Track Effect on Pace

[cj]

Originally Posted by dirty moose

This is a great conversation fellas. Since Pandy and Cj, you both think the pace scenarios is secondary. What would be primary to you both? I guess what I'm asking is, you both open up the pp's and the primary thing you guys are looking for would be....?

Overall ability and current form.

[JustRalph]

How do you put any faith in figuring out the track when the Jocks have decided, apparently in concert, that nobody uses early speed anymore?

You can debate this point all day long......it won't matter if there's no pace.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by cj

Overall ability and current form.

My order is close to that, at most tracks: power, form, and velocities (both fractional and total velocities). In certain race types (high class and turf primarily) and at certain tracks, class and distance capability plays a large part in my analysis. But, form is always in the overall mix, as is early speed capability or lack thereof (early speed determines many race results, so it cannot be totally ignored, IMO).

[dirty moose]

Great stuff guys. Thanks for responding.

For a closer to win a race, I feel many thing have to go right for that horse. Weather it be a hot pace, dead rail... ect. Whatever example you wanna stick in there. For a horse to win from up front all the horse has to do is NOT stop. Obviously that's not as easy as we make it. Sure seems like a better option.
But of course it's not that easy, or everyone would be making money. So, we have to take it race by race and day by day at the track.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

What is the prevailing wisdom?

The prevailing wisdom is that tracks can be somewhere between very fast and very slow. People then try to correlate fast or slow to which running styles might have an advantage. IMO, that's about half right. I just haven't figured out how to create a number to express the right approach because it's more complex and also involves the way jockeys adjust to carious conditions and mislead people about the speed of the track and how tiring it actually was.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The prevailing wisdom is that tracks can be somewhere between very fast and very slow. People then try to correlate fast or slow to which running styles might have an advantage. IMO, that's about half right.

Where have you gotten the idea that what you say here is the "prevailing wisdom"?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Where have you gotten the idea that what you say here is the "prevailing wisdom"?

Pretty much every book on the "process" of making figures and track variants is the same.

I see an endless stream of articles and notes etc.. about how track X was lighting fast and favored speed or vice versa.

There are non stop complaints about how riders choke horses without much consideration of the surface they are choking on and how those same guys might ride at a different track.

There's validity to all of it. IMO, it's just not the full model of what's going on. I'm trying to get at the whole model in a reasonably accurate way, but it's hard to put into numbers because it's hard to isolate "jockey influence" on race development and time numerically.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Pretty much every book on the "process" of making figures and track variants is the same.

I see an endless stream of articles and notes etc.. about how track X was lighting fast and favored speed or vice versa.

There are non stop complaints about how riders choke horses without much consideration of the surface they are choking on and how those same guys might ride at a different track.

There's validity to all of it. IMO, it's just not the full model of what's going on.

On dirt, the front is the place to be whether the racetrack is deemed fast OR slow. The horse who is able to cut the early fractions while unencumbered by his competition has placed itself in a most advantageous position...no matter which track the horse happens to be running at. IMO...when a jockey "chokes" a speed horse, he is doing so because he anticipates a contentious early speed struggle...not because he has concluded that the racing surface is hostile towards early speed.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dirty moose

This is a great conversation fellas. Since Pandy and Cj, you both think the pace scenarios is secondary. What would be primary to you both? I guess what I'm asking is, you both open up the pp's and the primary thing you guys are looking for would be....?

IMO...the first consideration is how good the horses are when they are at their best.

And the next consideration is whether or not the horses' own level of conditioning, and the perceived circumstances and dynamics of today's race...will allow these horses to PERFORM at their best.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

I always consider predicting the pace a secondary factor, though there are times it is the main reason for the bet. Those times are when it doesn't appear obvious in print.

Many of these front runners are a lot more flexible than they have been reported to be. Jockeys at the minor tracks routinely reserve a speed horse during the early going of a race, in anticipation of a probable early speed duel...and then they mount a charge and win from 5-6 lengths back. If the cheap horses at the minor tracks can do it, then all the horses can do it...provided they receive a competent, patient ride.

Horses don't fit those nice and neat running-style designations that we horseplayers sometimes try to squeeze them into.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Many of these front runners are a lot more flexible than they have been reported to be. Jockeys at the minor tracks routinely reserve a speed horse during the early going of a race, in anticipation of a probable early speed duel...and then they mount a charge and win from 5-6 lengths back. If the cheap horses at the minor tracks can do it, then all the horses can do it...provided they receive a competent, patient ride.

Horses don't fit those nice and neat running-style designations that we horseplayers sometimes try to squeeze them into.

Well said.

Running styles by themselves warrant a discussion.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

On dirt, the front is the place to be whether the racetrack is deemed fast OR slow. The horse who is able to cut the early fractions while unencumbered by his competition has placed itself in a most advantageous position...no matter which track the horse happens to be running at. IMO...when a jockey "chokes" a speed horse, he is doing so because he anticipates a contentious early speed struggle...not because he has concluded that the racing surface is hostile towards early speed.

I agree that dirt surfaces tend to strongly favor speed, but not on the rest.

I think some jockeys are MUCH smarter than given credit for. The best of them adjust their style of riding to the nature of the surface. Sometimes they adjust mid card, sometimes the following day, and sometimes they even seem to know before the races start (possibly from workouts, word of mouth, walking over it etc...)

That adjustment can change the fractions, the final times, the development of a race, and throw off figure makers and bias handicappers as to what really happened and how fast the horses actually ran.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree that dirt surfaces tend to strongly favor speed, but not on the rest.

I think some jockeys are MUCH smarter than given credit for. The best of them adjust their style of riding to the nature of the surface, sometimes mid card, sometimes the following day, and sometimes they even know before the races start!

That adjustment can change the fractions, the final times, the development of a race, and throw off figure makers and bias handicappers as to what really happened and how fast the horses actually ran.

If the dirt surfaces do indeed "strongly favor speed"...then, under what conditions would a "smart" jockey choke his front-running horse in order to abide by the nature of the track surface?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If the dirt surfaces do indeed "strongly favor speed"...then, under what conditions would a "smart" jockey choke his front-running horse in order to abide by the nature of the track surface?

Dirt surfaces tend to favor speed under what I would call "neutral dirt conditions", but when conditions are not neutral, the jockeys adjust their level of aggressiveness to recreate neutral. If they rode the same way at every track on every day, imo we'd get more volatile results.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Dirt surfaces tend to favor speed under what I would call "neutral dirt conditions", but when conditions are not neutral, the jockeys adjust their level of aggressiveness to recreate neutral.

At what point in a card, do the jockeys realize conditions are not neutral and adjust? 3rd race, 4th race, second sprint of the card, second route on the card? Do jockeys who have mounts in each of the first 3 races have an advantage over others who have no mounts until the 4th race on the card? What jockey would be foolish enough to give his competitors any kind of inside info regarding surface bias?......Food for thought....