New DRF pace indicators

[classhandicapper]

Pace Ace is the brainchild of Kenny Peck who is a handicapper at DRF that primary uses race flow to find value plays. He'll be doing articles, podcasts, and webinars on how to use the product. Here's a quick summary.

The Pace Ace symbols are giving you an alternate view of the race flow that is NOT based on the fractions. The idea being that the fractions can sometimes be VERY misleading about what actually happened on the racetrack.

We've all seen races where the fractions and pace were fast, but the speeds kept going and the race did not collapse as you would have expected.

We've all seen races where the fractions were slow, but the speeds collapsed under pressure anyway.

We've all seen biased tracks where the jockeys adjusted their aggressiveness to that specific surface bias and the typical relationships between pace and final time were changed for that day (faster or slower paces than expected but without much impact on race flow).

We've all also seen races where the fractions were distorted because of wind, run up changes, changing track conditions and biases, changed rail settings etc (or even worse didn't see those things) and it turned into a guessing game.

Instead of focusing on the fractions and the complexities of measuring them and their impact, Pace Ace is primarily concerned with the makeup of the field (the running styles of the horses) and how the race actually developed on the track.

Moss will tell you how fast the fractions were and how they related to that final time under typical conditions. That's important and often necessary information, but fractions don't necessarily tell you the whole story.

Pace Ace will tell you about the makeup of the field and how the race actually developed on the track.

It will tell you "speed horse X may have been outrun in moderate fractions last out, but it was a race loaded with early speed types and it collapsed so he may be sharper than he looks".

It will tell you "mid pack horse Y may have set an honest pace on the lead last out, but he inherited the lead because there were no other speed types in the race".

It will find many of those races mentioned above where the race did not develop as expected based on the fractions and pace because of the makeup of the field, how the race actually developed pressure wise, or how the track was playing that day etc...

They are complimentary pieces of information that can be used or ignored as the reader sees fit. Sometimes they will tell the same story, but sometimes they will tell you different things about the same race, with both pieces being important.

Note: I work at DRF. So take my comments appropriately. Like I said, Kenny will be doing informative presentations on how to use the product, but that should be enough to get the gist.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Put me in the camp with Schrupp then. I just watched the replay and the horse was in a heated duel from the word go, before they even hit the turn most in the second flight were trying to carve into the lead pretty well while the two leaders were still engaged in a duel, pretty much assuring that there would be no sort of breather in the middle quarter. I can understand concluding that the rest of the field was just hopelessly beaten because the winner was too fast and too good to get beaten once part of a big lead and the pressure peeled off finally - but I still can't understand how it could lead to denoting the race as heavily disfavoring closers. Maybe closers that can't run at all, but that wasn't the sort of race where the horse carved out rapid fractions, got a breather, got away again, and the 'flow of the race' or whatever these symbols allege to mean severely handicapped a legit rally.

[thaskalos]

I am in the Schrupp camp too when it comes to this DRF "improvement". I find the new "pace indicators" to be terribly misleading, and totally unnecessary. Yes...we have all seen speed horses who have set a torrid pace and still held on to win the race...but these are horses who have taken uncontested leads...and we can identify those cases even WITHOUT these new indicators. And, when we see a horse running fifth while being 1.5 lengths off the early lead...we don't need the new indicators to tell us that the early pace was contentious.

Attaching an S to a lightening-quick pace is utterly ridiculous, IMO....regardless of circumstance. To do it when such a pace is contested isn't just ignorant; it's downright CRIMINAL.

[RXB]

Fitting that I was listening to an old Hüsker Dü song called "Makes No Sense At All" when I saw the example race that Schrupp called out. Naming the thing Pace Ace while ignoring the times makes no sense at all. (The first song on that particular record is titled "Flip Your Wig" and I can understand why people who are looking at this Pace Ace stuff might flip their wigs.)

It is bound to confuse class and form with pace and bias. Of the eight contestants within the race in question, two of the horses running near the back throughout were 54/1 and 81/1; should anyone have expected them to catch up?

The horse that prevailed in the early duel and won the race, My Ole Bud came back and won again in his next start. Hardly the sign of a horse that had everything in his favour when he broke his maiden that day.

Seems to me that both the product and its marketing/naming are in need of revisiting.

[PaceAdvantage]

On a somewhat unrelated note, when online poker was still quasi-legal in the USA, my user name on many poker sites used to be PaceAce.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Pace Ace is the brainchild of Kenny Peck who is a handicapper at DRF that primary uses race flow to find value plays. He'll be doing articles, podcasts, and webinars on how to use the product. .

Had an article in Saturday's form about a horse named Natchez in Oaklawn's 6th off a super slow race in his previous race where he closed mildly.

Jiggy-jogs from off the pace at the tune of a 15.60 PM payoff.

Allan

[Tom]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

On a somewhat unrelated note, when online poker was still quasi-legal in the USA, my user name on many poker sites used to be PaceAce.

That's better than Poker Joker.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Had an article in Saturday's form about a horse named Natchez in Oaklawn's 6th off a super slow race in his previous race where he closed mildly.

Jiggy-jogs from off the pace at the tune of a 15.60 PM payoff.

Allan

It made sense it Natchez' case. Not in the My Ole Bud race. I'm attaching Natchez' previous running line from TimeformUS, and also My Ole Bud's. Blue indicates slow fractions; red indicates fast fractions.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Isn't this just the latest attempt to escape the reality that pace figures are necessary? I still prefer a quality opinion vs a quantity of opinions. But I have made that not so difficult realization that by simplifying the approach and looking at a lot more races and hence playing more races this quantity will outplay that quality. Pace figures make the approach simpler so you can attempt to mass produce winners. The goal of today's player!

[thaskalos]

The DRF sees fit to exclude pace figures from its printed edition...and continues publishing a track variant which can only be described as LAUGHABLE. And...instead of doing something to rectify these noticeable shortcomings...they supply us with an "improvement" that can only confuse us even further than we already are.

As if shelling out $10 for a copy of their product isn't a clear indication that we are already confused enough.

[Kash$]

Originally Posted by Tom

Those $ signs I asked about - put on my glasses and they turned into S.

Speaking of DRF symbols, what do they running style letters mean in the Winner's books? P-M-C Closer, presser, middle? They used to publish the key as to how many lengths each was, but not recently.

Tom exactly correct presser,middle,closer...Drf plus seminar few weeks ago explained it.

[classhandicapper]

This is me as a handicapper speaking.

This will be my last post on this because I don't have the time or inclination to address every race that people disagree with from a race flow perspective. I could question dozens of races each day where the fractions are completely misleading also. I don't want to defend the use of fractions and pace figures either. IMO, both matter and comprehensive handicappers should be interested in both.

If you want to understand the race in question in terms of Pace Ace, I would suggest you ignore the fractions entirely. I'd only look at the makeup of the field (how much natural speed the horses within the race actually had). Then I'd look at how the race developed on the track. That analysis suggests there was very little speed in this race and the race flow was good for the speed.

In terms of fractions, I would look at the Moss pace figures. They rated the rate +8; +5 meaning the reported fractions were fast, but not killer fast relative to the final time.

This is a race where they do not agree.

In cases like this I personally would take the analysis further and not trust just the fractions or the race flow.

In looking at the race itself, the winner had shown very little natural speed to date and the horse chasing him had shown stalking speed at most to that point. Feynman, who was laying 3rd, was more of a mid pack horse that could run a little closer at times. So being several lengths off the top 2 didn't mean much in terms of how fast they were actually going. Other than that, there wasn't much speed in the race. It looked like a race without much speed that could go wire to wire.

In the race itself, the winner went wire to wire at 10.30-1 and ran a lifetime top Beyer figure. He came back and won, but barely improved his Beyer. IMO, that is not much evidence that the fractions on 2/19 (if they were an accurate representation) had a major negative impact on him that day.

The stalker was 7.80 - 1. He also ran a lifetime top Beyer despite chasing those supposed fast fractions. He was a lightly raced horse and eligible to improve, but if you add in some theoretical impact from that theoretical fast pace, it suggests he improved dramatically. Possible, but no certainty.

The favorite had a good pace setup sitting off that theoretically fast pace and duel but could not get up against the winner.

I would say that the preponderance of evidence from the makeup of the field and the chart itself ALONE suggests that that theoretically fast pace was actually 2 not particularly fast horses opening up on a even slower bunch and the pace wasn't that fast at all.

So as a handicapper, that's a bit of a dilemma for me.

Do I trust the Moss figures and fractions that tell me the pace was fast or do I trust the PPs of the horses and the results that tell me there wasn't much speed in that race and maybe the fractions were misleading because of other factors?

I don't think there is a 100% answer to questions like that. What I know is that I am way better off knowing to ask the question every once in awhile.

I'd lean towards the pace (in reality) being neutral. Those were not very fast horses near the lead and I don't think the pace took as much out of them as someone using fractions alone would think.

I do not always assume that fast fractions accurately portray how fast the horses ran or the impact they had on the performances any more than I personally assume that the PPs of the horses and what happened on the track does without also consulting the pace figures.

In many cases they will agree. Then there is no issue.

If it's too much dig deeper into a race when varying methodologies tell a different tale, then you should ignore whichever one you don't like, be it Pace Ace, Moss, or whatever else you use. But worship at the alter of fractions alone at your own peril. They are often wrong, misleading, or do not describe the impact on the horses themselves.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This is me as a handicapper speaking.

This will be my last post on this because I don't have the time or inclination to address every race that people disagree with from a race flow perspective. I could question dozens of races each day where the fractions are completely misleading also. I don't want to defend the use of fractions and pace figures either. IMO, both matter and comprehensive handicappers should be interested in both.

If you want to understand the race in question in terms of Pace Ace, I would suggest you ignore the fractions entirely. I'd only look at the makeup of the field (how much natural speed the horses within the race actually had). Then I'd look at how the race developed on the track. That analysis suggests there was very little speed in this race and the race flow was good for the speed.

In terms of fractions, I would look at the Moss pace figures. They rated the rate +8; +5 meaning the reported fractions were fast, but not killer fast relative to the final time.

This is a race where they do not agree.

In cases like this I personally would take the analysis further and not trust just the fractions or the race flow.

In looking at the race itself, the winner had shown very little natural speed to date and the horse chasing him had shown stalking speed at most to that point. Feynman, who was laying 3rd, was more of a mid pack horse that could run a little closer at times. So being several lengths off the top 2 didn't mean much in terms of how fast they were actually going. Other than that, there wasn't much speed in the race. It looked like a race without much speed that could go wire to wire.

In the race itself, the winner went wire to wire at 10.30-1 and ran a lifetime top Beyer figure. He came back and won, but barely improved his Beyer. IMO, that is not much evidence that the fractions on 2/19 (if they were an accurate representation) had a major negative impact on him that day.

The stalker was 7.80 - 1. He also ran a lifetime top Beyer despite chasing those supposed fast fractions. He was a lightly raced horse and eligible to improve, but if you add in some theoretical impact from that theoretical fast pace, it suggests he improved dramatically. Possible, but no certainty.

The favorite had a good pace setup sitting off that theoretically fast pace and duel but could not get up against the winner.

I would say that the preponderance of evidence from the makeup of the field and the chart itself ALONE suggests that that theoretically fast pace was actually 2 not particularly fast horses opening up on a even slower bunch and the pace wasn't that fast at all.

So as a handicapper, that's a bit of a dilemma for me.

Do I trust the Moss figures and fractions that tell me the pace was fast or do I trust the PPs of the horses and the results that tell me there wasn't much speed in that race and maybe the fractions were misleading because of other factors?

I don't think there is a 100% answer to questions like that. What I know is that I am way better off knowing to ask the question every once in awhile.

I'd lean towards the pace (in reality) being neutral. Those were not very fast horses near the lead and I don't think the pace took as much out of them as someone using fractions alone would think.

I do not always assume that fast fractions accurately portray how fast the horses ran or the impact they had on the performances any more than I personally assume that the PPs of the horses and what happened on the track does without also consulting the pace figures.

In many cases they will agree. Then there is no issue.

If it's too much dig deeper into a race when varying methodologies tell a different tale, then you should ignore whichever one you don't like, be it Pace Ace, Moss, or whatever else you use. But worship at the alter of fractions alone at your own peril. They are often wrong, misleading, or do not describe the impact on the horses themselves.

I would ask you a couple of questions about what you say here, but, since you indicated that you have no time or inclination to discuss the matter further...it doesn't make any sense for me to pursue this matter any further either.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The DRF sees fit to exclude pace figures from its printed edition...and continues publishing a track variant which can only be described as LAUGHABLE. And...instead of doing something to rectify these noticeable shortcomings...they supply us with an "improvement" that can only confuse us even further than we already are.

As if shelling out $10 for a copy of their product isn't a clear indication that we are already confused enough.

long ago i extensively discussed pace figures here:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...highlight=moss

....and always believed drf's pace project was too ambitious and that a simple (energy based) beyer style halfway(example: 3f estimation for 6f race, 3.25 estimation for 6 1/2 f race.....) pace figure was the way to go in the print edition.

[RXB]

I assume that a significant % of DRF customers buy the print or PDF versions and thus don't have access to Moss' pace figures.

Seems very strange to call something Pace Ace yet leave the times totally out of the equation. And on top of that, to refer to the race as Slow or Fast, even though times aren't involved in that decision. Plenty of users are going to be confused and misled.