Performance Indicators

[traynor]

Most bettors tend to focus too much on the finish in the last race, and discount the chances of entries who appear to have "faded in the stretch" or "quit late" in their last race. Research indicates it is far more likely that a poor finish in its last race may be a strong indicator of improvement if the entry ran well early, but was eased in the final stages of its last race to "save it for the next race." In short--the race in which an entry runs well to the three-quarter mile position (3C) or stretch position (Str) in its last race, but finishes up the track, is a stronger indicator of improving performance than an entry that held on to be close up at the finish or in the money in its last race.

PACE RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast 11225 3772 33.60 %
PACE WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast 1368 627 45.83 % IV 1.36
PACE PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast 1397 559 40.01 % IV 1.19

TROT RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast 3814 1295 33.95 %
Trot WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast 520 230 44.23 % IV 1.30
Trot PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPace3CLast 518 197 38.03 % IV 1.12

PACE RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast 11225 3888 34.64 %
PACE WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast 1368 652 47.66 % IV 1.38
PACE PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast 1397 584 41.80 % IV 1.21


TROT RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast 3814 1306 34.24 %
Trot WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast 520 238 45.77 % IV 1.34
Trot PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceStrLast 518 204 39.38 % IV 1.15

PACE RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast 11225 3405 30.33 %
PACE WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast 1368 454 33.19 % IV 1.09
PACE PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast 1397 442 31.64 % IV 1.04

TROT RACES ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast 3814 1182 30.99 %
Trot WINNERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast 520 162 31.15 % IV 1.01
Trot PLACERS ALL TRACKS CloseToPaceFinLast 518 173 33.40 % IV 1.08

What the numbers mean: In 11,225 Pace races at all tracks, 33.60 % of all entries were in the lead or close to the lead at the three-quarter mile position in their last race. However, 45.83 % of the winners of their next race were in the lead or close to the lead at the three-quarter mile position in their last race (IV 1.36).

However, In 11,225 Pace races at all tracks, 30.33 % of the entries were close to the pace at the finish of their last race, while 33.19 % of the winners of their next race were in the lead or close to the lead at the finish in their last race (IV 1.09).


("CloseToPace" is defined as being in the lead or less than 3 lengths behind the leader at the positions indicated.)

[pandy]

Good stuff. I would think thoroughbreds have similar stats.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by pandy

Good stuff. I would think thoroughbreds have similar stats.

They do. The problem is that the rights to the modeling software I use for thoroughbreds was purchased by a private group of bettors, and I am prevented by the terms of that sale from publicly posting the output. I can use it for my own wagering, but that is it.

If anything, the stats for thoroughbreds even more strongly suggest that the finish in the last race--whether "up close" or a finish in-the-money--is a poor indicator of winning potential. That is, there is not much difference between the finish of "all entries" and the finish of "winners" in the next outing.

One of the things I have found intriguing (following your recent postings on the emphasis of early speed in harness races) is that it is possible to handicap subsequent performance strictly on the basis of early speed in previous races. That is, handicapping a race almost as if it ended at the three-quarter mile position or stretch position, rather than the finish.

That is consistent with the statistics above, that indicate tossing the finish position into the mix when analyzing pace, speed, and potential improvement may be misleading, and better comparisons can be made by ignoring the finish. The same is true of thoroughbreds.

[traynor]

I want to be sure to credit Bob Heyburn, who wrote Fast and Fit Horses, for the original idea of handicapping races by ignoring the finish position or beaten lengths. It is every bit as applicable to harness races as Heyburn found it to be for thoroughbreds.
http://www.amazon.com/Fast-Fit-Horse.../dp/089709168X

[traynor]

An interesting corollary to the above is the failure of many Sartin methodolgists to apply their pace methodology effectively to harness races (as well as failing to apply it effectively to thoroughbred races). Specifically, the use of "pace lines" to predict subsequent behavior is misleading when taken from "good races" (in which the entry won or finished close up).

It is more useful to consider pace lines as fitting the profile of the last race or next to last race of entries that won their next race, rather than profiled from winners. When so considered, it makes the (Sartin) percent early calculation in pace handicapping much more predictive (than when the percent early calculation is based on a profile of winners in winning races).

Simply stated, for comparison purposes, the important race is the race (or races) preceding a win--not the winning race itself. That presents a further advantage of being counter-intuitive. The mutuel prices on entries that seem to have faded (or quit) in the stretch are often generous.

Anyone can justify a winner after it has won. The trick is to locate that winner before the race is won. Paying less attention to finish position and more attention to the three-quarter and stretch positions may help do just that.

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by traynor

What the numbers mean: In 11,225 Pace races at all tracks, 33.60 % of all entries were in the lead or close to the lead at the three-quarter mile position in their last race. However, 45.83 % of the winners of their next race were in the lead or close to the lead at the three-quarter mile position in their last race (IV 1.36).


("CloseToPace" is defined as being in the lead or less than 3 lengths behind the leader at the positions indicated.)

As Pandy noted, good stuff.

I would think that position, at least on 1/2 mile speed favoring tracks, plays a big role in these stats.

Many of the horses that faded did so as a result of being 1st, 2nd or 3rd over, but subsequently drew a better post or had a better position in their next start.

[pandy]

In thoroughbred racing in particular, you can make a solid case that the best ROI comes from handicapping races with little or no regard to where a horse finished. I agree about Heyburn's book, which I have.

[am1947]

Hello Traynor

Very Interesting numbers!
Some questions if you do not mind.

Using three lengths have you tried 2 lengths or 4 lengths?

I would think the field size would influence outcome ie 5 or 6 horse field
do the numbers include all size fields or a 5 or 6 or 7 size min or a 10 max?

Are these numbers for 1/2 , 5/8 , 7/8, and 1 mile tracks sizes combined?
Any/same significance if using just 1/2 or 5/8 or 7/8 or 1 mile?

Any filters for stating PP influence on the numbers? ie 7,8 on a 1/2 are poor
win %...

Any filters for 3 wide horses or parked out or 1st over ?

Have to say your posts are definitely food for thought. Always enjoy them
Hope your Holidys go well

Regards,
AM

[mrroyboy]

Guys I hate to disagree with all this but Harness Racing can not be compared with t breds.

A good race or a fit horse is the same today as it was in Al Stanley's day. Horse has to do something early, maintain that something through the middle of the race and then finish competitively. Now many horse used early with have an excuse for fading in the stretch. But that means it is an excusable race not a good race.

Also, there is a huge difference in harness racing from being 1st at any call or within 3 lenghts etc. You can't use the t breds upclose definiation because the sports are very different.

[1st time lasix]

imagine this theory coorelates well to Steve Klein's work in his speed analysis. It also might suggest to some that because there are so many races for cheaper inferior stock - that speed is predominant variable in the handicapping process when track conditions favor it. No surprise there I guess... I will suggest that on turf it is possibly less so....

[traynor]

Originally Posted by badcompany

As Pandy noted, good stuff.

I would think that position, at least on 1/2 mile speed favoring tracks, plays a big role in these stats.

Many of the horses that faded did so as a result of being 1st, 2nd or 3rd over, but subsequently drew a better post or had a better position in their next start.

I tried it, because it seems perfectly logical. However, the numbers don't hold up to the "logic." That means, when the data is layered down to compensate for (or to look for) park outs or post position discrepancies, it has less predictive value than when ignoring those factors. That is, the entries with excuses perform no better than "all horses"--they do not have the advantage of the entries that were eased.

What it seems to indicate is that a horse eased after being parked a couple of quarters, making a big move at some point, or overcoming an outside post (especially on a half-mile track) tried its best and came up short. Conversely, entries without those indicators that ran well to the three-quarter and/or stretch position and were then eased (without being overly exerting in the final run) seem to benefit considerably.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by pandy

In thoroughbred racing in particular, you can make a solid case that the best ROI comes from handicapping races with little or no regard to where a horse finished. I agree about Heyburn's book, which I have.

I was actually surprised to see how consistently it holds up at different tracks. I have used it at The Meadows for quite some time, but it is not an anomaly specific to Mea.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by am1947

Hello Traynor

Very Interesting numbers!
Some questions if you do not mind.

Using three lengths have you tried 2 lengths or 4 lengths?

I would think the field size would influence outcome ie 5 or 6 horse field
do the numbers include all size fields or a 5 or 6 or 7 size min or a 10 max?

Are these numbers for 1/2 , 5/8 , 7/8, and 1 mile tracks sizes combined?
Any/same significance if using just 1/2 or 5/8 or 7/8 or 1 mile?

Any filters for stating PP influence on the numbers? ie 7,8 on a 1/2 are poor
win %...

Any filters for 3 wide horses or parked out or 1st over ?

Have to say your posts are definitely food for thought. Always enjoy them
Hope your Holidys go well

Regards,
AM

The "AllTracks" designation is just that--it includes every harness meet in the US and Canada in the last whatever number of months (it is a current model) without regard to track size. I have it broken down by track, and there seems very little difference in the results for different track sizes.

I use other filters, and overfiltering tends to generate less useful numbers. As I mentioned above, compensating for park outs, PP changes, etc. seems to alter the results enough to diminish the value as a predictor. That may be because so many bettors look for "excuse races" that such are overbet in subsequent starts.

The "less than three lengths" designation is not arbitrary. I have used various values, and that is the most predictive. The "less than" part is important--it excludes entries three full lengths back at whatever position.

I ran similar tests using running positions, and the numbers are very close to those above. Specifically, an entry that is 3rd or better at the three-quarter or stretch position--ignoring the finish position--is much more likely to win the next race than an entry that finished in the money.

I didn't consider field size, because I have never found it to be especially useful as a factor.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by mrroyboy

Guys I hate to disagree with all this but Harness Racing can not be compared with t breds.

A good race or a fit horse is the same today as it was in Al Stanley's day. Horse has to do something early, maintain that something through the middle of the race and then finish competitively. Now many horse used early with have an excuse for fading in the stretch. But that means it is an excusable race not a good race.

Also, there is a huge difference in harness racing from being 1st at any call or within 3 lenghts etc. You can't use the t breds upclose definiation because the sports are very different.

Your disagreement is noted. However, the factors used to compare harness race performance and thoroughbred race performance are remarkably similar in results. They are both horses guided by humans. One walks fast, the other runs. Aside from that, they are much the same.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by 1st time lasix

imagine this theory coorelates well to Steve Klein's work in his speed analysis. It also might suggest to some that because there are so many races for cheaper inferior stock - that speed is predominant variable in the handicapping process when track conditions favor it. No surprise there I guess... I will suggest that on turf it is possibly less so....

I have no idea who Steve Klein is. I think speed is important at all grades of race. All the class in the world will not get a horse to the wire in time if a faster horse gets there first. That is not an arbitrary statement--there are many. many examples of "cheaper, inferior stock" (according to some human definition) breezing past "higher class" (according to some human definition) entries to win. I don't think speed is the only factor (or pace, class, or quite a few other things are the only factors) in a horse race. I think speed is important at all grades of race, including turf races, along with a number of other factors.