horses will run the fastest TODAY!

YES...a horse's performance is determined "by a complex relationship between race time intervals and the effect imposed on the particular horse."

My disagreement with you lies in your statement that "the value of a speed rating lies in its ability to measure an intensity of a race."

You then proceed to list the speed ratings of a particular horse...and you ask the questions: "Will this horse bounce? Repeat its last rating? Or run one of its prior ratings?"

Here is my opinion...in a nutshell:

The speed rating does NOT accurately measure the intensity of the race...nor does it always reflect the quality of the horse's performance.

The horse's figures often fluctuate wildly race-to-race....but these fluctuations are not always the result of sudden changes in the horse's condition...caused by the effects that certain strenuous efforts have on its level of conditioning.

In many cases...the horse's speed figures fluctuate as a result of the "pace"..."trip"...and "track bias" obstacles that the horse is forced to face during the running of the race.

The horse can run a bad speed figure while still at the peak of its form cycle...just because the "dynamics" of the race have conspired against it.

It takes more than just a speed rating to determine the intensity of a race...or the effect that a strenuous effort will have on the horse's subsequent performances.

That's my whole point...I have no other disagreement with you here.

That's one of the reasons I abandoned the use of speed figures a few years ago. First of all, to have confidence in any "figure", I have to know how that figure was calculated. Since I don't have the time to track individual horses, track bias, daily variant, etc., and create speed figures myself, I would be at the mercy of the figure maker.

Secondly, even if I had confidence in the speed figure, it would still only tell me how fast the horse ran the race (a representation of the final time, beaten lengths, and daily track variant), supposedly equalized over distances, surfaces, and tracks. The only thing that would really mean anything to me would be the track to track, distance to distance, and surface to surface equalizations, and I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of all these.

The speed itself means nothing to me regarding what kind of performance the horse actually displayed because it only measures the final time the horse achieved, adjusted by beaten lengths and, for most figure makers, a flawed time per length calculation. Meaning that the figure is based off of an inaccurate adjusted final time. So, all I have is an inaccurate speed figure, of which it is only a poor representation of the finishing time of the horse. It doesn't tell me anything else, so a horse that runs a 90 should be equal to any other horse that runs a 90. That's absurd!

Speed figures can be used for form cycle analysis, but very loosely, as they don't tell you "how the horse ran fast", or "slow", which means you have no idea how demanding, or undemanding, the effort was on the horse's form.

If on the other hand, someone was able to accurately combine speed figures, pace figures, trip, track bias, etc., etc., etc., then that would be a meaningful figure, a true "performance figure".

By the way, if you have such a figure, protect it with your life because as soon as you let it out of the bag, most of it's value will be gone.

[thaskalos]

Raybo,

I am shocked that it took me this long to realize that we agreed on so many handicapping-related things...

I am very happy to see you contributing as often, and as comprehensively, as you are...and I encourage others to contribute their views to this forum as well...even if they disagree with my own.

I love lively discussions.

Why should the guys in the off-topic threads have all the fun?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Raybo,

I am shocked that it took me this long to realize that we agreed on so many handicapping-related things...

I am very happy to see you contributing as often, and as comprehensively, as you are...and I encourage others to contribute their views to this forum as well...even if they disagree with my own.

I love lively discussions.

Why should the guys in the off-topic threads have all the fun?

Good gamblers/investors will always have many things in common.

As I stated when you decided to start this project; I'm glad it's you and not me. I would never "put myself out there", by myself, in a project as broad as this one, because I would not put up with all the "bs" that will, unfortunately, surface frequently. Which explains why I don't hang out in the "Off Topic" forum.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by raybo

That's one of the reasons I abandoned the use of speed figures a few years ago. First of all, to have confidence in any "figure", I have to know how that figure was calculated. Since I don't have the time to track individual horses, track bias, daily variant, etc., and create speed figures myself, I would be at the mercy of the figure maker.

Secondly, even if I had confidence in the speed figure, it would still only tell me how fast the horse ran the race (a representation of the final time, beaten lengths, and daily track variant), supposedly equalized over distances, surfaces, and tracks. The only thing that would really mean anything to me would be the track to track, distance to distance, and surface to surface equalizations, and I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of all these.

The speed itself means nothing to me regarding what kind of performance the horse actually displayed because it only measures the final time the horse achieved, adjusted by beaten lengths and, for most figure makers, a flawed time per length calculation. Meaning that the figure is based off of an inaccurate adjusted final time. So, all I have is an inaccurate speed figure, of which it is only a poor representation of the finishing time of the horse. It doesn't tell me anything else, so a horse that runs a 90 should be equal to any other horse that runs a 90. That's absurd!

Speed figures can be used for form cycle analysis, but very loosely, as they don't tell you "how the horse ran fast", or "slow", which means you have no idea how demanding, or undemanding, the effort was on the horse's form.

If on the other hand, someone was able to accurately combine speed figures, pace figures, trip, track bias, etc., etc., etc., then that would be a meaningful figure, a true "performance figure".

By the way, if you have such a figure, protect it with your life because as soon as you let it out of the bag, most of it's value will be gone.

I have to agree on the above on speed figures and I do not use them but for those that do it is there way of handicapping over the years. If all horses ran every race if they intended to win or give there best effort maybe the figures would be of use,But most people are fixed on speed, early, late. and running styles and how the race will be run and computers to me have enhanced this style over last two decades.

[rubicon55]

Raybo & Bob & Gus, every day I see trainer’s raising a horse up one level after a win or a very good performance. For this conversation I am not talking about claimers being raised up against allowance levels or optional claiming/allowance races running at stakes level- just within it normal competitive ranges (claiming to claiming, allowance to allowance, etc.). In your opinion what is the best way to determine a trainer’s intent when he raises a three year old (which is not fully developed yet) up only one class level? Do we totally rely on the trainer’s winning angle percentages for these moves or are there other considerations or factors worth considering (i.e. video review, trip handicapping notes, etc.)? Since we do not have a lot of back history in the PP I am interested on how others manage with this lack of information. If a horse is promising then how much ability must the 3 yr old have on paper before considering a wager against horses of a slightly higher level or possibly older horses (typically tougher for a 3yr old)? I say only one class level since the expectation of succeeding seems more likely than say jumping 2 levels. Many horses are raised up in one class level so this situation comes up often and would be helpful for other cappers as well to see other perspectives. I am expecting the first response to be "it depends" LOL. Handicapping 101 raisers versus droppers revisited. Thanks for your reply in advance.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by rubicon55

Raybo & Bob & Gus, every day I see trainer’s raising a horse up one level after a win or a very good performance. For this conversation I am not talking about claimers being raised up against allowance levels or optional claiming/allowance races running at stakes level- just within it normal competitive ranges (claiming to claiming, allowance to allowance, etc.). In your opinion what is the best way to determine a trainer’s intent when he raises a three year old (which is not fully developed yet) up only one class level? Do we totally rely on the trainer’s winning angle percentages for these moves or are there other considerations or factors worth considering (i.e. video review, trip handicapping notes, etc.)? Since we do not have a lot of back history in the PP I am interested on how others manage with this lack of information. If a horse is promising then how much ability must the 3 yr old have on paper before considering a wager against horses of a slightly higher level or possibly older horses (typically tougher for a 3yr old)? I say only one class level since the expectation of succeeding seems more likely than say jumping 2 levels. Many horses are raised up in one class level so this situation comes up often and would be helpful for other cappers as well to see other perspectives. I am expecting the first response to be "it depends" LOL. Handicapping 101 raisers versus droppers revisited. Thanks for your reply in advance.

With young horses I use resent races and workouts for form determination. Form, with young horses is very important as they improve and decline rapidly due to their physical immaturity.

After a win or good performance, it is vital to assess how much physical stress the horse endured in the previous race. If the horse had an easy trip, his physical condition will probably improve in the next race. However, you must still look at what kind of stress he will likely endure in the higher class, which means you will have to analyze the horses entered in that race to see what the probable pace will be, and how the race is likely to run, as regards this horse's running style, if he/she has established a preferred running style.

Also, look at how long it has been since the horse's previous race and if it has had published works during that period. If the horse is coming back rather soon, 3 weeks or so, and he has not worked I would be disinclined to wager on him, unless it is clear that the horse had an easy trip in the previous race. A short workout or 2 between races is usually enough to work out any kinks in his physical condition, unless the horse had a very stressful previous race. In the case of a stressful previous race, more time off and/or several light to medium workouts is usually needed for the horse to be ready to advance in class, assuming the rise in class is really a rise. As you know, man-made classes can be very deceiving and taking them at face value can put you on the wrong horses in the new "class".

I look at fractional velocities and fractional running positions to determine stress levels of previous races. I also look at the trainer and how he places his horses. Good trainers know if their horse is ready to compete and against what level of competition, what distance and what surface. Of course these good trainers get looked at by many players and when the situation is a prime trainer move, the odds will probably not be as good as they might otherwise be.

I don't have to tell you that 2 and 3 year olds can and will surprise. As a matter of fact, in races for only 2 year olds, or only 3 year olds, every horse in the race could surprise. These horses can get very good, or very bad, very quickly, without warning. But, they also offer very good returns when you pick the right ones, and they perform as you think they will.

I'm sure Thaskalos and others will have differing opinions on the treatment of young horses, regarding moving up and down in class, distance, etc., but this is pretty much my method of handling younger horses.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by rubicon55

Raybo & Bob & Gus, every day I see trainer’s raising a horse up one level after a win or a very good performance. For this conversation I am not talking about claimers being raised up against allowance levels or optional claiming/allowance races running at stakes level- just within it normal competitive ranges (claiming to claiming, allowance to allowance, etc.). In your opinion what is the best way to determine a trainer’s intent when he raises a three year old (which is not fully developed yet) up only one class level? Do we totally rely on the trainer’s winning angle percentages for these moves or are there other considerations or factors worth considering (i.e. video review, trip handicapping notes, etc.)? Since we do not have a lot of back history in the PP I am interested on how others manage with this lack of information. If a horse is promising then how much ability must the 3 yr old have on paper before considering a wager against horses of a slightly higher level or possibly older horses (typically tougher for a 3yr old)? I say only one class level since the expectation of succeeding seems more likely than say jumping 2 levels. Many horses are raised up in one class level so this situation comes up often and would be helpful for other cappers as well to see other perspectives. I am expecting the first response to be "it depends" LOL. Handicapping 101 raisers versus droppers revisited. Thanks for your reply in advance.

I promised at the very start of this project that I would be completely honest here...and that I would offer my opinions without reservation, and without fear of criticism from those who think differently than I do.

I know full-well what most players want to hear when it comes to this game -- and how to play it -- but I'm not interested in telling people what they want to hear.

I want to tell them what I consider to be the TRUTH...as I see it.

The crux of your question here seems to be: "How do I handle class rises in races where the past performance information is scarce...and there isn't enough of it to come to a well-thought-out opinion?"

You specifically mention 3-year olds going up in class...but it could just as easily be class rises EVERYWHERE, where "we don't have a lot of back history in the PPs..."

I too have noticed these minor class rises taking place...and I see these rising horses losing races -- some even losing badly -- eventhough their speed and pace ratings say that these horses should have given a much better account of themselves.

Are these class-rising horses losing because they are now facing better horses, and differing circumstances, than they did when they ran one level lower?

Why do they win impressively when running in $10,000 claimers...lose convincingly when they are next asked to compete in $12,500 claimers...and then triumph again when they return to the $10,000 level?

Every speed and pace chart I have ever seen shows that the difference, speed and pace-wise, is very insignificant between these two class categories. And yet...a minor class rise such as this seems to make a world of difference in the performance of the horses themselves.

I think that this is due primarily to trainer intent.

The trainer is not "trying to win" when he enters the horse in the higher class level -- perhaps because he thinks that the horse CAN'T win -- and instructs the jockey not to "persevere" with the horse...because there is a "better spot" for him next time out.

Am I sure of this?

Of course not...but I am allowed to have this opinion, because I have noticed that most horses are incapable of reproducing their speed and pace numbers, even when they make seemingly insignificant rises in class.

How do we assess trainer intent...and what do we do when there isn't adequate information in the PPs to form an intelligent opinion?

Remember...I can only speak from my own point of view...

I don't play the game in order to satisfy my curiosity; I play it to win money.

The first thing I do when I start marking up my Form, is note the questions I have about the abilities of the horses in a given race. I mark those down with red question marks.

Distance limitations...long layoffs...class rises...suspicious class drops...supertrainers...fast-developing 3-year olds...inadequate PPs...these are the types of things I don't particularly like to see when I handicap a race, because they take away from my understanding of it.

I am primarily a speed/pace handicapper...so the information that I see in the PPs has to be BELIEVABLE to me, otherwise I will make the wrong decision.

But I have a powerful weapon in my arsenal when it comes to these "questionable" races...and I use it quite often.

If I have too many questions about the abilities of the horses in the race...or, if I find myself in the position of having to "read" the trainer's mind about things...then I PASS the race -- and keep the money in my pocket.

I have said this before...and have gotten into arguments wih the "Lights" of the world about it...but I believe it absolutely -- and I will say it again. In fact...I will SCREAM it out!

WE HAVE MANY, MANY RACES AVAILABLE TO US EVERY DAY!

THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO BET ON ANY RACE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE IN!

Why even consider betting on a race where there is insufficient printed information with which to form an intelligent opinion?

The biggest edge that we can have as players is available to us ALL...because it is freely given to us by today's game.

We can bet only on the races that we have complete confidence in...and still have all the action that we can handle.


Please forgive the tone of my post...I don't like to be too "forceful" with any advice I might give.

But some things are very important...and need to be pointed out forcefully.

[raybo]

I'm in complete agreement with Thaskalos' post regarding the need for passing races where we have not enough information for a confident opinion in the race.

My post did not include that, but it should have. I was simply trying to answer the question posed. Personally, I prefer 3 year old and up races, where all horses have several pacelines to analyze.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

I'm in complete agreement with Thaskalos' post regarding the need for passing races where we have not enough information for a confident opinion in the race.

My post did not include that, but it should have. I was simply trying to answer the question posed. Personally, I prefer 3 year old and up races, where all horses have several pacelines to analyze.

There is no right and wrong answer here, Raybo...as far as I am concerned.

Different players will do different things...that has always been the case, and will continue to be so.

Some players LOVE 3-year olds...and I fully respect that.

I, personally, do not.

Give me a full field of older $10,000 claiming sprinters...and I will work up more enthusiasm for it than I will for the Kentucky Derby.

And if that means that I am just a hardcore gambler...so be it.

Different strokes for different folks...

[cj]

There is something to be said for being comprehensive and realizing when there are questions that you can't answer with confidence. However, I would say this isn't always a good reason to pass a race.

There is another way to make money. If you have insights into a single horse that you know the public will undervalue, that is often all you need. You don't have to know everything about every horse. Sometimes those ?s will beat you, but more often, they won't.

The same can be applied to low priced horses in a negative manner. As you say, there are hundreds of races in a week and focusing on horses rather than races isn't a bad alternative.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

There is no right and wrong answer here, Raybo...as far as I am concerned.

Different players will do different things...that has always been the case, and will continue to be so.

Some players LOVE 3-year olds...and I fully respect that.

I, personally, do not.

Give me a full field of older $10,000 claiming sprinters...and I will work up more enthusiasm for it than I will for the Kentucky Derby.

And if that means that I am just a hardcore gambler...so be it.

Different strokes for different folks...

Yeah, cheaper claimers from 5.5f to 1 1/16m are my sweet spot.