Slowly paced turf races.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am not arguing that a horse is better off running inefficiently. You imply that a jockey has a choice to make the horse run efficiently or not. I don't believe that a jockey has the power/skill to do that.

I believe there was a jockey who could get it done efficiently---->Ramon Dominguez

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am not arguing that a horse is better off running inefficiently. You imply that a jockey has a choice to make the horse run efficiently or not. I don't believe that a jockey has the power/skill to do that.

Isn't that a big part of what a jockey's role is - to be able to rate a horse? That's what the reins are for. Some are better at it than others. I'm sure you've heard the expression, "He has a clock in his head". The great George Wolfe was called 'The Ice Man" because he could sit chilly and rate a horse.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Isn't that a big part of what a jockey's role is - to be able to rate a horse? That's what the reins are for. Some are better at it than others. I'm sure you've heard the expression, "He has a clock in his head". The great George Wolfe was called 'The Ice Man" because he could sit chilly and rate a horse.

A clock in your head or even on your wrist won't determine the appropriate pace that needs to be run. It is a guess at best. What does a jockey do with a need-to-lead type horse? Strangle it down and fight the horse to try and rate and be "efficient"? How about a plodder who always runs very slowly early and fast late? Do you show the whip and get it to run faster early?

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

A clock in your head or even on your wrist won't determine the appropriate pace that needs to be run. It is a guess at best. What does a jockey do with a need-to-lead type horse? Strangle it down and fight the horse to try and rate and be "efficient"? How about a plodder who always runs very slowly early and fast late? Do you show the whip and get it to run faster early?

Those are sure ways to lose (as I'm sure you know).

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by AndyC

A clock in your head or even on your wrist won't determine the appropriate pace that needs to be run. It is a guess at best. What does a jockey do with a need-to-lead type horse? Strangle it down and fight the horse to try and rate and be "efficient"? How about a plodder who always runs very slowly early and fast late? Do you show the whip and get it to run faster early?

As I said, there are times when running even pace is not possible. You're citing extreme examples. Most horses can be rated to some extent, Otherwise 12 furlong marathons would all be run like 4 furlong dashes. A good rider will try to get a horse to run as close to even pace as it's comfort zone and temperament will allow.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

While you say you agree with cj's statement that grass is more tiring than dirt, your examples seem to imply the opposite - that that dirt is more tiring. I agree with this but not for the reason you cite in your 1st example for dirt races. I have previously posted why dirt sprints are an exception to the advantage of even pace running. What makes up for running faster than even pace early is not position but the momentum gained by early speed which mitigates the fatigue caused by the inefficient early speed.

I'm glad to see that in your 2nd paragraph you are agreeing with my previous statement that one of the the reasons late closers often win grass races is because they are better horses and overcoming the disadvantage of running inefficiently slow early. I believe your previous position that was that the horses running slower than even pace early on grass had an advantage.

I'm pretty sure I agree with CJ, but I'm not sure I agree with anything you are saying.

I think dirt is more tiring than grass, but it has the opposite impact of what you might intuitively expect. When all the horses are tired (as they often are on dirt), it's harder for the horses in the back to muster up the energy to get into position and close down the front runners that have more natural speed unless those horses really overdo it up front.

On turf, all the horses are fresh at the end. So even though the surface is not tiring, a superior closer can still catch an inferior but fresh front runner.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

On turf, all the horses are fresh at the end. So even though the surface is not tiring, a superior closer can still catch an inferior but fresh front runner.

My records show far more +ROI plays with front runners on turf, no matter the distance or turf condition....Closers on turf have far fewer +ROI plays in comparison.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

My records show far more +ROI plays with front runners on turf, no matter the distance or turf condition....Closers on turf have far fewer +ROI plays in comparison.

That may be true, but generally there are more wire to wire winners on dirt, the overall race flows are more tilted towards horses near the front on dirt, and where the average winner comes from is closer to the lead on dirt.

Your plays may be an example of zigging when other people are zagging.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That may be true, but generally there are more wire to wire winners on dirt, the overall race flows are more tilted towards horses near the front on dirt, and where the average winner comes from is closer to the lead on dirt.

Your plays may be an example of zigging when other people are zagging.

Yes, what you say is true.....And just the reverse is found in my records for dirt, far more +ROI plays with closers than front runners....There you have it, the public still gives me edges due to their ingrained biases, thus over-betting their selections.....Contrarian is my bread-n-butter.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm pretty sure I agree with CJ, but I'm not sure I agree with anything you are saying.

I think dirt is more tiring than grass, but it has the opposite impact of what you might intuitively expect. When all the horses are tired (as they often are on dirt), it's harder for the horses in the back to muster up the energy to get into position and close down the front runners that have more natural speed unless those horses really overdo it up front.

On turf, all the horses are fresh at the end. So even though the surface is not tiring, a superior closer can still catch an inferior but fresh front runner.

I cleared up the misunderstanding with cj and we both agree that dirt is more tiring than grass. One only has to look at the times for dirt vs turf races, especially for the closing sectionals to see that dirt is more tiring despite the fact that the tighter turns on turf tend to slow horses down. there are several reasons why in dirt sprints there is an advantage to running faster than even pace early but the one you cite is not one of them. If the closers are too tired to catch the front runners then the leaders will be be even more tired from setting the early pace, unless the leaders are exceptional superior horses able to withstand a fast pace because they have a high cruising speed. However we are evaluating horses of similar abilities in order to compare the different surfaces.
Dirt is more tiring since on that surface their is more slippage, less traction and less energy return than on grass.

I have already posted several times the most likely reason why dirt sprints seem to violate the principle of advantage of even pace running so I will just briefly summarize by saying that the momentum generated by high early speed mitigates the tiring effect of setting a fast pace. This effect diminishes as the race distance increases.

As for the example of a superior horse overcoming the disadvantage of
having run a slow inefficient pace on grass, that just shows that running an inefficient pace (fast or slow) is a disadvantage that it takes a superior horse to overcome.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Yes, what you say is true.....And just the reverse is found in my records for dirt, far more +ROI plays with closers than front runners....There you have it, the public still gives me edges due to their ingrained biases, thus over-betting their selections.....Contrarian is my bread-n-butter.

Replay, we have had our differences but I'm sure that you will agree that I am nothing if not contrarian. I find that some of the most common and traditional beliefs in handicapping are based on concepts in direct contradiction of the basic principles of science and exercise physiology. An example of this is how front runners are overbet in sprints and dirt and closers are overbet on turf and in route races. There is no magical force that overcomes the principle that even paced energy distribution is the most efficient way to run a race regardless of surface or distance with few exceptions. Fortunately, for those that get it, few betters want to change their ways.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

....... I find that some of the most common and traditional beliefs in handicapping are based on concepts in direct contradiction of the basic principles of science and exercise physiology. An example of this is how front runners are overbet in sprints and dirt and closers are overbet on turf and in route races. There is no magical force that overcomes the principle that even paced energy distribution is the most efficient way to run a race regardless of surface or distance with few exceptions. Fortunately, for those that get it, few betters want to change their ways.

It is one thing to talk about the principles of science and exercise physiology but putting it to practical handicapping purposes is another thing.

Surely horses that are even paced energy distributors will have terrific race records and accordingly be bet heavily by the public. So when they are overbet they become no better from a betting standpoint than overbet frontrunners on the dirt and closers on the turf.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

It is one thing to talk about the principles of science and exercise physiology but putting it to practical handicapping purposes is another thing.

Surely horses that are even paced energy distributors will have terrific race records and accordingly be bet heavily by the public. So when they are overbet they become no better from a betting standpoint than overbet frontrunners on the dirt and closers on the turf.

This is one of the most sensible replies in this entire thread...IMO . There is a big difference between discussing the theoretical factors which may have (theoretically) influenced the outcome of a race that has already been run...and the practice of putting these theoretical factors into practical use in the actual PRE-race handicapping of a race.

As a dedicated pace handicapper myself, I would welcome a more thorough handicapping discussion...in which we might be able to actually handicap a race or two...so we could put our individual pace theories to some practical use. As they say..."a picture is worth a thousand words".

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This is one of the most sensible replies in this entire thread...IMO . There is a big difference between discussing the theoretical factors which may have (theoretically) influenced the outcome of a race that has already been run...and the practice of putting these theoretical factors into practical use in the actual PRE-race handicapping of a race.

As a dedicated pace handicapper myself, I would welcome a more thorough handicapping discussion...in which we might be able to actually handicap a race or two...so we could put our individual pace theories to some practical use. As they say..."a picture is worth a thousand words".

It's not so tough to accumulate good data and ideas.

It's not so tough to use those ideas in practical ways pre race.

What's tough is finding value.

The competition is made up of some extremely bright and informed people using advanced stats and models to handicap and insiders that have access to information on the current condition and ability horses that is not in the PPs. Those guys tend to correct a lot of apparent and actual inefficiencies in the pools. So for most people, they may know 10x more now than they knew 10 years ago. But the incremental benefit to their bottom line doesn't come to much. In fact, they could even be going backwards despite knowing more because the pools are getting more efficient at a faster rate than they are getting better.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's not so tough to accumulate good data and ideas.

It's not so tough to use those ideas in practical ways pre race.

What's tough is finding value.

The competition is made up of some extremely bright and informed people using advanced stats and models to handicap and insiders that have access to information on the current condition and ability horses that is not in the PPs. Those guys tend to correct a lot of apparent and actual inefficiencies in the pools. So for most people, they may know 10x more now than they knew 10 years ago. But the incremental benefit to their bottom line doesn't come to much. In fact, they could even be going backwards despite knowing more because the pools are getting more efficient at a faster rate than they are getting better.

What you say here may be 100% true, but we are having a pace-handicapping conversation here...and I insist that a practical example of the applicability of certain pace-handicapping theories would lend a lot to our discussion. Yes...the overall object of this game is "finding value". But, IMO...that's a topic for another thread.