what the hell happened at the Big A

[Tom]

46: whatever "hiccup" occured last weekend has reversed itself and the speedballs are back doing their thing with GUSTO on the Aqueuduct inner, just like the last 4 years.


CJ: Most others seem to think speed did just fine last weekend.


46: P-O-S-I-T-I-O-N-A-L-L-Y maybe (since that is racing EVERYWHERE) but not energy D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N wise


CJ: How would we know, you haven't posted the numbers so we can see what you are talking about.

46: Well let's keep it that way.

CJ: Then why bring it up in the first place?


46: Independent of my observations, I wanted to see if anyone else noticed it




Hey ABBOT!

You guys made my night.....

[cj]

Originally Posted by GameTheory

Grunt.

Did you see my example earlier in the thread about using a proportional variant for the pace calls?

[classhandicapper]

OK, I understand what you are saying about the energy distribution profile of the typical winner. I find that kind of analysis very interesting. However, I still think there are pace/bias issues as I was describing that complicate these things and that can lead to false conclusions. I'm not saying I have the solution. For me it's a subjective process.

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

Energy distribution is INDEPENDENT of velocity: that is what the program ENERGY was all about. One looks for distribution mismatches that favor a particular animal.

these two arrays, percent wise, represent the DISTRIBUTION of first an early/presser
35.88 34.16 30.91
versus a sustained/presser
33.98 34.16, 31.86 which you can see is more evenly distrubuted. Now if the total energy (velocity of those three fractions) is substantiatly bigger, one or the other, then that one has a better chance to prevail provided that style is dominant for said track and distance and is closer to what NORMALLY wins at this track and distance. At most tracks, on most days, sprints go to early, early/pressers, or pressers, while most routes go to pressers, sustained/pressers, or sustained runners. In any particular contest however, almost ANY distribution COULD win provided that the total velocity is superior. Horses with the wrong style for any track and particular distance usually have to have velocity superiority to overcome the "style fit" for that distance and race course. Knowing each race track's FINGERPRINT (style and distribution that wins the majority of races at a particular distance) relly helps when shippers come in from a course that might have favored a different style. One distance track combination that is really unique is Woodbine's 7 furlong standard which is like NONE other I have ever charted. Makes for easy eliminations for shippers if they cannot make the "fit."

A turfer, running as a LATE participant might distribute this way 32.71 33.19 34.08, getting MORE velocity (percentage wise) the further into the contest one goes. But another horse with an earlier distribution, provided it had velocity superiority, COULD project as the winner. On the lawn this is particularly true at 8 furlongs, but rarely at longer turf distances.

When one then adds velocity to these distributions, compares them to one another along with their relative rates of deceleration, one can figure out if there is a mis-match in favor of one or more which would suggest a wager. By the recording WHICH of these styles is NORMALLY dominant at a course and distance, then noting what is winning TODAY at this course and distance allows the observer to notice if there is an observable bias.

The earlier screen shot showed the early/late balance which is a quick way to look for that "fingerprint" for any particular distance/race course. One looks for the earliest one that is still within the range of normalcy for the distance. If two were dead even in all other categories, the earlier one would be the favored bet.

[classhandicapper]

If what you are saying is that the relationship between pace and final time varies from day to day and track to track because of cushion and other factors, I wholeheartedly agree. Not only do I agree, I think the best jockeys and trainers eventually figure these tendencies out and alter the average fractions at the track (through small changes in aggression and training) trying to maximize their chances of winning - which in turn tends to offset the advantage some styles would have had (at least to some degree).

Originally Posted by kenwoodallpromos

"a series of either slow or fast paces could very well change the average energy distribution of the winners, while being unrelated to whether or not there was a bias favoring speed."
While I believe that it is true that a horse loses energy relatively quickly at top or near top speed (there is racing that goes for many miles), the more "cushioning" that absorbs any of the horse's stride causes energy loss. The reason they call it a "cushion" is because the base is so hard. There may be some kind of formula of speed vs. energy loss but you will not hear it from me! Again the example is a sealed or maybe wet fast track- the pace matters but so does the firmness as it determines a certain absorbsion of energy- otherwise horses' speed and all races are very predictable since pace is very often able to be predicted, and the only thing left to consider greatly is the horse's cardio-vascular/lung capacity.
At this point in time cardio-vasculular and lung efficiently is a very minor variable because muscular efficiency and stamina is very much more important, as evidenced by your comments about pace, and by the banning of "milkshakes" to prevent the muscles from getting tired by lactic action.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

Energy distribution is INDEPENDENT of velocity: that is what the program ENERGY was all about. One looks for distribution mismatches that favor a particular animal.....

46 - that was one of the best descriptions of energy distribution I have ever read. Thanks for summarizing it like that.

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by cj

Did you see my example earlier in the thread about using a proportional variant for the pace calls?

Yes, thank you. I was grunting only in order to outdo 46 for the shortest most unelaborative reply in the thread. I'm competitive like that...

[cj]

Originally Posted by GameTheory

Yes, thank you. I was grunting only in order to outdo 46 for the shortest most unelaborative reply in the thread. I'm competitive like that...

I got the grunt thing, was just wondering what you thought. I know you are a sharp guy, that is why I ask.

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by cj

I got the grunt thing, was just wondering what you thought. I know you are a sharp guy, that is why I ask.

I don't have much comment, since I'm not much of a pace guy. Times and variants really aren't very important to me, so I'm just curious, but don't have a lot to say about it.

You're probably right, but as others have said maybe other methods are also nearly right at different times, meaning each method will help lead to different winners at different times. My method preserves the original energy distribution as it actually occured. Maybe that is worth something. Your method probably works better for comparing pace ratings from different races. No reason one couldn't do it both ways...