TimeformUS Figs Key to Belmont Longshot Win

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Tom

That is not what I said. I did say anything about speeding out it's comfort zone. I said NOT using its natural weapon - early speed.

And pace is not independent of other horses.
Horse can be used running slower than usual when pressed, or when inside of other horses. These are animals not machines.
You see it everyday - horses running early in very slow time get swallowed up when the last two furlongs go fast and the closers are right there at the top of the stretch.

A horse is only being pressed if said pressure is causing the horse to go faster. It is a myth that just because 2 horses are running side by side they are dueling and experiencing a tiring effect above and beyond the effect of running at speed. Horses are pack animals and, if anything, are more comfortable when running in company. I know this incorrect notion of the effect of pressure is widely held, but it has no basis in biology or in equine psychology and is just one of many myths in horse racing.
Yes, horses that set slow paces can be caught in the stretch but I have already explained the possible causes for this and refer you back to that post.

Yes, horses are not machines but are still subject to the laws of Physics, Biology and Equine Psychology.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Cj...would you please clarify something for me?

In post #6 of this thread...bobphilo erroneously reported to TLG that the winner of Wednesday's Belmont race had or shared the highest TFUS speed/pace figures in the group. "I agree with all of this" you responded to him in post #8...even though bobphilo later admitted that he was WRONG in his speed/pace assessment of this particular race. There were other horses in that race who held HIGHER speed figures than Cartwheelin Lulu. Why didn't you correct bobphilo's obvious mistake then and there...instead of "agreeing with all of this"?

Also...TLG's response to me on that matter (post #39) seems to be a complete contradiction to the point that bobphilo has been trying to make in this thread. And yet, as evidenced by that same post #8...you seem to agree with BOTH bobphilo AND TLG on this issue...even through the two of them seem to hold totally different pre-race views about this particular horse. When I asked TLG of his pre-race opinion of Cartwheelin Lulu...he responded: "Fringe player at best. I would never use her in my play, for whatever that is worth, and highly doubt that she would hit the board if they ran the race again, especially on a fair/even track." As you can see...TLG is saying the OPPOSITE of what bobphilo is asserting here...and yet...you seem to be in agreement with BOTH of them!

How can that BE?

Before I delve in, let me say I never took this as you picking a fight. I wasn't a fan of you calling me out for not pointing out Bob was mistaken about the speed figure pecking order when in fact I had done so as soon as I saw it. Obviously you missed it so I pointed it out, water off a duck's back after that.

As for agreeing with both Bob and TLG, I agreed with Bob's assessment before the race based on the TimeformUS Pace Projector, a tool I myself created. It showed the 7 clearing easily on a track with a strong rail bias. I wasn't betting that day. In fact I rarely bet during Monday through Thursday any longer for a variety of reasons. But I indeed would have tabbed her a contender before the race. A bet at 7-1? I really don't know as I've found those kind of things impossible to say in hindsight once you know the results.

I agreed with Andy's post race assessment, not his pre-race. He said she was probably fourth best (or something like that) in the race based on some of the rides and trips. Fourth best might be a small stretch, but if the same horses met again in six weeks would I favor her over the others? Almost assuredly no.

I think the key here is that results of races, even when favorable in the outcome, don't always validate pre-race opinions. The same can be said in the other direction too. A losing bet doesn't mean an opinion was bad.

Fun debate.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

A horse is only being pressed if said pressure is causing the horse to go faster. It is a myth that just because 2 horses are running side by side they are dueling and experiencing a tiring effect above and beyond the effect of running at speed. Horses are pack animals and, if anything, are more comfortable when running in company. I know this incorrect notion of the effect of pressure is widely held, but it has no basis in biology or in equine psychology and is just one of many myths in horse racing.
Yes, horses that set slow paces can be caught in the stretch but I have already explained the possible causes for this and refer you back to that post.

Yes, horses are not machines but are still subject to the laws of Physics, Biology and Equine Psychology.

This I don't agree with at all based on experience. There are things we can't see. For example, what if the horses are head and head in optimal time but one really wants to get his head in front, but the jockey won't let him? Do you think that takes a toll?

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

We aren't talking about how to maximize final time.

We are talking about winning or losing.

It's not just the efficiency of your pace that matters. Your position relative to other horses also matters. A 1 length greater lead is worth more than the difference between running 50 or 50 1/5th.

I guess you missed the part of my post you are replying to where I said,

"Having said that, there are times when it is wise to run a portion of a race inefficiently, such as to avoid trouble, to get position, to avoid going wide, etc."

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by cj

This I don't agree with at all based on experience. There are things we can't see. For example, what if the horses are head and head in optimal time but one really wants to get his head in front, but the jockey won't let him? Do you think that takes a toll?

Got to agree with this. Optimal time and in the preferred running style. Both have to be present, not one or the other.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

This I don't agree with at all based on experience. There are things we can't see. For example, what if the horses are head and head in optimal time but one really wants to get his head in front, but the jockey won't let him? Do you think that takes a toll?

Sure, there can be subtle influences that are not easy to see that can have an effect, such as your example. Even there, one can see that often see the horse-rider conflict though there are times when it's missed.
I doubt that this happens every time horses are running together while the assumption is almost always made that the horses are dueling though the pace is slow. What I'm talking about is the assumption that just because horses are running side by side on the lead they are assumed to be dueling and all such paces are contested and is tiring regardless of the slow fractions. The comment about a pace being "slow but contested" is used way too often to be correct.

As I said, horses are herd animals and have evolved with a herd mentality which would make them more comfortable running in company.
To be fair, I understand that we have been breeding them for thousands of years to be competitive which might cause them to have run faster to get the led, but this would be shown in the fractions. This competitiveness could be responsible for a surge of energy in a fight or flight reaction giving horses more energy than they normally had which could make even real dueling a performance plus rather than an excuse for a poor performance.

I'm not saying that these arguments are just as good as a controlled study but lacking such evidence can be used against the argument that horses running side by side are always dueling and have an excuse for tiring. I feel that the actual fractions are by far the best and proven way to interpret these situations.

Personally I have found that horse racing, 2nd only to boxing, is one sport where traditional unscientific beliefs are most deeply embedded into people's beliefs. By way of contrast, I would cite college and Olympic track and field, where the coaches have the benefit of the worlds leading researchers into Exercise Physiology right there on campus whose work they can incorporate into their training and race strategy methods and are least burdened by dubious tradition. It is no accident that we have seen such dramatic improvements in human track and field in the past few decades compared to racing.
I would add that the use of computers into racing research, such as the work of Quirin have made dramatic improvements in handicapping but many myths still remain. I don't expect to win any popularity contests for debunking some handicappers "sacred cows" who cling to their beloved long-held racing beliefs like religious dogma, but If that is the price I pay in my search for truth, so be it.

[GMB@BP]

Speaking of Belmont, and front end speed.

Look at todays stake race for 300k at the sprint distance of 6.5f There is virtually no speed in this race. It will be run just like a turf event at the same distance, maybe slower.

Its very hard to find a sprint race in todays cheap speed world where not a single horse really wants the lead. I am not sure how you handicap it. Still There looks like the horse to beat to me but in a pack, inside behind the speed, will need to trip out at 5/2 or so, meh.

Wish there was a front runner from socal in here.

[jimmyb]

#3 Lewis Bay, looks like the lead horse. Gets Irad, good pace and speed ratings.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by jimmyb

#3 Lewis Bay, looks like the lead horse. Gets Irad, good pace and speed ratings.

Interesting, my pace numbers have her about mid pack.

[Maximillion]

I think a lot of things have different effects depending on the individual horse and who is actually in the race..I dont think you can always say X or Y= better performance.
We have made huge advancements in research etc...but the players in this game cant read or understand these studies.

[Tom]

22.57
22.52---- 45.09
23.89 ---108.98

Second and third best TF late pace horses run 1-2

Missed the final - I thought it was 6.

My raw figs for early - 102 - 108

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Tom

22.57
22.52---- 45.09
23.89 ---108.98

Second and third best TF late pace horses run 1-2

Missed the final - I thought it was 6.

My raw figs for early - 102 - 108

like predicted, was run like a turf race, the best LP horses did very well.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Tom

22.57
22.52---- 45.09
23.89 ---108.98

30.15 ---115.24

Second and third best TF late pace horses run 1-2

Missed the final - I thought it was 6.

My raw figs for early - 102 - 108 - 111

Added final time

[Maximillion]

I had the reverse exacta in that race as the only two horses I eliminated ran 1-2.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

like predicted, was run like a turf race, the best LP horses did very well.

On the other hand, seems like it was run like a typical high early speed dirt race.

Horses who were 1-2-3 at the half finished 3-7-6
Horses who finished 1-2-3 were 6-5-1 at the half

Fast early pace favored the closers with the high late figures.