Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 09-22-2018, 03:15 AM   #46
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
In my experience, class is difficult to measure with lightly raced horses like these because you don't always know what a horse has in the tank until it's tested against better horses. The cheap ones wilt and don't duplicate their prior figures when challenged by better and the good ones up their game a bit and run a little faster. Figuring out which category a horse fits into beforehand is as much about probability (trainer, breeder, owner, pedigree, price paid, visual impression) as it is about actual knowledge of the horse (unless you get to see it work in company regularly).

But really, the primary use of class is to try to avoid the complicating and subjective errors innate in figure making.

The class handicapper is looking at who beat who with what trip. He doesn't have to worry about the impact of track speed changes, gusts of wind, the run up, the rail setting, malfunctioning timers, or the subjective interpretation of a figure maker. It's all on him to look at the quality of the field, how the race developed, and subjectively determine how well each horse ran. For those advantages, you occasionally have to deal with races and horses whose quality is not obvious to you. In those situations, it's probably better to look at the times to get you into the ballpark. IMO, there's no single right answer. Each situation calls for different tools. If I didn't think about this stuff so much, I'd still have hair. Tough game.

If you play a lot of statebred races at AQU, BEL, and SAR it's probably a good idea to keep profiles on horses coming from Finger Lakes so you learn the pecking order at both tracks and where they fit relative to each other.

The whole issue of horses running poorer performances when they go up in class is really mostly a question of pace. Lower class races tend to be run at slower paces and when a lower class winner moves up to a higher class race he generally will be facing a faster pace, tire more quickly and run a lower figure. There is no magic component of that causes horses to lose. This whole fairy tale that a higher class horse just has to look a lower class horse in the eye and the lower class horse knows its place and losses is pure Hollywood kid stuff.

Horses do have a hierarchy but it is based on something tangible called speed. A horse beats another because it runs faster than the other horse. A horse is said to have class because it beats other horses who also have class with its speed. It all boils down to speed. Beyer explains this in one of his books. Speed is at the root of class. Speed determines the pecking order.

Yes, speed figures can be problematic since of the subjective nature of making variants and other practical problems. however rating a horse based on who beats who has the problem that horses form changes as well as pace scenarios. If horse A beats horse B and B beats C, A is supposed to beat C because it is of higher class than C. The problem with that is while it ignores some of the problems of speed figure comparisons, it has the problem of changing form and changing pace scenarios. A may have been at the top of its form cycle and had a better trip when it beat B. The situation may be reversed when it meets C. The idea that horses have a fixed class rating does not hold up. Speed and pace figures are a better way to more precisely quantify a horses current performance ability.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 04:31 AM   #47
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo View Post
The whole issue of horses running poorer performances when they go up in class is really mostly a question of pace. Lower class races tend to be run at slower paces and when a lower class winner moves up to a higher class race he generally will be facing a faster pace, tire more quickly and run a lower figure. There is no magic component of that causes horses to lose. This whole fairy tale that a higher class horse just has to look a lower class horse in the eye and the lower class horse knows its place and losses is pure Hollywood kid stuff.

Horses do have a hierarchy but it is based on something tangible called speed. A horse beats another because it runs faster than the other horse. A horse is said to have class because it beats other horses who also have class with its speed. It all boils down to speed. Beyer explains this in one of his books. Speed is at the root of class. Speed determines the pecking order.

Yes, speed figures can be problematic since of the subjective nature of making variants and other practical problems. however rating a horse based on who beats who has the problem that horses form changes as well as pace scenarios. If horse A beats horse B and B beats C, A is supposed to beat C because it is of higher class than C. The problem with that is while it ignores some of the problems of speed figure comparisons, it has the problem of changing form and changing pace scenarios. A may have been at the top of its form cycle and had a better trip when it beat B. The situation may be reversed when it meets C. The idea that horses have a fixed class rating does not hold up. Speed and pace figures are a better way to more precisely quantify a horses current performance ability.
I am not trying to "insult you", nor am I "casting aspersions" on your handicapping ability...but what you say here couldn't POSSIBLY be any more wrong than it already is...IMO. Every day, at every track in the land, we see horses who are raised in class to meet opposition which HASN'T run as fast -- either early OR late -- as these class risers have shown in their "cheaper" races. And, MUCH more often than not...the "cheaper" horses are unable to reproduce the lofty figures that they were able to run at the lower class level. Something prevents them from reproducing their best speed/pace figures at the higher class level...and this obstacle often has NOTHING to do with "pace". Now...I'm not a proponent of the theory that the "classier" horses scare the 'cheaper' ones by staring them in the eye, and what ultimately ends up defeating these "outclassed" horses may very well be nothing more than "trainer intention"...but "class" is a real determining factor out there...even if it exists only in the trainer's mind.

Now, look. I know that I can get a little abrasive here at times...but I don't particularly like the "polite" conversational style...where we all voice our handicapping opinions, without arguing about the possible mistakes in judgement that we all make from time to time. I like to ARGUE with people when my handicapping opinion differs from theirs...and I spend considerable time trying to explain in detail what my argument is...in order for this to become a "learning experience" for those who may not be as "experienced" in the game as some of the rest of us are. And I don't consider my arguments to be "insulting"...because I go to great lengths to avoid the harsh language that insults are made of.

I disagree with you when you say, as you did to TLG in post #6...that a horse's class rise is offset by a lofty speed and pace figure earned in a lesser race. And I explained to you why I disagree in my first paragraph here. To me..."class" cannot be offset by lofty speed/pace figures in lesser races...and my notebooks are FULL of examples that I would just LOVE to share with you. Because, as I already said...I believe that "arguments" of this type become great "learning experiences"...for ALL of us here.

And...I am not "sensitive" in the LEAST...so, you are welcomed to reply to me in any way that you choose. You can even choose NOT to reply to me at all...and my feelings would never get hurt, either way.
__________________
Live to play another day.

Last edited by thaskalos; 09-22-2018 at 04:37 AM.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 10:49 AM   #48
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo View Post
The whole issue of horses running poorer performances when they go up in class is really mostly a question of pace. Lower class races tend to be run at slower paces and when a lower class winner moves up to a higher class race he generally will be facing a faster pace, tire more quickly and run a lower figure. There is no magic component of that causes horses to lose. This whole fairy tale that a higher class horse just has to look a lower class horse in the eye and the lower class horse knows its place and losses is pure Hollywood kid stuff.

Horses do have a hierarchy but it is based on something tangible called speed. A horse beats another because it runs faster than the other horse. A horse is said to have class because it beats other horses who also have class with its speed. It all boils down to speed. Beyer explains this in one of his books. Speed is at the root of class. Speed determines the pecking order.

Yes, speed figures can be problematic since of the subjective nature of making variants and other practical problems. however rating a horse based on who beats who has the problem that horses form changes as well as pace scenarios. If horse A beats horse B and B beats C, A is supposed to beat C because it is of higher class than C. The problem with that is while it ignores some of the problems of speed figure comparisons, it has the problem of changing form and changing pace scenarios. A may have been at the top of its form cycle and had a better trip when it beat B. The situation may be reversed when it meets C. The idea that horses have a fixed class rating does not hold up. Speed and pace figures are a better way to more precisely quantify a horses current performance ability.
Final times are a function of the ability of the horses and race dynamics.

Race dynamics includes pace (as you said), horse position, whether horses are battling/relaxed/forced to accelerate at key times, whether the horses have more speed or stamina etc... and how those things interact with how the track is playing on that specific day (more or less tiring).

Since better horses will tend to run faster in general and in form horses will run faster than out of form horses, speed handicapping is a pretty good way to isolate better horses.

But beyond the complications with speed handicapping I mentioned above, your chances of deciphering the complex mess of factors that impact the time into an accurate adjustment are someone between "you can't do it" and "you can't do it". At best you can approximate some of the extremes (using pace figures and watching races)

The result of all these complex dynamics is that sometimes a better group of horses will run slower than a cheaper one (adjusted for track speed). There's enough impact sometimes to create that kind of crossover as long as the horses are racing at similar levels.

This is party why when horses move and down in class, their figures can fluctuate (the rest being random and trainer intent). The race dynamics tend to be easier at lower class levels than higher class levels even when pace figures alone don't reveal it.

A class label is meaningless, but the classing system is relatively efficient.

Better horses tend to run at higher class levels (assuming you actually know the pecking order at your track). The tricky part for class handicappers is separating the strong fields from the weak fields at a certain level before they start coming back. That's much harder work and more difficult. That's why everyone becomes a speed/pace handicapper. You get to buy a prepackaged number that describes 85%-90% of everything that matters without any work. lol

Regarding comparison handicapping, I said "who beat who GIVEN THEIR TRIPS".

IMO, it's easier to see and measure that horse A had a tougher trip than horse B within the same race than it is to measure how much each of those trips impacted their final times.

I can easily know that horse "A" beat "B" but "B" was better that day. It's harder to adjust both their final times exactly.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 09-22-2018 at 10:56 AM.
classhandicapper is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 11:19 AM   #49
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
As promised, here is the post-race analysis. cj was right when he said the race came up horrible. Most of the field declined in their figures at a time when young lightly raced fillies are improving. However, if one does a proper analysis
and interprets the figures in their proper context in terms of trips, ground loss and how unevenly the pace figures were laid down the race makes sense.

Fillies who ran like their PPs were forgeries included, Cartwheelin LuLu, Elegant Zig,Party Like Grandma, Maiden Beauty and Ma Meatloaf. CL, though winning, had her speed figure decline from 92 to 84 despite indications that she would improve. She had no ground loss as she went wire to wire after getting the early lead though to do show she had to run an exceptionally quick opening quarter of 102 pace figure relative to the final time in order to clear the field and get the rail. After this she ran a much slower 2nd quarter of 77. This gave the illusion of a slow pace but was no gift as she was forced to re-accelerate to 85 to keep the lead and finish the final eight in 89. the filly ran an uneven pace distribution of 102-77-85.The pattern of accelerate-decelerate-recelerate is a real energy drainer, just like go, stop and go driving gussels gas in a car. Furthermore, her final figure of 89 was demoted to 85 due to her slow half figure of 77 taken in isolation when the uneven pattern of her 1st 3 pace figures was an energy drain and deserved extra credit.

We see the same thing in Energy Zip whose pace figs of distribution pattern of 96-73-84 earned her final speed figure of 92 which was dropped from 92 in her previous race to 82

Party Like Gandma dropped from 93 to 79 with a similar pace distribution distribution pattern of 96-75-82. Maiden Beauty's drop from 90 to 79 seems to be less clear cut. Her pace pattern distribution isn't as dramatic as the others (75-65-78), Her ground loss is negligible and she was bumped around a few times but it seems it seems she bounced from the huge improvement from her previous figure of 90 from the 67 she ran in the race before. Ma Meatloaf's (97 to 73) pace pattern was also not so bad but she did lose 4 lengths on the turn. She was likely just beginning a decline from her previous big figure - possibly a bounce. In addition the last 2 fillies were well beaten, finishing next to last and last and horses so badly beaten are usually not persevered with by their riders, making their speed figures even lower.

What these results indicate is that there is a previously little known factor affecting a horses' reaction to it's pace figure that is a more sophisticated concept regarding the unevenness of its 1st 3 pace figures. Five of the seven horses in the Belmont race showed unexpected form reversals and the majority showed this unusual uneven pace pattern. Uneven pace with it's go-stop-go pattern can be especially draining even though the traditional 2nd call pace figure seems slow. If you recall in an article by Lopez in Horse Racing Nation he discuses the effect of this factor in his Travers Analysis.

Am I saying that figure makers should develop a complex new algorithm to quantify this effect. No.To begin this is something that is more difficult to quantify than ground loss or a pace figure. It's effects are more likely hard to measure quantitatively like being shuffled back or left at the gate,etc. This kind of race shape is also uncommon in North American dirt races so it's effects may not be worth the complex calculations required. However, when it does occur its use can be invaluable in explaining some puzzling race results and it can be worth glancing at the PPs for this pattern for its qualitative effect.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 11:47 AM   #50
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,446
Do you have a link to that article at HRN?
I'd like to read it, but the HRJN site is pretty much useless.
Very poorly designed and full of stupid ads and videos popping up.

Thanks
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 01:03 PM   #51
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
There is a big difference between horses moving up in class and young and lightly raced horses that we don't really know what their class is. Two totally different things in my opinion.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 01:55 PM   #52
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Where can we find further evidence to support the "unusual" nature of this 102-77-85 running line? From what I've seen...that's how the majority of the pace-setters win their races. They throw out a quick opening fraction in order to arrest the early lead on the rail, and then they endeavor to noticeably slow down the pace during the second fraction...after which they reassert themselves again, by drawing away from their pursuers as they turn for home. In fact...this style of running has been so common on the U.S. dirt tracks, that the esteemed handicapping author Dick Mitchell even popularized the "turn time" concept...in order to isolate those races where a soft middle fraction made the horse's overall performance appear more impressive than it really was. If I remember correctly, Mitchell even created an artificial rating which combined the horse's second-call pace figure with the horse's "turn-time"...in order to further isolate those horses who had REALLY pressured themselves during the most strenuous part of the race...which was the MIDDLE part of the race...as far as Mitchell was concerned.

In any case...when 5 of the 7 horses in a nondescript statebred stakes race are able to accomplish this "accelerate-decelerate-recelerate" task...then, how "unusual" can it possibly BE?
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 02:06 PM   #53
ReplayRandall
Buckle Up
 
ReplayRandall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
Mitchell even created an artificial rating which combined the horse's second-call pace figure with the horse's "turn-time"...in order to further isolate those horses who had REALLY pressured themselves during the most strenuous part of the race...
Key component, vastly overlooked by the majority of handicappers....Watching replays during this part of the race gives so much insight as to the horse's current ability, at this specific class level, giving you a fist full of horses to notate in your "stable watch" lists......To be continued..
ReplayRandall is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 02:08 PM   #54
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
Where can we find further evidence to support the "unusual" nature of this 102-77-85 running line? From what I've seen...that's how the majority of the pace-setters win their races. They throw out a quick opening fraction in order to arrest the early lead on the rail, and then they endeavor to noticeably slow down the pace during the second fraction...after which they reassert themselves again, by drawing away from their pursuers as they turn for home. In fact...this style of running has been so common on the U.S. dirt tracks, that the esteemed handicapping author Dick Mitchell even popularized the "turn time" concept...in order to isolate those races where a soft middle fraction made the horse's overall performance appear more impressive than it really was. If I remember correctly, Mitchell even created an artificial rating which combined the horse's second-call pace figure with the horse's "turn-time"...in order to further isolate those horses who had REALLY pressured themselves during the most strenuous part of the race...which was the MIDDLE part of the race...as far as Mitchell was concerned.

In any case...when 5 of the 7 horses in a nondescript statebred stakes race are able to accomplish this "accelerate-decelerate-recelerate" task...then, how "unusual" can it possibly BE?
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:

Code:
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

Last edited by cj; 09-22-2018 at 02:14 PM.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 02:12 PM   #55
ReplayRandall
Buckle Up
 
ReplayRandall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
That race shape is in the minority of races run in North America, especially on dirt. I'm pretty confident that will prove correct.

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
Good stuff CJ, I'm interested in seeing the %'s of each....Maybe filtering between claiming and non-claiming races might also be helpful.
ReplayRandall is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 02:15 PM   #56
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall View Post
Good stuff CJ, I'm interested in seeing the %'s of each....Maybe filtering between claiming and non-claiming races might also be helpful.
Won't be today for sure, busy betting. If I don't post by Monday send me a reminder.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 02:20 PM   #57
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
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:

Code:
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
We aren't talking about "race shapes"...we are talking about the independent running lines of the particular horses involved in the race. The "shape" of the race in general shows one thing...but the horses' individual race-shapes show something else altogether.
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 02:25 PM   #58
ReplayRandall
Buckle Up
 
ReplayRandall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
We aren't talking about "race shapes"...we are talking about the independent running lines of the particular horses involved in the race. The "shape" of the race in general shows one thing...but the horses' individual race-shapes show something else altogether.
True....But you would benefit more by knowing the "race shape" as a frame of reference to a horse's individual specs....No horse runs in a vacuum, they're always influenced by the dynamics of the competition in said race...
ReplayRandall is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 02:34 PM   #59
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall View Post
True....But you would benefit more by knowing the "race shape" as a frame of reference to a horse's individual specs....No horse runs in a vacuum, they're always influenced by the dynamics of the competition in said race...
Bobphilo said that 5 of the 7 horses in that Wednesday Belmont race ran an "accelerate-decelerate-recelerate" running line...and that this particular running line is unusual for a U.S. dirt track. Can we find out how "unusual" such a running line really is?
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-22-2018, 02:38 PM   #60
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
We aren't talking about "race shapes"...we are talking about the independent running lines of the particular horses involved in the race. The "shape" of the race in general shows one thing...but the horses' individual race-shapes show something else altogether.
Sure, I can do it by horse too. Looking at the winners would probably be enlightening. My point was that the flow of figures takes into account the way races are generally run, that is all. If races generally went fast, slow, fast, like the race in question, the figures would be even across.

My baseline showed the normal 2nd quarter the winners runs at 7f at Belmont is usually a little fast than the opening quarter. In this case, the opening quarter was 23.16, the second quarter 24.05. That is way different than what we normally see on this track at 7f and why the 1/2 mile pace figure was so low for the race.

My figures are cumulative. The opening quarter was rated 102, the half mile 77, final time 89. This means if the fractions are rated incrementally they look like this:

1/4 102
1/4 to 1/2: 77 * 2 - 102 = 52 (that is an absolute crawl and way different the norm)
1/2 to finish: (89 * 7 - 77 *4) / 3 = 105

This really goes to show how pace often has as big an effect on the final time as the quality of the horses does. Once the 2nd quarter was allowed to be run in such a ridiculous time, there was no way to make up the lost time in the last three furlongs.

I would say this race is probably better than pace and speed figures indicate. Tactics are what made the race slow. The second quarter bunched up the field and caused a lot of the traffic problems we see in the race.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.