Help me make more sense of Run Styles, save for E runners...

[AutumnLotus]

As the title says, help me make more sense of run styles other than the infinite E style.

I'll do my best to explain the crux of my question...

I'll begin by stating the obvious - which is the majority of horses running Are identified as E or E/P.

Seldom is there a majority field comprising of S & P style runners.

Nearly all the attention regarding figures in relation to E style runners have been well observed, analyzed and labelled for idiot proof observation. What do I mean by that?

Well, there is no shortage of performance identifiers specifically related to the E style runners. Almost void of debate is the most popular and overall useful figure - The SPEED number. It is arguably the first figure of performance any capper goes to when starting the contender/elimination process.

There are the Quirin (sp?) Speed Point figures, which Mr. Q Himself stated in an old write up about the proper use of his figures, is to best identify which E | E/P horse will break first to likely be the front runner/pace setter etc by the 1st & 2nd call.
He went on to say that because of the nature of S & P run styles, the figures will always be on the lower scale i.e., 0-3, as for the most part His Points have no useful affect for any other style than E | E/P.

Another figure is PRIME POWER - Granted, all horses in the field are assigned this rating - the sum of a number of accumulated/correlated factors, averaged and wrapped into a single rating. I am aware that S & P style runners can have a higher PRIME POWER rating, but if I am not mistaken, the rating in and of itself factors into it Speed, QSPt's, 1st and 2nd call fraction times... Which do not benefit S & P style runners any more than it does to benefit E & E\P styles.
I know there are other factors that make up the Prime Power rating, I am focusing on pointing out just 1 or 2 related to my statement.

Again, if I am not mistaken, the tracks PAR TIMES again are more directly related, by the very nature of their style, the E style runners.

Am I wrong in saying that the E | E\P style runners are the very source of measurement for just about all figures relating to average track speed variants, pace line expectations, track par times and other factors I am missing? If I am wrong, by all means let me know and please explain.

The point (and question) I am pushing towards is that unless I am unaware, there doesn't seem to be a figure solely related to the other styles.
What is used to measure the styles of S P & C runners?
I read on here and other places about the importance of handicapping the field on the basis of the horses Run Styles, apparently most correlated to understanding the "Pace of the Race", but how does one go about that?

I myself divide the field at times into groups of running styles to more easily handicap for tris and superfecta ticket construction. But, again, not sure how to actually measure and therefore separate the contenders from the non-contenders.

In pace handicapping the term KICK is referred to a SPC styles ability to "make its move" so to speak / to release its reserved energy for the last turn and the final stretch. But I have yet to see (again, correct me if I'm wrong) a single-wrapped number/rating specifically to that term and definition. I understand the overall horse's ability to withhold its power until needed, is measured by the moment of total energy expenditure, i,e, KICK by looking at the lengths/ground made following the final turn and rail roading down the stretch as the horse closes in on the lead runner.

And lastly, I have never really been comfortable with the definition of differences between an E and EP style runner, an EP and P style runner, and the difference between Stalker, Sustained, Presser and Closer. Am I right or wrong in thinking I am to believe that one of those labels mean the same thing, but happen to be referred to sometimes as the other - Example; is it Stalker and Presser that mean the same? Orrrr?

*** Edited to add, in any given explanation, lets concentrate on horses that have raced enough to warrant a solidified/clear Run Style.

[Poindexter]

Personally, I make it much simpler. Not saying I am right it is just how I roll. When I handicap I go with principles, angles, techniques that are effective for me. To me an e p or s designation is all I care about and I am not using Bris to make that determination for me. I generally look for extremes. Too much early pace or too little early pace. My pace figures also play a part in all this. I make my assessment of the pace bet accordingly and realize that i will be wrong often. I will try to do better next race if I make a mistake. My personal opinion and you are welcome to disagree is that you are trying too hard.

Figure out what works for you. Simple process. Assess a race pace. Watch the race. Where were you right, where were you wrong. Did you make any blatant errors or did something unexpected happen. Next race do it again and keep doing it until everything starts to make sense.

[classhandicapper]

I read on here and other places about the importance of handicapping the field on the basis of the horses Run Styles, apparently most correlated to understanding the "Pace of the Race", but how does one go about that?

It's a lot of research and work.

I assign a numeric value to each running style that correlates with the probability that the horse will be on or contesting the lead. Each horse gets a rating. The total number of points for the race is typically called a pace pressure gauge. You can use publicly available points. IMO you should also make a small adjustment to the pressure gauge for very small and large fields because the larger the field the more likely the pace will be fast even with similar projected pressure.

I calculated the average number of pressure points for each distance/surface as my standard.

Once you know all the averages, you can compare today's pressure points in the race to the average for that distance and surface.

All that info will allow you recognize all the extremes in terms pre race projection of pressure.

I also built profiles of how races tend to develop at each distance/surface (where do the top 3 finishers and especially winners tend to come from in the field where do the front runners tend to end up etc..).

That allows for a post race analysis of how a race actually developed compared to average and what you expected.

In a post race analysis, you can also use a set of pace figures (like TimeformUS) and watch the races to refine your view on how fast the pace was and what impact it had on the race.

Knowing how often you are right when you project a duel or slow pace will help you make a good odds line and the post race analysis will help you analyze those horses correctly when they run again.

[wiretowire68]

I do not know if this will help but many races that I have watched, many of times, particularly Brisnet and their pace evaluation in terms Querin Style is loaded with the preverbiel b.s. I know it is based on a previous run style or the run style used to win the race. I have had so many questions and conversations regarding this when it comes to the technicalities of numbers in handicapping and the bottom line is you can over analyse the process of run style, which leads back to my original statement that many times you see a horse run a different style than the style he has shown or predicted. There is a site at HDW data warehouse that Dave Schwartz pointed me to that help me understand the difference between Run Position and Run Style when it comes to pace, so I have learned that the obvious that sprint races and route races dirt vs.turf.

It becomes a difficult task because as handicappers you can only evaluate speed numbers and fractions based on points of call. The question is obviously, final times being compared, the pace, we are not aware of trainers instructions, the horses record, the distances, that is where randomness takes place. Sometimes the obvious shows up, sometimes it doesn't, it becomes a choice in terms all the factors. Bottom line, trust your gut and live with it, and check out the HDW and he adds what he calls a Presser Sustained. which addresses to me the truth in many races if a horse is an early type, that is when the horse takes the lead in stretch, I have found lately in terms of par analysis that besides a horse going wire to wire, this is majority of winners particularly on dirt, Super Sustained or Sustained is when the horse gets that super quicken as I call it, they either quicken or they do not, they are either outmatched or not fit enough.

Oh ya, let us not forget that the little guys who ride these animals do make mistakes in terms of judging their horses speed by knowing how to handle the bridle and the bit... breathing, they all lose and they all win sometimes.. I have finally learned to look at Beaten Lengths and their positioning in terms of negative gains and positive gains in terms of cycle and par speed in terms of averages and look for improvement to come or to decline.

Anyways, his R Pos explanations helped me in terms understanding, I just do not rely on it totally.

[denniswilliams]

WATCH RACES

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

WATCH RACES

Great point!

Btw, why is this even used anymore?

The teams are picking out the most likely winners nowadays.

Rarely should you bet against them, right?

Years back when I was using jcapper (doing this by memory) I believe “S” types were only winning 8-11% and the 11% was in odd races where there was very little speed. This was due to “S” type didn’t have as much ground to makeup. There are exceptions but why waste your time when the exceptions will be 2-1 or less?

The only other “S” winners were in races with huge early speed with one or more horses outweighing the rest in early speed. Throw in distance differences and you could almost always eliminate the “S” types as winners.

Price horses were those early runners that had some reason to improve or they showed moderate improvement every race (usually after a layoff or a youngster coming up)

I don’t see any reason to be chasing running styles anymore. But I only play a few times a year now ……

Just my .02

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Great point!

Btw, why is this even used anymore?

The teams are picking out the most likely winners nowadays.

Rarely should you bet against them, right?

Years back when I was using jcapper (doing this by memory) I believe “S” types were only winning 8-11% and the 11% was in odd races where there was very little speed. This was due to “S” type didn’t have as much ground to makeup. There are exceptions but why waste your time when the exceptions will be 2-1 or less?

The only other “S” winners were in races with huge early speed with one or more horses outweighing the rest in early speed. Throw in distance differences and you could almost always eliminate the “S” types as winners.

Price horses were those early runners that had some reason to improve or they showed moderate improvement every race (usually after a layoff or a youngster coming up)

I don’t see any reason to be chasing running styles anymore. But I only play a few times a year now ……

Just my .02

The reason why I would consider using it is to spot a horse that projects to be running out of position. e.g. a horse is a presser which projects to be running well back into the rear half early. Some horses might stalk and go by a few on the turn / quarter pole but I'm not sure I want to be confident of that same horse in a race where it projects to be running 8th of 9 early then needs to pass 7 other horses or in the Derby let's say 14 of them when it has never gone past more than 2 ... to be fair I think it's worth looking at and not everyone uses the same pace figures to project the early position in the first place. I use mine, I dunno what the teams use but I'd gladly put mine against anything they've come up with. Another worth noting would be the pure E horse that projects third early. Might it press and win anyway? sure, sometimes... I'd be wanting to lean against it though and who is to say someone else's pace figures e.g BRIS or the teams etc might have the horse actually making the early lead which may explain it being favored. If it's a potential spot to differentiate me vs my competition IMO it's worthy of some scrutiny.

[ranchwest]

In my opinion, the published running styles are often wrong. I would be cautious in referencing them

[headhawg]

I have to agree with ranchwest. You have to roll your own running styles in order for them to be helpful. The Giles' book Extreme Pace Handicapping was mentioned in the Pace Ratings thread. It's a good place to start, but I will admit that some of his examples were confusing as to how he labeled the horses' styles. It reminded me a little of the first printing of Jim Bradshaw's Match Up book. The Hat might have known what he meant but there were too many times when it wasn't clear to me.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by headhawg

I have to agree with ranchwest. You have to roll your own running styles in order for them to be helpful. The Giles' book Extreme Pace Handicapping was mentioned in the Pace Ratings thread. It's a good place to start, but I will admit that some of his examples were confusing as to how he labeled the horses' styles. It reminded me a little of the first printing of Jim Bradshaw's Match Up book. The Hat might have known what he meant but there were too many times when it wasn't clear to me.

I'm computer generating the running style designations and try to address any issues as they arise. If anyone has feedback and points out something that doesn't make sense I'd appreciate it so I can follow up on it at some point. There are some things I do with regard to distance that others may not be doing and may think something is wrong but it's by design. I guess to each his own on running styles. There may be 'official' guidelines published somewhere but at the end of the day in some cases it may come down to what we want them to indicate to ourselves as individual handicappers. I'm sure there's still a bit of room for improvement remaining with mine, I've only made one or two tweaks since taking the first swag at it a couple of years ago.

[Saratoga]

Is this an E horse?

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Saratoga

Is this an E horse?

For 2 races he was……..now he’s a (D) for dead on the board and probably the track

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Saratoga

Is this an E horse?

I have that one showing up as sp dual designation on my product, not sure where they got E from but that must explain other's thoughts on the matter. Not that mine is perfect as I said, I can see where someone might differ or take issue with what I have as well.

[Tom]

I would call it an E horse.
It shows 2 races where it finished within a lenght, and ran early both times.

[bisket]

Originally Posted by Saratoga

Is this an E horse?

I'm sure I'll get lots of blow back from others on this, but there's no such thing as an E horse on turf... there's only the occasional race that the early leader gets away with a crawling pace and wins.