Is EARLY the majority running style...?

[coachv30]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

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...

That could be a time to look for a class move..maybe one of them is off a class drop or has better back class.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by castaway01

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.

The above bold is really the core assumption of the hypothesis... I was just interested in learning if it was testable or if anyone had tested it. Dave has said he addressed the very topic, that he found the hypothesis to be incorrect..That tells us something...now I'm wondering what the converse of the hypothesis would be and whether that might be correct, but I have to jiggle my brain a little to come up with how that might be worded...

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

Hypothesis 2: In large sample sizes, a majority of winners will come from the ranks of the MINORITY running styles within each race.

[Wizard of Odds]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

The above bold is really the core assumption of the hypothesis... I was just interested in learning if it was testable or if anyone had tested it. Dave has said he addressed the very topic, that he found the hypothesis to be incorrect..That tells us something...now I'm wondering what the converse of the hypothesis would be and whether that might be correct, but I have to jiggle my brain a little to come up with how that might be worded...

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

Hypothesis 2: In large sample sizes, a majority of winners will come from the ranks of the MINORITY running styles within each race.

Even if you the answers to these Hypotheses, I believe you are still very far from translating that knowledge into actually making a profit.

[Buckeye]

Originally Posted by coachv30

Simply looking for the best past 1/2 mile time while being on the lead for the first two calls has worked pretty good for me in predicting the leader.

My issue is knowing whether or not the horse is good enough to hold the lead and what factors will determine it. Dropping in class is one that I favor.

In fact, I'm gonna start a thread in this section titled, "Who will be on the lead"? People can list the races they choose and we can analyze. If nobody bites....then oh well.

Happy New Year and best of luck all!!

I probably shouldn't do this but the Fulcrum concept as explained in Handicapping Magic is very powerful and often reveals the leading horse NOT expected and way underplayed.

[elhelmete]

For this to be the least bit useful you'd have to make a few key assumptions/concessions.

1) that the 4 bris running style 'shortcuts' are accurate and discrete/distinct enough to matter
2) the horses will run to their designated styles in today's race
3) a horse's style remains somewhat constant over his racing career

[coachv30]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

For this to be the least bit useful you'd have to make a few key assumptions/concessions.

1) that the 4 bris running style 'shortcuts' are accurate and discrete/distinct enough to matter
2) the horses will run to their designated styles in today's race
3) a horse's style remains somewhat constant over his racing career

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I suspect that the EARLY running style has a larger population of runners than either PRESSER or CLOSER but by how many...?

50% Early
30% Presser
20% Closer

The reason I bring this up is: How do the impact values account for the possibility that there simply are more Early runners in training than the other styles...?

Are the tracks really speed favoring...Or are there simply more Early runners in general that tend to beef up the stats...?

What are the running style populations in reality...?

In the wild, the best way to escape predators is to be at the head of the pack. It's an instinct from tens of thousands of years of breeding. Most racehorses(except for the high class Grade 1 runners) can't keep up with that pace for very long distances so they are trained to relax and respond to the jockey's signals. The jockey is supposed to sense how much horse he has and rate him accordingly.

There are different types of speed horses. The ones you can downgrade are the "need to lead" horses.

I've ridden a lot of horses and it's pretty easy to tell which ones want to be ahead of the others, but like I said, only exceptional horses can stay in front with a blazing pace the whole way.

Some tracks are very speed favoring. Turf Paradise was well known for having fast times, even at low levels. For a very long time Saratoga was kind to speed. These days most tracks use a lot of sand in the mixtures for the dirt track. There is also clay to hold moisture and sometimes loam. The actual mixture varies based on climate - heat, cold, and moisture.

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

I probably shouldn't do this but the Fulcrum concept as explained in Handicapping Magic is very powerful and often reveals the leading horse NOT expected and way underplayed.

I liked the idea of the fulcrum, but didn't Pizzolla himself pooh-pooh the concept after it didn't work as well as he thought?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by headhawg

I liked the idea of the fulcrum, but didn't Pizzolla himself pooh-pooh the concept after it didn't work as well as he thought?

Sartin and the Hat distanced themselves from it.
Pizzola emphasized it heavily in his Master Magician.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Hypothesis1: In large sample sizes, a majority of winners will come from the ranks of the majority running style within each race.

Hypothesis 2: In large sample sizes, a majority of winners will come from the ranks of the MINORITY running styles within each race.

OK, so Dave says that Hypothesis 1 is incorrect... So I if we accept that, would the converse, that is Hypothesis 2 be correct...?

[jay68802]

For Saturdays Sham Stakes.

Gray Magician
Gunmetal Gray
Savagery
Sueno
Easy Shot
Coliseum
Much Better

With Bris Running styles this race looks to be busy up front.

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by Tom

Pizzola emphasized it heavily in his Master Magician.

I thought I read somewhere (on PA?) that the later versions of his Handicapping Magic software didn't emphasize it much,and he didn't push that concept in his handicapping. I'm getting feeble so maybe I am misremembering.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by jay68802

For Saturdays Sham Stakes.

Gray Magician
Gunmetal Gray
Savagery
Sueno
Easy Shot
Coliseum
Much Better

With Bris Running styles this race looks to be busy up front.

Using your attachment as a guide:

1. are E and form the majority block
2. are not E and form the minority block

Let' go with Hyp. 2 and predict that the winner will come from the ranks of the minority running styles:

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Hypothesis1: In large sample sizes, a majority of winners will come from the ranks of the majority running style within each race.

Hypothesis 2: In large sample sizes, a majority of winners will come from the ranks of the MINORITY running styles within each race.

OK, so Dave says that Hypothesis 1 is incorrect... So I if we accept that, would the converse, that is Hypothesis 2 be correct...?

I don't understand why it matters, or even why you think it matters. If I said yes, the winner is most likely to come from the most common running style in the race (because logic), but if you bet all those horses you'd lose 40 cents on the dollar (because they hamper each other's success in the actual race and lose more than the takeout), what is the point?


Neither hypothesis makes you any money, whether correct or not.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Hypothesis1: In large sample sizes, a majority of winners will come from the ranks of the majority running style within each race.

Hypothesis 2: In large sample sizes, a majority of winners will come from the ranks of the MINORITY running styles within each race.

OK, so Dave says that Hypothesis 1 is incorrect... So I if we accept that, would the converse, that is Hypothesis 2 be correct...?

I gotta admit, this is a strange endeavor to me. Singling out the frequency within a race of the BRIS-conceived running style designations just doesn't seem like it would inform anything.