TimeformUS Figs Key to Belmont Longshot Win

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Thaskalos

Your post is perfectly clear and absolutely correct.

This is not meant for you. I'll bow out now because people seem more interested in data on the fractions than understanding how they might interrelate with the makeup of the field and positional development to produce results we can understand better. I didn't mean to hijack the thread to insert my work. I thought it was complimentary and was planning to add some data when I had time.

Every original thought that a competent handicapper contributes to a discussion such as this is bound to have a positive effect on the thread as a whole. I too initially said that I wanted to bow out of this thread, but, since we don't often have these types of handicapping-discussion threads here anymore...I have subsequently changed my mind. I now think that this thread needs me...and I think it needs you too...along with all the other analytical handicappers here.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't see how that could be. For example: In all the races where the first race call is fast, regardless of distance, the majority of the horses are well off the pace thus saving energy for the latter parts of the race. So...it would appear that they are running CONTRARY to the pattern of the race.

Please don't take this as criticism aimed at you personally. You have volunteered to do work for our benefit here...and your effort should be applauded. But this is an inconsistency that I felt should be pointed out...because not doing so would allow your investigation to lead to the wrong conclusion...IMO.

But a fast first call by itself isnt really a "pattern" no?
Like in the Belmont race, there was a hole in the middle of the race,due to rider concerns about distance,the filly that was in front or whatever other reasons etc.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

But a fast first call by itself isnt really a "pattern" no?
Like in the Belmont race, there was a hole in the middle of the race,due to rider concerns about distance,the filly that was in front or whatever other reasons etc.

The fast first call is PART of a "pattern". And, by running contrary to this part...most of the horses in the race are running a DIFFERENT "pattern".

[thaskalos]

Alas...there is more to "pace handicapping" than what meets the eye. The variables are virtually ENDLESS...and there is just so much time...

[classhandicapper]

I think what everyone is saying is important.

The pace pattern of a race could favor horses that ran a certain way within it.

The individual fractions are a more detailed analysis of what a specific horse did within that race.

Maybe we know from the data that Pattern A tends to favor closers. That's good to know.

Then we can look at horses X, Y, and Z that raced within one of those Pattern A races to see if we can learn more about the individual impacts.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think what everyone is saying is important.

The pace pattern of a race could favor horses that ran a certain way within it.

The individual fractions are a more detailed analysis of what a specific horse did within that race.

Maybe we know from the data that Pattern A tends to favor closers. That's good to know.

Then we can look at horses X, Y, and Z that raced within one of those Pattern A races to see if we can learn more about the individual impacts.

It isn't just the race "pattern" that decides which horse will be helped or hindered in a race. The incidental circumstances of the race influence things as well...that's why this game gets so maddeningly chaotic so much more often than we would like. And then we have the inherent tendencies of the horses...and their handlers. This game isn't a math or a physics problem waiting to be solved, IMO...although I have often wished that it was.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It isn't just the race "pattern" that decides which horse will be helped or hindered in a race. The incidental circumstances of the race influence things as well...that's why this game gets so maddeningly chaotic so much more often than we would like. And then we have the inherent tendencies of the horses...and their handlers. This game isn't a math or a physics problem waiting to be solved, IMO...although I have often wished that it was.

I agree with you.

Plus, the game itself changes.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

But a fast first call by itself isnt really a "pattern" no?
Like in the Belmont race, there was a hole in the middle of the race,due to rider concerns about distance,the filly that was in front or whatever other reasons etc.

Bingo. The whole point here is that the customary method of evaluating the effect of pace is based on the pace figure for a single call (1st or 2nd) may be missing something that a pattern that involves the figures of all calls reveals.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Bingo. The whole point here is that the customary method of evaluating the effect of pace is based on the pace figure for a single call (1st or 2nd) may be missing something that a pattern that involves the figures of all calls reveals.

The "customary method" of evaluating the effects of pace solely by the pace figure of a single call has gotten disputed and invalidated DECADES ago. It is now customary for thoughtful pace handicappers to consult ALL the individual fractions when conducting their pace analysis.

[Maximillion]

I would probably agree with what cj said earlier....some of these horses may be a bit better than what the (poor?) figures for the race suggest,due to the weird nature of the race.If it was a group of older horses maybe I may see it differently- but like always it depends on whos in the race.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The "customary method" of evaluating the effects of pace solely by the pace figure of a single call has gotten disputed and invalidated DECADES ago. It is now customary for thoughtful pace handicappers to consult ALL the individual fractions when doing their analysis.

It's probably best to evaluate each quarter individually (or at least look for extreme quarters), but it's difficult to understand and measure how the endless combinations impact horses. It will make your head explode. The short cut trick is to look for horses within a race that had similar trips and compare how they did relative to each other and expectations. If 2 good horses made a huge move on the turn and packed it in, but a 3rd kept rallying, that 3rd horse probably did something good.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think what everyone is saying is important.

The pace pattern of a race could favor horses that ran a certain way within it.

The individual fractions are a more detailed analysis of what a specific horse did within that race.

Maybe we know from the data that Pattern A tends to favor closers. That's good to know.

Then we can look at horses X, Y, and Z that raced within one of those Pattern A races to see if we can learn more about the individual impacts.

You are correct. One can use the results of this study to see if this, or different patterns, favors front runners or closers. It can mean a whole different method of doing pace analysis, as cj has suggested to me.

My analysis of the race that first put me on to this theory of pace patterns seemed to indicate that this pattern effected the performance of almost all the horses in the race rather than just the leader(s) at the pace calls. That's preciously what I did by analyzing the effects of the pattern of every horse in the race. You can see this in my original post. Whether this theory holds true for all individual horses in a race, as this race and Physics suggest, can be determined by this study or further ones by analyzing the whole field as I did with the original race.

Good to find some common ground with you for a change.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's probably best to evaluate each quarter individually (or at least look for extreme quarters), but it's difficult to understand and measure how the endless combinations impact horses. It will make your head explode. The short cut trick is to look for horses within a race that had similar trips and compare how they did relative to each other and expectations. If 2 good horses made a huge move on the turn and packed it in, but a 3rd kept rallying, that 3rd horse probably did something good.

It does not necessarily have to be that much more complicated to see the different patterns' effects on the individual horses, though more time consuming. We just need the pace and final figures, along with the PPs, for all the horses that we have for the leaders/winners. TFUS fortunately provides this. Just do the same things for them as for the leaders/winners.
For an example, see how I did this for the the original Belmont race that inspired me to get his whole thread going.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's probably best to evaluate each quarter individually (or at least look for extreme quarters), but it's difficult to understand and measure how the endless combinations impact horses. It will make your head explode. The short cut trick is to look for horses within a race that had similar trips and compare how they did relative to each other and expectations. If 2 good horses made a huge move on the turn and packed it in, but a 3rd kept rallying, that 3rd horse probably did something good.

i agree with you but then throw form into the mix....what if that 3rd horse who sustained his move just emptied the tank and the other two are coming around.
Like Thaskalos said the variables are endless in this game.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The "customary method" of evaluating the effects of pace solely by the pace figure of a single call has gotten disputed and invalidated DECADES ago. It is now customary for thoughtful pace handicappers to consult ALL the individual fractions when conducting their pace analysis.

That would be news to cj who has been using the 2nd call pace figure to adjust the final figure for pace, and it was working fairly well, until the recent discovery that using pace patterns using TFUS pace figures for all the calls can predict a more accurate adjustment to the final speed figure. This is what cj's study is going to confirm.
I'm curious to see who has been using different classifications of pace patterns to adjust final speed figures for "decades". Interesting that you haven't mentioned this much sooner in this thread on this very topic.
Think of all the time you could have prevented cj from wasting on proving something so "long known".