Pace handicapping - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Jaguar · 08-10-2002, 08:56 PM

It's interesting that 20 years after Huey Mahl spurred the entire handicapping field to embrace pace handicapping, with the publication of his excellent book, most software is still almost entirely pace oriented.

Moreover, handicappers are still debating methods of pace-line selection. and even pondering why they aren't earning a higher ROI using sophisticated pace-line programs.

Recently, at the Teletheater where I bet on horses, a friend of mine(a contest winner, shrewd handicapper, and Handicapping Magic user) stared at his glowing laptop screen and defensively stated: "Of course you have to lose 4 or 5 races in a row before you hit a winner. The name of the game is 'value', you're waiting to hit a decent price, a horse which will pay you back all your losses plus a profit."

I was so amazed by this comment that I just nodded my head sheepishly and agreed with him.

Today's horse player needs a strong A.I program that measures consistency and connections. Pace is probably the 4th most important handicapping criterion. Amylcar rules the Allowance, Maiden Special Weight, and Stakes categories, and the horse's connections choose when and where to use the drug.

Handicapping from pace figures is like trying to hit a Herb Score fastball. Sure, you might hit the ball- but then you also have a chance of picking six numbers correctly in the Lottery.

I was never- in 20 years of using pace programs- able to pick better than 16-22% winners. The minute I switched to a strong A.I. program incorporating a wide variety of strategies in its analysis, I began learning when to bet and when not to bet.

The key to today's horse game is to know when to send it in and when to layoff. This is why it's so great to be handicapping today, compared to 20- or even 10- years ago. The strong programs and huge databases we have are marvelous tools we only dreamed about years ago. Too bad the good programs are so costly, but that's life, nothing good is cheap anymore, even beer.

Jaguar

jackad · 08-10-2002, 09:22 PM

Jaguar,
Can you name some strong AI programs that measure consistency and connections? Thanks.

Jack

Jaguar · 08-11-2002, 01:05 AM

Jackad, delighted to answer, but please note that in previous posts I did make positive comments about handicapping software-old and new- and I'm a little leery of possibly appearing to tout certain programs by mentioning them a second time.

I am not a software developer, nor do I have any proprietary interest in any horse software-old or new-. I simply do not have any ax to grind.

I'm just an old computer handicapper who spent alot of money over the years, mostly on junk, some of it very expensive junk.

While current programs (not pace programs, which have the inherent limitation of not being able to answer the vital, age-old question, "Will this horse run back to his best performance in today's race?") vary in their methods, the strong A. I. (and programs which are based on criteria and impact values derived from A. I.-based studies of thousands of races) not only detect patterns, but are able to accurately measure the strength of those patterns.

Years ago, Curtis Martin- a very bright guy and the developer of an excellent, but now antique A. I. handicapping program called Multi-Strats, mentioned to me that "Handicapping is all about finding patterns."

As time goes by, I am continually reminded of the truth of that statement.

Years ago, speed concepts and speed figures were all the rage, on sale everywhere in the handicapping universe. Then pace came to the fore-and still predominates.

But, today's horse racing environment is all about connections, as well as current form and speed. These are the 3 legs of the handicapper's stool.

Programs such as Thorobrain5, HorseSense, Fastcapper, RaceCom5r, etc., either have winning pattern templates built in, or the program is capable of finding winning patterns and measuring their relative strength.

Consistency is an essential and often over-looked criterion for finding winners and the better handicapping programs come at this issue from different perspectives.

For example, HorseSense cleverly rates a horse's consistency and the crucial owner-trainer connections pattern

by rating a horse's workouts in an insightful way(as well as by other elements in the program) JaguarXK140MC @AOL.COM

LurkingBettor · 08-11-2002, 03:02 AM

"Amylcar rules the Allowance, Maiden Special Weight, and Stakes categories, and the horse's connections choose when and where to use the drug."

Jaguar,

Could you maybe lead me/us to a place on the internet where I could read up on this particular drug?

Thanks,
LB

Tom · 08-11-2002, 05:34 PM

Pace might rank 4th to your methods, but I strongly disagree that it does and personally I have no need for any AI programs.
I have never hit as low as 16-22% for any long term using pace as my basis, and today, I am doing much better than ever before.
The drug factor or the stiff factor or the whatever factor is out there in front of everyone and while it might cost me a winner here or there, it is not the armagedon of racing..yet. Just becasue someone can't win with one method doesn't mean others can't win with it. You assume your pace method was the state of the art. Obviously it wasn't.

so.cal.fan · 08-11-2002, 05:49 PM

I agree with Tom. I have seen different people use virtually the same type of method, and one will lose while the other wins!
Handicapping is still an art.........actually, an intuitive art, IMHO.
You have to find your niche, what you personally are comfortable with. If you are not comfortable using numbers........hey, they aren't going to work for you. If you are, and you use a little common sense along with them, you have a great chance of showing profits.
I know people who win with numbers. I know people who win never using them, and since I have been attending tracks for 40 years, I known and have known a lot of handicappers.

Handle · 08-11-2002, 08:30 PM

Jaguar,

Your post was very interesting. I tend to agree with parts of it, such as the need to understand "patterns", which implies a focus on history. However, you've bandied about some words such as A.I. and "Pace Handicapping" as if each represented one unique thing. The more I read what people have to say regarding "Pace Handicapping" the more I'm convinced that "Pace Handicapping" isn't one particular thing at all.

But I didn't need any convincing. The fact of the matter is that we haven't tapped out the different ways in which all aspects of "pace" can be explored and utilized to great benefit. This because when people talk about "Pace Handicapping", they are talking about everything and anything that smells of the way a horse's phsyical body went over a particular track along with the way in which every other horse in the same race went over the track. This, in fact, is most of the data we have available to us. I would argue that this amount of data is far more than any other Methodology might have at its disposal.

One such new exploration is, indeed, to look for patterns that occur within the realm of the pace handicapper. But, again, what constitutes a pattern is dependent on what constitutes "pace handicapping" in the first place. If the horse with the Best Late (from a methodologically selected pace line) is winning 45% of the time in the last 20 races of a particular type, 20% in the next 20 races back, and then 38% in the next 20 races back, I wouldn't quite call that a pattern - but I'd say it was well worth investigating and could be put to good use. This, to me, is still "pace handicapping".

Another "pattern-like" application of "pace handicapping". How well do each of the major "aspects" of pace handicapping perform in any given type of race (at any given track)? Take two races of the same type but at different tracks. Look at the last 10-20 races of this type at each track. If in one the horse with the Best E2 wins 35% of the time and in the other 23% of the time, is this not significant? Or, is it it any less significant then knowing that a particular trainer/jockey angle, or trainer/ X (owner/X, horse/X, etc), wins 35% of the time in one situation but only 23% in another? The bottom line, I would think, is the price you can get for each angle. I'm still getting pretty good prices from the "pace handicapping" area.

As for other types of pattern finding, yes, one could go that route too. But, I can tell you one thing, everyone and their grandmother knows that Mott wins with Bailey. That's why we got 35.40 on a Mott horse at SAR today -- because Bailey was on the favorite. I've done enough work with trainer "patterns" (at least those that are visible) to know that they are useful, but not as useful as what can be derived from "pace handicapping". This, of course, is only through my own methods - I know others do different things.

This brings me back to my original point -- there are countless ways to handicap a race, a combined thousands of pieces of information to draw from. Add historical information and we can easily talk about 10s of thousands of pieces of information. But every Capital Letter methodology is more or less a categorical way of describing a sub-set of the data, not its particular application.

Overall, I enjoyed your post -- but I think that you are painting with a large brush in order to declare the death of pace handicapping.

-Nathan

GameTheory · 08-11-2002, 08:52 PM

One of the most interesting aspects of handicapping is that you can never "kill" any one method, unless perhaps it is of *no* use whatsoever. If "pace handicapping" (or speed, or pedigree, or whatever) for some reason starts to work less well as a PREDICTIVE tool, then less people will use it, and it will consequently become a more VALUABLE (higher prices) tool for the times that it does work.

Different tools are appropriate for different situations. That ain't ever gonna change...

Handle · 08-11-2002, 08:54 PM

Here! Here! Now, everyone, stop using any notion of pace in your handicapping!

Quote:

Originally posted by GameTheory
If "pace handicapping" (or speed, or pedigree, or whatever) for some reason starts to work less well as a PREDICTIVE tool, then less people will use it, and it will consequently become a more VALUABLE (higher prices) tool for the times that it does work.

BillW · 08-11-2002, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Handle
Here! Here! Now, everyone, stop using any notion of pace in your handicapping!

Sshhh!

Jaguar · 08-11-2002, 09:47 PM

Tom, there are certainly some strong handicappers out there, and my hat is off to you for your success.

When I described the 3-legged stool of handicapping, I mentioned that the 3 legs were: connections, current form, and speed.

Perhaps I would have been wiser to describe a 4-legged stool:
connections, current form, speed, and pace.

By pace, I understand the term to mean an expended energy analysis based on the Robert S. Sinn formula:

(f60-L) + .07f _ 4.92
_____
SR= _ (t)____________
0.08

Since average speed is a linear function of the distance(speed=distance/time) we can measure a horse's rate of slowing at different points during the race.

When I graph the entries pp's(assuming of course that I have used the correct pace line) I can often determine that one horse is a better closer than another at a particular distance.

Also, when I tell the computer to extend the race's distance and project the entries fps at the end of another furlong, it is sometimes very clear who the slowpokes are.

So, I do use pace analysis in my handicapping, I just rate connections and current form a bit higher on my charts.

All the best,

Jaguar

Tom · 08-12-2002, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar

By pace, I understand the term to mean an expended energy analysis based on the Robert S. Sinn formula:

(f60-L) + .07f _ 4.92
_____
SR= _ (t)____________
0.08

All the best,

Jaguar

Well, there ya go....we aren't talking the same pace.
I never use parentheses in my pace handocapping<G>
Seriously, I don't think two pace-handicappers will agree on everything, either. I do some things that would make Tom Brohamer throw up.

socalsportsbook · 08-13-2002, 11:33 AM

Wow! Herb Score...that's going back to the fifties. Never the same after Gil McDougal of the Yankees hit Herb in tha face with that wicked line drive. Man, Bobby Avila was my favorite infielder of all time. Dusty Rhoades... Ah, memories.

Lefty · 08-13-2002, 05:04 PM

"One horse takes the lead and the others try to catch it"
Jimmy Bradshaw

Rick · 08-13-2002, 06:18 PM

Jaguar,

What does that formula mean? You're haven't defined any of the variables and you're using underscores for something unknown to mathematicians. Please explain.