Performance Indicators

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by traynor

They do. The problem is that the rights to the modeling software I use for thoroughbreds was purchased by a private group of bettors, and I am prevented by the terms of that sale from publicly posting the output. I can use it for my own wagering, but that is it.

If anything, the stats for thoroughbreds even more strongly suggest that the finish in the last race--whether "up close" or a finish in-the-money--is a poor indicator of winning potential. That is, there is not much difference between the finish of "all entries" and the finish of "winners" in the next outing.

One of the things I have found intriguing (following your recent postings on the emphasis of early speed in harness races) is that it is possible to handicap subsequent performance strictly on the basis of early speed in previous races. That is, handicapping a race almost as if it ended at the three-quarter mile position or stretch position, rather than the finish.

That is consistent with the statistics above, that indicate tossing the finish position into the mix when analyzing pace, speed, and potential improvement may be misleading, and better comparisons can be made by ignoring the finish. The same is true of thoroughbreds.

Very interesting stuff....gonna check out the book.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by pandy

In thoroughbred racing in particular, you can make a solid case that the best ROI comes from handicapping races with little or no regard to where a horse finished. I agree about Heyburn's book, which I have.

There is an exception that you have probably noted in thoroughbred races, but I will add it for the benefit of those who may spend less time analyzing results. The exception to the general trend of ignoring the finish is the opposite--the "run out," followed by a stretch in distance in the subsequent start. For example, an entry finishes fairly well, but is not eased at the finish, continuing on for another furlong or so at a good clip. Really easy to spot if you are ontrack, or watch reruns carefully.

It is a common occurrence in six furlong races used as tighteners for a seven furlong race. The finish position or lengths behind is not as indicative as that the horse "continues running after the race is over."

[traynor]

For comparison purposes, these are the stats for The Meadows, current wagering model (12/19/2012):

Mea Pace CloseToPace3CLastAll 540 36.11 %
Mea Pace CloseToPace3CLastWinners 57 50.88 % IV 1.41
Mea Trot CloseToPace3CLastAll 406 35.47 %
Mea Trot CloseToPace3CLastWinners 50 38.00 % IV 1.07

Mea Pace CloseToPaceStrLastAll 540 35.56 %
Mea Pace CloseToPaceStrLastWinners 57 52.63 % IV 1.48
Mea Trot CloseToPaceStrLastAll 406 33.74 %
Mea Trot CloseToPaceStrLastWinners 50 32.00 % IV 0.95

Mea Pace CloseToPaceFinLastAll 540 27.04 %
Mea Pace CloseToPaceFinLastWinners 57 22.81 % IV 0.84
Mea Trot CloseToPaceFinLastAll 406 29.80 %
Mea Trot CloseToPaceFinLastWinners 50 24.00 % IV 0.81

Note the sharp drop off in predictive quality when the finish position is factored in. This same principle applies to thoroughbred races as well.

[am1947]

Traynor

Thanks for answering..

"I have it broken down by track, and there seems very little difference in the results for different track sizes"
I assumed you had but wanted to be sure I understood exactly what you were stating.

"That may be because so many bettors look for "excuse races" that such are overbet in subsequent starts."
I tend to agree with that as well ie cappin 101.

"The "less than three lengths" designation is not arbitrary"
Just wanted to sure of the significance


"I didn't consider field size, because I have never found it to be especially useful as a factor"
Not sure I agree about this. Was asking to see what size ot the data comes from the smaller fields . ie less then 10% 20% etc. I suspect that the lower the number of entrants the more chance to be within the less then 3 lengths.
Also would think the driving strategy is different then normal sized fields.
NOt sure if you ran just the smaller field sizes by themselves to see if the data is similar. Maybe you have and that is why you have never found it useful. Just trying to clarify a bit.


Again thanks for posting this stuff. It is always good to help with aiding the cappin thought process.

Regards
AM

[badcompany]

Here's another take. In a cookie cutter 1/2 mile track race, where the speed doesn't get harasssed early, the first over horse will pull at about the 1/2, and by the 3/4 pole will be about a 1/2 length off the leader. Provided the other horses on the outside keep up, the second over will be about 1 1/2 out; the 3rd over, 2 1/2. So, according to your criteria the third over horse will be "Close to the pace," but he really isn't. Why? Because for the 3rd over horse to close, it will have to go 4 wide and run a much greater circumference than the rail horses. From an mph standpoint, the 4 wide horse could be running as fast or faster than the inside horses; yet, still lose ground.

So, it might not be that the horse is being eased. It's just running a longer race.

Either way, I agree with your premise. Lengths beaten should be viewed within the context of the race, not just as raw numbers.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by badcompany

Here's another take. In a cookie cutter 1/2 mile track race, where the speed doesn't get harasssed early, the first over horse will pull at about the 1/2, and by the 3/4 pole will be about a 1/2 length off the leader. Provided the other horses on the outside keep up, the second over will be about 1 1/2 out; the 3rd over, 2 1/2. So, according to your criteria the third over horse will be "Close to the pace," but he really isn't. Why? Because for the 3rd over horse to close, it will have to go 4 wide and run a much greater circumference than the rail horses. From an mph standpoint, the 4 wide horse could be running as fast or faster than the inside horses; yet, still lose ground.

So, it might not be that the horse is being eased. It's just running a longer race.

Either way, I agree with your premise. Lengths beaten should be viewed within the context of the race, not just as raw numbers.

I agree--and your observation tends to validate my point. It is at a critical state of the race (the three-quarter or stretch position) that a competent driver (or jockey) knows how much horse he or she has left, and what can be done with it.

In the scenario above, because the 3rd over horse has so much ground to make up to be in contention for the win, it would not be surprising if the driver eased in the stretch run, rather than trying to pick up nickels and dimes for possible place or show, using up any reserves the horse might have, and tossing the chance of a possible better opportunity in the next race.

My reason for emphasizing the beaten lengths at the three-quarter and stretch positions is that it is a much stronger predictor of a next-race win than beaten lengths at the finish. Understand that it is not a standalone factor, other than its use in qualifying contenders. Considerable other analysis takes place, including FPS rates-of-speed in each quarter, with consideration of the effects of post position change, park outs, pace advantage, running styles, etc.--all the standard components of a comprehensive race analysis.

While the scenario you described is a good reason to excuse a poor finish, it is not really excuses that I am looking for. The best prices seem to be on those entries that were not obviously "used hard early" but that ran well to the late stages of a race, then seemed to fade. I understand that everything needs to be considered in context, but as a quick-and-easy qualifier of a contender that may substantially improve in its next race (performing better than its numbers indicate), considering beaten lengths at the three-quarter or stretch position in the last race is a strong indicator.

[traynor]

To give you an idea of how specific factors can be effectively combined to point out higher priced winners (for those who like to avoid "choking on chalk"):

PACE RACES ALL TRACKS OddsLessThan3Last 11225 1898 16.91 %
PACE WINNERS ALL TRACKS OddsLessThan3Last 1368 285 20.83 % IV 1.23
PACE PLACERS ALL TRACKS OddsLessThan3Last 1397 265 18.97 % IV 1.12

TROT RACES ALL TRACKS OddsLessThan3Last 3814 694 18.20 %
Trot WINNERS ALL TRACKS OddsLessThan3Last 520 108 20.77 % IV 1.14
Trot PLACERS ALL TRACKS OddsLessThan3Last 518 95 18.34 % IV 1.01

PACE RACES ALL TRACKS Odds3To6Last 11225 7059 62.89 %
PACE WINNERS ALL TRACKS Odds3To6Last 1368 605 44.23 % IV 0.70
PACE PLACERS ALL TRACKS Odds3To6Last 1397 741 53.04 % IV 0.84

TROT RACES ALL TRACKS Odds3To6Last 3814 2310 60.57 %
Trot WINNERS ALL TRACKS Odds3To6Last 520 238 45.77 % IV 0.76
Trot PLACERS ALL TRACKS Odds3To6Last 518 256 49.42 % IV 0.82

PACE RACES ALL TRACKS OddsMoreThan6Last 11225 2295 20.45 %
PACE WINNERS ALL TRACKS OddsMoreThan6Last 1368 391 28.58 % IV 1.40
PACE PLACERS ALL TRACKS OddsMoreThan6Last 1397 346 24.77 % IV 1.21

TROT RACES ALL TRACKS OddsMoreThan6Last 3814 776 20.35 %
Trot WINNERS ALL TRACKS OddsMoreThan6Last 520 157 30.19 % IV 1.48
Trot PLACERS ALL TRACKS OddsMoreThan6Last 518 132 25.48 % IV 1.25

Using a "double qualifier" of an entry that was less than three lengths back at the three-quarter or stretch position in its last race AND that went off at odds of EITHER less than 3 to 1 OR greater than 6 to 1 in that race can put you on to some solid choices at decent mutuels. Similarly, avoiding those entries with odds from 3 to 1 to 6 to 1 in the last race who would otherwise qualify by lengths back at the three-quarter or stretch positions increases the return.

[mrroyboy]

Sure If a driver has a fit horse he will usually try for the lead or 1st over etc. Horses that just sit on the rail are always suspect. Pandy's book calls these form points. I agree.

[dkithore]

Originally Posted by traynor

Simply stated, for comparison purposes, the important race is the race (or races) preceding a win--not the winning race itself. That presents a further advantage of being counter-intuitive. The mutuel prices on entries that seem to have faded (or quit) in the stretch are often generous.

----------------------------------------ST Turn FP
24Nov12 7 f :472 :352 1:23 43 16/ 11- - - 10 1
3Nov12 6 f :351 :343 1:094 40 13/ 8- - - 8 2 - 2 1/4

Your data is saying, the 3Nov race is more imp. than the winning race?
But isn't this line predictive (up close within 3L) of the upcoming win outcome? Can you clarify?

[traynor]

Again, individual factors cannot necessarily be combined usefully. What happens in the real world is that putting two (or more) factors together essentially creates a third (or hundredth or whatever) factor in which both of the factors studied exist. In some cases, results are improved, but in others results are diminished.

In the particular case of combining a factor of close to the pace at the three-quarter or stretch position in the last race, combined with odds in that race of less than 3 to 1, the combination easily outperforms either of the factors considered in isolation.

PACE RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast+Odds 13116 1816 13.85 %
PACE WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast+Odds 1595 392 24.58 % IV 1.78
PACE PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast+Odds 1630 311 19.08 % IV 1.38

TROT RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast+Odds 4403 600 13.63 %
Trot WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast+Odds 598 133 22.24 % IV 1.63
Trot PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast+Odds 596 111 18.62 % IV 1.37

PACE RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast+Odds 13116 1723 13.14 %
PACE WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast+Odds 1595 382 23.95 % IV 1.82
PACE PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast+Odds 1630 302 18.53 % IV 1.41

TROT RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast+Odds 4403 580 13.17 %
Trot WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast+Odds 598 135 22.58 % IV 1.71
Trot PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast+Odds 596 110 18.46 % IV 1.40

PACE RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast+Odds 13116 4259 32.47 %
PACE WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast+Odds 1595 623 39.06 % IV 1.20
PACE PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast+Odds 1630 614 37.67 % IV 1.16

TROT RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast+Odds 4403 1264 28.71 %
Trot WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast+Odds 598 209 34.95 % IV 1.22
Trot PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast+Odds 596 186 31.21 % IV 1.09

And--again--focusing on the three-quarter positon and stretch position easily outperformed the finish position.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by dkithore

----------------------------------------ST Turn FP
24Nov12 7 f :472 :352 1:23 43 16/ 11- - - 10 1
3Nov12 6 f :351 :343 1:094 40 13/ 8- - - 8 2 - 2 1/4

Your data is saying, the 3Nov race is more imp. than the winning race?
But isn't this line predictive (up close within 3L) of the upcoming win outcome? Can you clarify?

My apologies for the confusion. When studying past results, many try to create a "profile" of winners, using the winning races. For example, Sartin advocates (and most other pace handicappers), create "energy distribution" figures that supposedly represent the "ideal race" for winners. Good idea, but they are looking at the wrong race. The profiles should be of the race preceding the winning effort, not the winning effort itself.

The whole notion of selecting "representative pace lines" is great, as long as there is an awareness that what one is looking for is the pattern of the race preceding the win, not the pattern of the winning race itself.

Example race:

Dec04 Mea 14000 4 3 3 2 2 1 113.21 28.71 27.70 56.40 83.90 113.21 32.50 67.00 14000

Nov19 Mea 14000 7 3 3 2 8 8 115.65 29.47 27.25 57.12 85.78 113.63

Nov13 Mea 12800 3 3 3 3 3 5 113.75 29.24 27.04 55.67 84.11 113.15

4 Mattacardle Wilbur Yoder 67.00 18.00 10.40
1 Caviart Key Aaron Merriman 4.20 3.60
9 Babe`s I Scoot Dave Palone 3.20

I am interested in the race of 12/04 because I bet on it. I care not one bit what kind of "energy distribution" or "percent early" or "pace profile" would be appropriate for that race. I only care that Mattacardle won. My interest--because I have to predict the finish to bet on it--is on the 11/19 race--in which it ran well to the three-quarter position, then seemed to "fold in the stretch." Getting odds of 32 to 1 on a horse that is a standout is something I wish would happen to me 20 times a day, and 50 times a day on the weekend. I'm working on it.

[eurocapper]

How is it different from usual trouble analysis of the last race (watching the race, which even Beyer advocates and copied from harness handicappers)? If there wasn't real trouble it may be an overlay.

For combining handicapping factors I don't see how the weighting can be done better than empirically, using for instance 1st and 2nd finishers of the races.

[dkithore]

Originally Posted by traynor

My apologies for the confusion. When studying past results, many try to create a "profile" of winners, using the winning races. For example, Sartin advocates (and most other pace handicappers), create "energy distribution" figures that supposedly represent the "ideal race" for winners. Good idea, but they are looking at the wrong race. The profiles should be of the race preceding the winning effort, not the winning effort itself.

The whole notion of selecting "representative pace lines" is great, as long as there is an awareness that what one is looking for is the pattern of the race preceding the win, not the pattern of the winning race itself.

Example race:

Dec04 Mea 14000 4 3 3 2 2 1 113.21 28.71 27.70 56.40 83.90 113.21 32.50 67.00 14000

Nov19 Mea 14000 7 3 3 2 8 8 115.65 29.47 27.25 57.12 85.78 113.63

Nov13 Mea 12800 3 3 3 3 3 5 113.75 29.24 27.04 55.67 84.11 113.15

4 Mattacardle Wilbur Yoder 67.00 18.00 10.40
1 Caviart Key Aaron Merriman 4.20 3.60
9 Babe`s I Scoot Dave Palone 3.20

I am interested in the race of 12/04 because I bet on it. I care not one bit what kind of "energy distribution" or "percent early" or "pace profile" would be appropriate for that race. I only care that Mattacardle won. My interest--because I have to predict the finish to bet on it--is on the 11/19 race--in which it ran well to the three-quarter position, then seemed to "fold in the stretch." Getting odds of 32 to 1 on a horse that is a standout is something I wish would happen to me 20 times a day, and 50 times a day on the weekend. I'm working on it.

Traynor

Thanks for clarification. That makes sense. I recall Jim Lehan refers to this pattern except I haven't used it lately and forgot about it.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by eurocapper

How is it different from usual trouble analysis of the last race (watching the race, which even Beyer advocates and copied from harness handicappers)? If there wasn't real trouble it may be an overlay.

For combining handicapping factors I don't see how the weighting can be done better than empirically, using for instance 1st and 2nd finishers of the races.

Trouble analysis focuses on a specific race. The factor(s) listed are generic, rather than specific to a given race. Rather than agonizing over the causes and effects (that one can get totally wrong more often than right) in a specific race, the advantage is in volume. I do both, but I am leaning more and more to ignoring the specifics of a given race, and instead relying increasingly on the patterns present in the various entries in the race. It takes some doing, having been immersed in trip handicapping and watching races for a number of years.

The basic problem with trouble analysis is that it is only really useful when you are the only one who sees it. That doesn't happen much any more, even at minor tracks.

Empirically is the only real way to determine the value of combined factors. Crunching numbers and applying "sophisticated statistical techniques" are pretty much useless. It makes analysis way more complex, especially because layering and chunking create new segments and groupings of races. And there is always the problem of a third or fourth or nineteenth variable that is not considerd that is a major influence on the results. Fortunately, I like data analysis, so it it is good fit for me.

[traynor]

Same pattern, at Dover Downs. Note that both the three-quarter position and stretch position are more predictive of subsequent winners in pace races than the finish position.

DD Pace CloseToPace3CLast+OddsAll 1111 15.48 %
DD Pace CloseToPace3CLast+OddsWinners 120 29.17 % IV 1.88
DD Trot CloseToPace3CLast+OddsAll 197 14.21 %
DD Trot CloseToPace3CLast+OddsWinners 27 18.52 % IV 1.30

DD Pace CloseToPaceStrLast+OddsAll 1111 14.94 %
DD Pace CloseToPaceStrLast+OddsWinners 120 27.50 % IV 1.84
DD Trot CloseToPaceStrLast+OddsAll 197 12.69 %
DD Trot CloseToPaceStrLast+OddsWinners 27 14.81 % IV 1.17

DD Pace CloseToPaceFinLast+OddsAll 1111 30.51 %
DD Pace CloseToPaceFinLast+OddsWinners 120 36.67 % IV 1.20
DD Trot CloseToPaceFinLast+OddsAll 197 29.95 %
DD Trot CloseToPaceFinLast+OddsWinners 27 37.04 % IV 1.24