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 Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 07-13-2016, 08:05 AM   #121
no breathalyzer
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,053
so what this chart really shows proves my point... you have a 46% chance of winning on the grass if you sit right off the speed 2nd/3rd/4th... as we all know ( i hope ).. horses are usually bunched close together on grass.

The optimal place to be is inside saving ground with a target to run down period.... to be clear i don't like it either win a jockey chokes a horse out with a strangle hold.. but that's why they do it
no breathalyzer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 08:09 AM   #122
biggestal99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Where did I say they were run at a fast pace?
maybe it was your quote.

"I don't know how it got started but last time I actually researched racing in England the pace was actually generally faster for turf races than it is in North America."

The pace is fast in straight sprints and straight miles due to no turns. No turns to slow horses. absolutely cannot compared to NA turn races.

In turn races they usually are usually run in packs in Europe at a slow pace.

Allan
biggestal99 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 08:43 AM   #123
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 44,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggestal99
maybe it was your quote.

"I don't know how it got started but last time I actually researched racing in England the pace was actually generally faster for turf races than it is in North America."

The pace is fast in straight sprints and straight miles due to no turns. No turns to slow horses. absolutely cannot compared to NA turn races.

In turn races they usually are usually run in packs in Europe at a slow pace.

Allan
That quote says the pace was generally faster in turf races than it was in North America. It doesn't say the pace is generally fast. Poor interpretation of my words on your part.

I know all about turns and uphill and downhill. I lived in Europe for five years and attended quite a few tracks in my time there.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 08:47 AM   #124
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 44,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by no breathalyzer
so what this chart really shows proves my point... you have a 46% chance of winning on the grass if you sit right off the speed 2nd/3rd/4th... as we all know ( i hope ).. horses are usually bunched close together on grass.

The optimal place to be is inside saving ground with a target to run down period.... to be clear i don't like it either win a jockey chokes a horse out with a strangle hold.. but that's why they do it
Another poor interpretation in this thread, but we often see what we want to see. The data I posted shows that speed is more important on dirt. Of course it is, everyone already knows that. But it also shows that the closer a horse is to the front on turf, the better the chances of winning. Sure, all the other positions added up together have a better chance than the leader, but the best is up front.

I'd also add that turf racing is a lot more likely to see a hopeless horse run out to the lead than dirt racing which holds back the win percentage a bit.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 09:05 AM   #125
biggestal99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
That quote says the pace was generally faster in turf races than it was in North America. It doesn't say the pace is generally fast. Poor interpretation of my words on your part.

I know all about turns and uphill and downhill. I lived in Europe for five years and attended quite a few tracks in my time there.
in turn races the pace is not faster in the uk than in North America, it's simply not true

I too seen many races in the uk too and been to a lot of tracks there.

Prolly just we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Allan
biggestal99 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 09:12 AM   #126
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 44,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggestal99
in turn races the pace is not faster in the uk than in North America, it's simply not true

I too seen many races in the uk too and been to a lot of tracks there.

Prolly just we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Allan
I have no idea how you are measuring this so yes, we'll agree to disagree. Funny how you now changed your point of contention though.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 10:01 AM   #127
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 16,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
The data I posted shows that speed is more important on dirt. Of course it is, everyone already knows that. But it also shows that the closer a horse is to the front on turf, the better the chances of winning. Sure, all the other positions added up together have a better chance than the leader, but the best is up front.
This is correct, but it's still missing the point I have been making throughout the thread.

The w2w data on turf would be worse except for the fact that the riders are slowing the paces down to a crawl to compensate for their perception that that's the best way to run turf races and give all the horses a decent shot (and trainers are training that way).

In the beginning, polytrack at KEE was a disaster in terms of w2w winners. Everyone was complaining. Then the jockey's adjusted the paces to a crawl. So the w2w% went up a bit. Looking at the new w2w% was not telling you that poly was now OK for speed. It was telling you that the jockeys compensated. (eventually they also tweaked the surface)

If people started complaining about some slug that went w2w off 6f in 117, they would be correct that he was a slug and got lucky because of the lack of aggressiveness. But asking the riders to get more aggressive again would just send us back to the opening days of the meet when everyone was whining that speed couldn't win.

The surface is the surface. The best trainers and riders try to adjust to it to give their horses a reasonable chance of winning. But within it, they make mistakes in some races. When everyone knows it's a very speed favoring surface, the mistakes tend to result from being too aggressive. In turf routes in NY, the mistakes are clustered towards not being aggressive enough.
__________________
"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned." Fast Eddie Felson

Last edited by classhandicapper; 07-13-2016 at 10:02 AM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 10:38 AM   #128
biggestal99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I have no idea how you are measuring this so yes, we'll agree to disagree.
Measurement via direct observations of 1000's races both here and the UK and reading the comments of literally thousands of races in the racingpost.com comment section of how the race was run and the condition of the turf. Run at a strong gallop is a comment not usually read in turn races in the UK.

Allan
biggestal99 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 11:01 AM   #129
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
......The w2w data on turf would be worse except for the fact that the riders are slowing the paces down to a crawl to compensate for their perception that that's the best way to run turf races and give all the horses a decent shot (and trainers are training that way).....
It is not a perception! But your analysis is spot on.
AndyC is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 11:29 AM   #130
RXB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,787
On dirt, the win% and ITM% decline very obviously and significantly with each move backward in early position; the more forwardly horses are placed early on dirt, the better in the long run. But in turf routes, unless a horse gets the lead there's essentially no overall benefit from more forward position except to the extent that it keeps horses within the front half or even the front two-thirds of the field. So why force the issue? A turf route rider whose horse is parked on the outside shoulder or hip of the leader a couple of furlongs into the race is usually not improving his own chances by forcing the pace aggressively during the middle stages.
RXB is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 11:38 AM   #131
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 16,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by RXB
On dirt, the win% and ITM% decline very obviously and significantly with each move backward in early position; the more forwardly horses are placed early on dirt, the better in the long run. But in turf routes, unless a horse gets the lead there's essentially no overall benefit from more forward position except to the extent that it keeps horses within the front half or even the front two-thirds of the field. So why force the issue? A turf route rider whose horse is parked on the outside shoulder or hip of the leader a couple of furlongs into the race is usually not improving his own chances by forcing the pace aggressively during the middle stages.
That's a good point. Also, a lot of the horses that are in the back of the field are not there because it's their running style. It's because they are slow horses. So at least some small part of the reason the stats are generally worse for trailers on both dirt and turf is that they are longshots that wouldn't have much of shot from anywhere.
__________________
"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned." Fast Eddie Felson
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 11:57 AM   #132
RXB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
That's a good point. Also, a lot of the horses that are in the back of the field are not there because it's their running style. It's because they are slow horses. So at least some small part of the reason the stats are generally worse for trailers on both dirt and turf is that they are longshots that wouldn't have much of shot from anywhere.
Exactly. Many of those horses at/near the back are slow due to lack of ability or some physical problem that day, or because of atypical gate/equipment/early trip trouble. Habitual deep closers with legitimate ability in turf routes are at an overall disadvantage but not by nearly as much as some raw stats on early running position would suggest.
RXB is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 12:46 PM   #133
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 44,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
This is correct, but it's still missing the point I have been making throughout the thread.

The w2w data on turf would be worse except for the fact that the riders are slowing the paces down to a crawl to compensate for their perception that that's the best way to run turf races and give all the horses a decent shot (and trainers are training that way).

In the beginning, polytrack at KEE was a disaster in terms of w2w winners. Everyone was complaining. Then the jockey's adjusted the paces to a crawl. So the w2w% went up a bit. Looking at the new w2w% was not telling you that poly was now OK for speed. It was telling you that the jockeys compensated. (eventually they also tweaked the surface)

If people started complaining about some slug that went w2w off 6f in 117, they would be correct that he was a slug and got lucky because of the lack of aggressiveness. But asking the riders to get more aggressive again would just send us back to the opening days of the meet when everyone was whining that speed couldn't win.

The surface is the surface. The best trainers and riders try to adjust to it to give their horses a reasonable chance of winning. But within it, they make mistakes in some races. When everyone knows it's a very speed favoring surface, the mistakes tend to result from being too aggressive. In turf routes in NY, the mistakes are clustered towards not being aggressive enough.
All this says to me is that dirt is different. Well, no kidding. We all know that. Speed certainly isn't as big a factor. But there were comments in this thread saying how bad speed was and that is a terrible place to be on turf. That simply isn't true as I'm sure you know.

My experience has been that speed horses are underbet on turf and I take advantage of it. It is probably due to a lot of the stuff I've seen written here and elsewhere. Yes, the races are different, but they aren't different to the level some think.

Last edited by cj; 07-13-2016 at 12:47 PM.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 12:48 PM   #134
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 44,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggestal99
Measurement via direct observations of 1000's races both here and the UK and reading the comments of literally thousands of races in the racingpost.com comment section of how the race was run and the condition of the turf. Run at a strong gallop is a comment not usually read in turn races in the UK.

Allan
You think "run at a strong gallop" is common on turf here? I don't.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-13-2016, 12:50 PM   #135
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 44,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
That's a good point. Also, a lot of the horses that are in the back of the field are not there because it's their running style. It's because they are slow horses. So at least some small part of the reason the stats are generally worse for trailers on both dirt and turf is that they are longshots that wouldn't have much of shot from anywhere.
Of course that is true. But like I said, I think you'd find a higher percentage of longshots lead or are up close in turf races than in dirt races, mostly because the pace is slower.
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
» Current Polls
preferred pick 5 type
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2021 -- 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.