Is EARLY the majority running style...?

[jay68802]

So in a race with one E 8, one E/P 5, 4 P runners, and 2 S runners, the lone running style horses have less of a chance to win?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by jay68802

So in a race with one E 8, one E/P 5, 4 P runners, and 2 S runners, the lone running style horses have less of a chance to win?

According to the hypothesis, the 4 P runners would constitute a majority in this race and therefore more likely to produce a winner from their ranks.

Whether or not the hypothesis is correct is the issue at hand, and that can only be established by testing the hypothesis against a large sample size.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I think the study would be to address the below stated hypothesis in whatever format is available to a person. It involves determining which running style has a majority in each race. In some races there might be more closers than early types so the majority style for that race would be closer. Then confirm which style actually won the race and then repeat this process for all races selected. The results should establish whether or not the majority running style is dominant, generally, in individual contests...Ties would be scored as a win for each or otherwise accounted for or neutralized,

At first the hypothesis seems contrarian, don't you think?

Hypothesis: In large sample sizes, a majority of winners will come from the ranks of the majority running style within each race.

I actually have a product in my store that addressed this.

Understanding Early Speed

What I did was break races down into 4 categories of pace pressure and then built IV tables for each of the Quirin points in each category.

The four categories were:

• 0 pressure horses
• 1 pressure horse
• 2 pressure horses
• 3+ pressure horses

The results were pretty telling.

The categories were developed using a variation of Randy Giles' 5-point theory. Loosely, add up the number of 5+ point horses, but there is a little more to it.

I will put a better explanation on my agenda. (This is CONTENT WEEK for me, so I am building a bunch of stuff today and tomorrow.)


Now, about your Hypothesis...

Hypothesis: In large sample sizes, a majority of winners will come from the ranks of the majority running style within each race.

As a blanket statement, this hypothesis will prove to be untrue.

It will certainly prove to be true with front runners (i.e. the more front runners in a race the greater the likelihood a FR wins). However, if you have an 8-horse field with 3 or more FRs you will find that one of them will win a significant percentage of the time; certainly more than 3/8.

[Wizard of Odds]

Perhaps a more telling question is the breakdown of early speed criteria for ROI?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I actually have a product in my store that addressed this.

Understanding Early Speed

What I did was break races down into 4 categories of pace pressure and then built IV tables for each of the Quirin points in each category.

The four categories were:

• 0 pressure horses
• 1 pressure horse
• 2 pressure horses
• 3+ pressure horses

The results were pretty telling.

The categories were developed using a variation of Randy Giles' 5-point theory. Loosely, add up the number of 5+ point horses, but there is a little more to it.

I will put a better explanation on my agenda. (This is CONTENT WEEK for me, so I am building a bunch of stuff today and tomorrow.)


Now, about your Hypothesis...


As a blanket statement, this hypothesis will prove to be untrue.

It will certainly prove to be true with front runners (i.e. the more front runners in a race the greater the likelihood a FR wins). However, if you have an 8-horse field with 3 or more FRs you will find that one of them will win a significant percentage of the time; certainly more than 3/8.

So the hypothesis will be valid when E runners are the majority but not for the others. That is interesting in itself...I tend to agree....hence the frequency of the lone speed wire jobs.

I guess the question might be raised, Why is it so for the E case and not for the other categories, E/P, P, S and NA (debut and unknowns)...?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

So the hypothesis will be valid when E runners are the majority but not for the others. That is interesting in itself...I tend to agree....hence the frequency of the lone speed wire jobs.

I guess the question might be raised, Why is it so for the E case and not for the other categories, E/P, P, S and NA (debut and unknowns)...?

Because the very hypothesis is incorrect.

Your other assumption is incorrect as well. The Lone-F concept does not hold water either.

Sure, horses that actually get free on the lead have a big advantage but that is not the same as being predicted to be a Lone F.

It is all about the mix of horses in the race.

When there is an obvious Lone F situation, usually somebody goes with it.

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by MONEY

I don't know how this could help, but here it is anyway.

At Aqueduct today there were 68 total entries before scratches.

21 E
18 E/P
12 P
06 S
11 NA or 1st timers

Gulfstream had 90 entries.

18 E
18 E/P
18 P
21 S
15 NA or 1st timers

Santa Anita had 87 entries.
24 E
27 E/P
18 P
13 S
05 NA or 1st timers

It would be interesting to see how that mix changes when broken down between sprints and routes. Just my anecdotal observation that if a card is sprint-heavy, you'll naturally see more E horses.

[jay68802]

From the 7th at Santa Anita yesterday. Just happened to be the race that is in my program right now. Across the top are the 4 running styles, below are the number of horses that have each running style and the total speed points for the running style. This race was the reason I played the pick 5. The eventual winner is the , also happens to be in the majority as far as running styles go. The difference is that the sat off the pace and was able to run down the front runners in the stretch.

[JohnGalt1]

Also separate the turf routes, which I find to be weighted more to pressers and sustainers.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Because the very hypothesis is incorrect.

Your other assumption is incorrect as well. The Lone-F concept does not hold water either.

Sure, horses that actually get free on the lead have a big advantage but that is not the same as being predicted to be a Lone F.

It is all about the mix of horses in the race.

When there is an obvious Lone F situation, usually somebody goes with it.

Could it he hasty to call the hypothesis incorrect before any testing of it has occurred...? I'm not a software user nor do I have means or knowledge to perform such queries... But wouldn't it be fairly difficult to do given that each race must be presorted, tallied, and then the totals compilated....I know that is what computers do so maybe it is not too difficult to program for this...?

[coachv30]

I think the more valid question here would be, "If you use these running styles in your handicapping, how do you use them?

They identify where the horse will most likely run. Now...I think it depends on how you evaluate the pace scenario. So...the fact that a certain style wins a majority of races doesn't necessarily tell you anything about a given race.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Could it he hasty to call the hypothesis incorrect before any testing of it has occurred...? I'm not a software user nor do I have means or knowledge to perform such queries... But wouldn't it be fairly difficult to do given that each race must be presorted, tallied, and then the totals compilated....I know that is what computers do so maybe it is not too difficult to program for this...?

Why would it make sense to you that if you have more early speed it's more likely the winner would be early speed? I mean, yeah, obviously if you have a race with five speed horses and a closer, if you ran it 100 times one of the five speed horses might win 60% or 65%. However, the closer is going to be the only horse worth betting. That seems like the only logical answer if we're using a hypothetical race with no other information except running style.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Could it he hasty to call the hypothesis incorrect before any testing of it has occurred...? I'm not a software user nor do I have means or knowledge to perform such queries... But wouldn't it be fairly difficult to do given that each race must be presorted, tallied, and then the totals compilated....I know that is what computers do so maybe it is not too difficult to program for this...?

As I said earlier, I already did that.

[ultracapper]

One of the basic staples of my handicapping is finding a horse that is doing something different. If there are 5 Es in an 8 horse race I usually won't want anything to do with any of them. This is a guess, but my guess is no way they win their fair share

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by coachv30

I think the more valid question here would be, "If you use these running styles in your handicapping, how do you use them?

They identify where the horse will most likely run. Now...I think it depends on how you evaluate the pace scenario. So...the fact that a certain style wins a majority of races doesn't necessarily tell you anything about a given race.

TimeformUS has their pace projector, and HongKong has something similar. They graph the early position right after the horses have " settled " into position to set up their distinctive runs to the wire....I have heard CJ say that this race is expected to "be a fast pace" ..because so many of the runners are early speed types, that a meltdown is to be expected, and the search for a game closer ensues that can go over the top to win....I'm just wondering if that scenario holds water more than just one of the early types continuing on despite the fast early pace...