Class/Speed vs. Pace

[Rick]

It seems to me, based on recent research, that racetracks alternately favor class/speed and pace. This is somewhat different than what the pace enthusiants preach. I could be wrong but I think that tracks are mostly either pretty much fair, which favors class and speed, or biased which favors early or late speed, mostly early speed. What do the rest of you think?

[kenwoodallpromos]

But some tracks are a lot more consistent than others as to being fair.

[Rick]

That's certainly true, but what I was wondering was how predictable it might be as to whether a track will run fair or biased in the near future. My limited research shows that short term biases don't tend to persist if they're different than the longer term bias. Betting that they'd return to normal seemed to be the more profitable alternative. What I'd call "normal" for most tracks would give some advantage to early speed but not a large one.

[twindouble]

Originally Posted by Rick

That's certainly true, but what I was wondering was how predictable it might be as to whether a track will run fair or biased in the near future. My limited research shows that short term biases don't tend to persist if they're different than the longer term bias. Betting that they'd return to normal seemed to be the more profitable alternative. What I'd call "normal" for most tracks would give some advantage to early speed but not a large one.

To outright conclude a bias exists on any given day at any track is tough to do. You have to be on the ball to make a reasonable decision as to what's going on.

For example, your at the track and the first three races are won by speed balls, someone says to you, "speed is holding up today." Or you might think that yourself, but at a close look those three that wired the race were uncontested, controled the pace and finished a tick or two above their best race and others were making a run at them. You can't conclude there's a bias and lean on speed. The track is more than likely playing fair.

On the other hand, you can't find on the form where those speed balls ever broke in 21, 42, 58 and finished 4 ticks better and nothing made a serious run at them. Now you have something to think about.

Every race is different because the compitition changes as well as the pace. When it comes to pace you can only make a reasonable guess as to what it might be.

[sjk]

Originally Posted by Rick

That's certainly true, but what I was wondering was how predictable it might be as to whether a track will run fair or biased in the near future. My limited research shows that short term biases don't tend to persist if they're different than the longer term bias. Betting that they'd return to normal seemed to be the more profitable alternative. What I'd call "normal" for most tracks would give some advantage to early speed but not a large one.

I would agree that today's bias is better prediceted by looking at the long-term track tendency rather than the short term. In forecasting today's bias, the weightings I use for measures of the bias over the past year, past month and past week are 70%, 17% and 13% respectively.

Having said that, I don't even watch for bias anymore. With as many tracks as I play it would be too much to keep up with.

[46zilzal]

I have been looking for years for a track that FAVORS late runners....Fair Grounds on a few days a year but where the heck else? Belmont doesn't even favor later runners as big as it is.

[traynor]

Rick wrote <Betting that they'd return to normal seemed to be the more profitable alternative.>

It is generally called "regression to the mean." Essentially, an "early speed bias" may be the result of viewing a segment of a normal distribution, with points in that segment skewed toward what seems to be a bias. That is the underlying reason why the philosophy of "betting what is winning" often turns out to be non-profit; the distorted view provided by a small sample of races is assumed to indicate that certain factors are somehow being favored, and it is assumed that favorable trend will continue. In horse racing, as in much else of reality, it is often more profitable to bet against the "short term trend" continuing than it is to bet that it will.
Thanks

[Rick]

46,

Yeah, I've been thinking for a long time that, with all of the emphasis on early speed these days, you could really clean up at a track that favors late speed. I don't know which one that would be though. Maybe Mountaineer, but I'm not all that familiar with it so someone else would probably have a better opinion.

[Rick]

sjk,

Thanks for confirming what my small samples showed.


Traynor,

Yeah, that's usually true but not always so you have to check it anyway. Sometimes the trend is your friend.

[46zilzal]

When breeders keep hooking up speed to speed and have hardly ANY graded stakes schedules to find out what sires have PROVEN stamina, these speed will continue to predominate. They keep shortening all the major stakes so the only stamina left is on the grass. When was the last chef-de-race added on the stamina wing that was a dirt racer? Run the Gauntlent?

[Rick]

46,

Nick Mordin makes some very good points about how to profit from knowing which horses have the stamina to go the longer distances.

In the 80's, early speed was a very much under-rated factor from which I profited greatly. That's the whole basis for all of these really popular pace rating methods these days. The guys who became famous for profiting from pace methods were almost always playing at Santa Anita, which was well known as an easy track to beat among the wise guys. You didn't need a complicated method to clean up there. Just bet any kind of dumb early speed method and you'd win a lot.

Now, everyone seems to think that all tracks are that easy using early speed oriented pace methods and it's really showing up in the prices. Yes, there is still a tiny bit of value in using early speed but just enough to get you in trouble if you emphasize it too much. I can see a major reversal over the next decade to where late speed might be the way to go, especially at the few tracks that favor it. You know, this track bias thing is really totally determined by how the management decides that they should prepare the track. If they should decide to make it more fair for late runners, then all of this accumulated wisdom about the value of early speed would become less than worthless. You have to keep up with how things are NOW, not what they were like when some guy wrote a book in the 80's.

[sjk]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

I have been looking for years for a track that FAVORS late runners....Fair Grounds on a few days a year but where the heck else? Belmont doesn't even favor later runners as big as it is.

If you like a track that favors closers play Tampa. This time of year AP would be a good choice.

[Nickle]

I would think in order

Speed
Class
Pace

Still speed is highly used more than any other angle

[Rick]

I still think that the really profitable trick is to know when a track will be playing fair versus biased according to whatever pace is the most prevalent, early or late. I know that it switches between the two but I can't predict when it's going to happen. The best I can do now is to play it both ways. And no, I'm not saying that you should play two horses in every race. In my opinion, most races should be played only one way or not at all. Yes, there are a few that can be played two ways but usually they're both non-favorites. This idea that you can get 65-80% playing two horses in every race is pure garbage.

[46zilzal]

closers by look are not closers by energy distibtuion and those of the latter variety are not in the circle at the end as often as they should be.

THREE major reasons off pacers don't win as often as they do.
1) rider has to move at just the right time
2) speed up front has to be kind to this one's style and the rider NEVER has a thing to do with that so it is always an estimation at best. if a pace type is left alone they slow it down and will not get caught usually.
3) has to get through traffic

How in the world would track people FAVOR a style that is, among other things, physiologically not as dominant by any surface change??