Most Frustrating Part of Your Own Game?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by cj

The throttling down is tactical by the pace setters. Of course this doesn't always happen, but it is the best chance for those up front to win. You are the target, so you may as well conserve as much as possible and have a head start for the finish.

It is very similar to cycling in my opinion. The riders could go much faster but the overall time doesn't matter so they don't. Occasionally they will try to steal a stage and go out fast but it almost never works. At the end when the finish is flat and it is a sprint, nobody wants the lead until the very end. Even the very fastest sprinters don't want to get to the front too early because they know others will draft and pass them late. It has nothing to do with the surface or endurance, it is all about speed and getting every edge you can.

I think turf is ultimately a very fair surface. That isn't true of dirt. There are inherent advantages on dirt that make it preferable to go to the front despite having to run faster on a more tiring surface. Those don't exist on turf so the races are ridden very differently.

As a guy that does figures, I see it all the time where horses of similar ability in different races finish in vastly different final times. But, the closing times really aren't all that different. Even the seemingly much faster pace didn't prevent the horses from finishing well. That tells me that many turf races finish with the horses still having plenty in the tank. They aren't overly tired. We rarely see that on dirt. Time just doesn't matter as much on turf. It is about position and tactics and getting a clean run late.

I think your understanding of turf racing is similar to mine. I model races and tracks to determine the attributes of winning horses.

In my view, turf horses run aerobically (in route races) for approx. the first 3/4s of a race and then anaerobically to the finish. Dirt races are run by most horses anaerobically from the beginning with nearly every horse decelerating at the end. Turf horses don't appear overly tired because they have only put a run in for 1/4 to 3/8s of a mile. Dirt horse don't appear tired after running that far either.

If there was a 1 horse race on the turf and on the dirt what would be the best running style for the horse produce the fastest time on each surface?

[PressThePace]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

...............................




I used to bet against a fave I didn't like with an exacta box
I thought the fave was a horrible bet but he often ran well and won or finished 2nd
those who backed him knew something about that horse that I didn't


David Sklansky, a poker pro wrote about horse racing too

he's not known as a racing expert but I like what he wrote

he said that you only want to bet against a horse when you know the reason he is overvalued - you know what the public is looking at and you know why the public is wrong

if you don't know this - stay away from the bet



.

This is why I still believe ratings like "Prime Power" still have value. It can assist in finding why certain propositions are overvalued. Still need to do some handicapping, but it can help point you in the right direction if you know how to sort the information.

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I think your understanding of turf racing is similar to mine. I model races and tracks to determine the attributes of winning horses.

In my view, turf horses run aerobically (in route races) for approx. the first 3/4s of a race and then anaerobically to the finish. Dirt races are run by most horses anaerobically from the beginning with nearly every horse decelerating at the end. Turf horses don't appear overly tired because they have only put a run in for 1/4 to 3/8s of a mile. Dirt horse don't appear tired after running that far either.

If there was a 1 horse race on the turf and on the dirt what would be the best running style for the horse produce the fastest time on each surface?

The best way to run the fastest final time is to leave the tank pretty empty at the finish, so I would think the dirt model. We see it on turf too. The fastest times are invariably when the pace is also the fastest.

The big difference is on dirt that style also leads to a lot of wins. On turf, it does not. Therefore there is no reason for the pacesetters to go fast on grass, except of course in the case of the rabbit when trying to aid a stablemate.

This is precisely why I say turf is the less tiring surface. All else being equal, it is just a faster surface. It makes no sense that a more tiring surface would be faster overall. See the attached with North American track records. When you consider turf courses have tighter turns it even enhances just how much faster turf tracks are than dirt.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by cj

......The big difference is on dirt that style also leads to a lot of wins. On turf, it does not. Therefore there is no reason for the pacesetters to go fast on grass, except of course in the case of the rabbit when trying to aid a stablemate......

I know what works on dirt and I know what works on turf. The question remains why doesn't the dirt model work on turf? If I accept your analysis that a turf course is less tiring than dirt then wouldn't it follow that a horse bursting out of the gate and building a big lead should be in prime position to win most races? If that style would produce the best times in a one-horse trial surely it would work as a way to win most turf races.

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I know what works on dirt and I know what works on turf. The question remains why doesn't the dirt model work on turf? If I accept your analysis that a turf course is less tiring than dirt then wouldn't it follow that a horse bursting out of the gate and building a big lead should be in prime position to win most races? If that style would produce the best times in a one-horse trial surely it would work as a way to win most turf races.

The dynamics change when you add other horses. I wish I could tell you the exact reason why. As I said, I suspect drafting is a part of it. But it really isn't my premise that turf is less tiring. That is what the data says.

I personally do think jockeys overdo it with rating turf horses. The races could be run much faster on average than they are. We've seen some horses employ this tactic and do well. Presious Passion, Obviously, and even Voodoo Song a few years ago are some examples. I grew up watching a turf horse named Rocket Guitar in Maryland that was a real speedster going five furlongs on grass. He would stretch out sometimes and try those tactics and it often worked. I really can't say why more don't try it. My guess is trainers are telling them not to do so.

Unfortunately there are no charts for Rocket Guitar's races, but this was his lifetime record:

https://www.equibase.com/profiles/Re...istry=T&rbt=TB

I'm pretty sure I remember reading about Steve Cauthen doing this when he moved to England initially with a lot of success, but of course the other riders eventually caught on and stopped letting him get away early.

As you say, in the end, it really doesn't matter why something works as long as you know that it does.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

If I had one unique focus in horseplaying, it would be my study towards understanding how different cognitive biases affect our rational behavior.

Most of my current horseplaying work is focused on 'cognitive bias mitigation'.

My biggest frustration with my game falls in this area, if what I describe can be considered a type of cognitive bias.

Over the years, I've found that I've developed some admittedly irrational biases with regard to names that impair my objectivity:

1) Don't really like cats, so between Storm Cat's legacy and Ken Ramsey's ...
2) Don't like "Somebody's Something" names - and what the heck kind of name is Tom's d'Etat anyway??? (A horse I would otherwise love because of long career)
3) Can't stand one word names of less than 3 syllables, especially those one syllable Claiborne specials (Blame, Orb). Yet I wasn't always this way - I LOVED Swale!

Being able to spend more time at Oaklawn the last two seasons (until this mid-March, obviously) also resulted in a few connections biases that I wish I could remove from my handicapping. There are certain connections I like more than others because of what I see going on at the track, and others that cause me to frown. At least these don't come into play away from my local track the way my name bias does.

Are there any products out there where the names of the horses and connections can be "masked" so that I could handicap objectively and then begrudgingly bet the "Vast"s and "Kitten's Cat"s of the world if they project out on top??????

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I know what works on dirt and I know what works on turf. The question remains why doesn't the dirt model work on turf? If I accept your analysis that a turf course is less tiring than dirt then wouldn't it follow that a horse bursting out of the gate and building a big lead should be in prime position to win most races? If that style would produce the best times in a one-horse trial surely it would work as a way to win most turf races.

Set aside drafting and kickback.

I'll try one last time, but I understand why you are rejecting it. It's counter intuitive.

It's a matter of distributing you energy properly for that surface on that day.

Let's say one horse goes out in 46 early and another horse goes out in 47 inside the same race. They will obviously use a different amount of energy early and have a different amount of energy left late.

Let's call how much energy they used "X" and how much they have left "Y".

The values of X and Y tend to be much different on dirt and turf. The values of X and Y can change from day to day on the same surface.

That means the optimal way to run is different depending on the surface that day and what the values of X and Y are.

It may be counter intuitive, but despite dirt being more tiring the best way for the typical dirt front runner to run is go out at a lively but not extreme pace and open a gap between himself and the closers who will also be tiring (albeit not as much) because the surface is tiring.

The idea for the turf runner is to back the pace down because either way he's going to have fresh monster coming at him late (because the surface is not tiring). If he can back it down enough and keep a good gap between himself and the closers it may be physically impossible for the closers to catch him because his own closing time will be so fast.

The underlying physics of it all aren't necessary to understand.

No matter how counter intuitive, the reality is that tiring does not all always mean you are better off going slower early to maximize your chances of winning. It depends how tiring and how fast you are going. X and Y can be all over the map.

We agree on the reality of what's happening in the races. It's the counter intuitive explanation of some of that reality (that dirt tracks are more tiring) that's hard to accept.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Set aside drafting and kickback.

I'll try one last time, but I understand why you are rejecting it. It's counter intuitive.

It's a matter of distributing you energy properly for that surface on that day.

Let's say one horse goes out in 46 early and another horse goes out in 47 inside the same race. They will obviously use a different amount of energy early and have a different amount of energy left late.

Let's call how much energy they used "X" and how much they have left "Y".

The values of X and Y tend to be much different on dirt and turf. The values of X and Y can change from day to day on the same surface.

That means the optimal way to run is different depending on the surface that day and what the values of X and Y are.

It may be counter intuitive, but despite dirt being more tiring the best way for the typical dirt front runner to run is go out at a lively but not extreme pace and open a gap between himself and the closers who will also be tiring (albeit not as much) because the surface is tiring.

The idea for the turf runner is to back the pace down because either way he's going to have fresh monster coming at him late (because the surface is not tiring). If he can back it down enough and keep a good gap between himself and the closers it may be physically impossible for the closers to catch him because his own closing time will be so fast.

The underlying physics of it all aren't necessary to understand.

No matter how counter intuitive, the reality is that tiring does not all always mean you are better off going slower early to maximize your chances of winning. It depends how tiring and how fast you are going. X and Y can be all over the map.

I fully understand and agree with all of the above. I used to make energy models for every major turf course.

[classhandicapper]

It doesn't happen too often, but next time you see a very slow dirt surface that also seems to be biased towards front runners watch the races closely.

What you will sometimes see is front runners that don't seem to be finishing well, but the closers you would expect to finish strongly also don't have their usual kick. They can't sustain their rally and stagger home late too.

Something odd is obviously going on because everyone is staggering and the races are slow (so the track is clearly tiring) but front runners still have a greater edge than usual.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I fully understand and agree with all of the above. I used to make energy models for every major turf course.

Great.

That means I did a better job of explaining my position.

I never made energy models, but I use metrics to evaluate how each race flowed compared to the average for that surface and distance. Then I look at the averages for each day (for each surface).

So I have an average profile for the track/surface/distance and I have the ability to identify races and days that were not within the normal range to take a better look at.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

My biggest frustration with my game falls in this area, if what I describe can be considered a type of cognitive bias.

Over the years, I've found that I've developed some admittedly irrational biases with regard to names that impair my objectivity:...

Not sure if you're being sarcastic.

Either way, .
(the first step of 'cognitive bias mitigation' is 'awareness'.)

Hey, if you sample a group of casual horseplayers, you'll find a few that consciously, or subconsciously allow things like 'Names', 'Numbers', etc... to affect them.

Also part of the entertainment. I know a guy who includes an exacta box of his birthday, on the Derby. I know a girl who bets owner "Gary Barber" because of the pink silks.

[Si2see]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Very few skilled horseplayers will volunteer or acknowledge weaknesses in their handicapping or knowledge of the game. If required to be self-critical, they will shift the focus to wagering strategies.

Mark. My question is for you and even Cj who I respect and consider both of you to be great for this game.

You both seem to have the same opinion, which I will sum up in my own view and words without putting words in your mouth ( however if I am incorrect feel free to correct me ).....

It seems you both feel that If you are a good even great handicapper , but still a losing horse player , that your flaws are still in your handicapping.

So my question for both of you or anyone who cares to answer , how do you determine if you are a good handicapper ?

Finally how do you determine if your handipping or wagering is where you should focus your efforts in improving ?

Jason

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Not sure if you're being sarcastic.

Either way, .
(the first step of 'cognitive bias mitigation' is 'awareness'.)

Hey, if you sample a group of casual horseplayers, you'll find a few that consciously, or subconsciously allow things like 'Names', 'Numbers', etc... to affect them.

No sarcasm at all. Was conscious of not wanting to “cheapen” your point, hence the qualifiers.

Actually heard a racing podcast today where one host was wishing HE could have the names blanked out when he was handicapping stakes, since he finds himself seeing the familiar names and saying “I know this horse and what it can do” and he feels his weakness is that he doesn’t look at what’s in black and white in the pp’s closely enough.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Si2see

Mark. My question is for you and even Cj who I respect and consider both of you to be great for this game.

You both seem to have the same opinion, which I will sum up in my own view and words without putting words in your mouth ( however if I am incorrect feel free to correct me ).....

It seems you both feel that If you are a good even great handicapper , but still a losing horse player , that your flaws are still in your handicapping.

So my question for both of you or anyone who cares to answer , how do you determine if you are a good handicapper ?

Finally how do you determine if your handipping or wagering is where you should focus your efforts in improving ?

Jason

Thanks for the nice words.

My opinion is you can be a very good handicapper, a solid bettor, and still lose. The game is very tough to beat. The takeout makes it almost impossible. With good rebates that can change things somewhat, but it is STILL not easy to win.

My opinion is that if you want to win now, it isn't going to be by picking 30% winners at average average odds of 5-2. More tomorrow...

[PressThePace]

Originally Posted by cj

Thanks for the nice words.

My opinion is you can be a very good handicapper, a solid bettor, and still lose. The game is very tough to beat. The takeout makes it almost impossible. With good rebates that can change things somewhat, but it is STILL not easy to win.

My opinion is that if you want to win now, it isn't going to be by picking 30% winners at average average odds of 5-2. More tomorrow...

I know the question wasn't for me and I won't attempt to answer it. But, this is my experience as well. No doubt that value can be had in a variety of pools and odds ranges, but searching for the 5/2 that represents value is few and far between. It happens. I won't debate that, and I won't dispute that people can do it. Just not me.