Pace Handicappers: Do You Use Energy Distribution?

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm fairly convinced measuring "energy" and the demands of the race/distance/surface is the way, light, and truth, but I'm less sure the commonly used formulas are complete and getting it right (not that I have a better formula).

I think there's another component to this.

Ex.

Three horses can run 4F in 45 comfortably and then finish 6F in 1:10.

If they are pressed to 44 3/5, they may not react the same way.

One may falter and finish in 1:10 3/5

One may have enough energy in reserve to run 1:10 anyway, but start cracking at 44 2/5 and slow down to 1:10 2/5.

One may have had so much in reserve the faster pace will carry it to 109 4/5, but start cracking at 44 1/5 and run 110 2/5.

I think this is the kind of stuff that gets exposed as horses move up and down the class ladder and face tougher or softer trips within a race.

One of my strategies for exposing this is to have preference for competitive lines. If a horse wins or loses by a wide margin, that line doesn't reveal much.

[Trackjudge]

Maybe I am lazy, but after using Sartin paceline methodology many years ago, I decided to look at the range of a horse's better performances at each fraction, then compare each horse's range in each race segment to the other horses in the field.


General statistics always talks about regression to the mean, but in this case, I find the median works better.


This takes away the labor and subjective work of selecting a paceline, and allows you to compare each horse's good and best performance range.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by Trackjudge

Maybe I am lazy, but after using Sartin paceline methodology many years ago, I decided to look at the range of a horse's better performances at each fraction, then compare each horse's range in each race segment to the other horses in the field.


General statistics always talks about regression to the mean, but in this case, I find the median works better.


This takes away the labor and subjective work of selecting a paceline, and allows you to compare each horse's good and best performance range.

I find paceline selection to be important, but I also look at pace ratings for the last four races, weighted more strongly by recency. It does help in establishing the pace scenario.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

I find paceline selection to be important, but I also look at pace ratings for the last four races, weighted more strongly by recency. It does help in establishing the pace scenario.

I've seen (first hand) some of Ranch's work & ideas.

He's definitely worth listening to.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

One of my strategies for exposing this is to have preference for competitive lines. If a horse wins or loses by a wide margin, that line doesn't reveal much.

I try to do that also. I'm less worried about some horse that got loose in a soft pace last time if I've already seen him run well in a highly competitive hot paced race loaded with quality. Sometimes those horses can actually be pretty good value because so many people will downgrade the horse off the soft trip, but sometimes Dr. Fager is going to get a soft trip and he'll still be Dr. Fager in the next race.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

I find paceline selection to be important, but I also look at pace ratings for the last four races, weighted more strongly by recency. It does help in establishing the pace scenario.

I do almost the same thing with some of my automated running style metrics.

I look at exactly 4 races, I throw out the worst one, use the remaining 3, and weight them more towards the recent races. Since some of my metrics are automated, I'm not going to try to code for every possible excuse for a terrible performance. Tossing the worst one helps. When I actually handicap I'm aware of those kinds of things and can make small mental adjustments.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I do almost the same thing with some of my automated running style metrics.

I look at exactly 4 races, I throw out the worst one, use the remaining 3, and weight them more towards the recent races. Since some of my metrics are automated, I'm not going to try to code for every possible excuse for a terrible performance. Tossing the worst one helps. When I actually handicap I'm aware of those kinds of things and can make small mental adjustments.

Curious...
Why would you limit yourself to just 4 races?

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I do almost the same thing with some of my automated running style metrics.

I look at exactly 4 races, I throw out the worst one, use the remaining 3, and weight them more towards the recent races. Since some of my metrics are automated, I'm not going to try to code for every possible excuse for a terrible performance. Tossing the worst one helps. When I actually handicap I'm aware of those kinds of things and can make small mental adjustments.

One thing that is important for me is to look at similar but different. Best of last 10 SR, weighted last 4 SR, pace line SR, distance adjusted time for paceline. Similar concept for pace.

I am looking to see if everything is in harmony or some numbers suggest differences attributable to form cycle or possibly other factors.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Curious...
Why would you limit yourself to just 4 races?

Keep in mind, this is an automated metric.

I did some studies years back and found that if I went back past a certain point the incremental information added almost no predictive value at all.

The first thing I do when I handicap is glance at my automated metrics for running styles, pace projections, and profiles for that track/surface/distance to get a feel for what I am dealing with.

Then I start digging into details manually. While there may be some exceptions where I think information further back is relevant, I wasn't going to code for an almost endless number of possibilities just to get a summary metric a little more accurate. I'm counting on myself to see the exceptions to the rules later. The metrics are just for a quick summary and to test concepts. I'm very big on proving that what I "think" is actually true by actually testing it.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I try to do that also. I'm less worried about some horse that got loose in a soft pace last time if I've already seen him run well in a highly competitive hot paced race loaded with quality. Sometimes those horses can actually be pretty good value because so many people will downgrade the horse off the soft trip, but sometimes Dr. Fager is going to get a soft trip and he'll still be Dr. Fager in the next race.

I find that MORE often players do NOT downgrade your theoretical front-runner and, previous corkers vs hard, competitive fractions notwithstanding, the soft set-up does indeed mask deterioration. In any case, I would watch and REwatch the slow-paced win, while combing for ANY sign of willingness to flinch.

Keeping in mind, of course, that our subject thoroughbred fits the specific criteria of having successfully battled hard splits, and shows a more recent victory characterized by lack of early pressure.

You and I have been here before on this topic. In the end, of course, specific cases would boil down to value and public perception. But I have seen sooooo many well-accomplished speeds-or at least front-runners in sharp form-obtain soft, loose leads, appear vulnerable and somewhat struggling lower turn, but then fatten the margin after switching leads. Those performances can be tough to assess.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I find that MORE often players do NOT downgrade your theoretical front-runner and, previous corkers vs hard, competitive fractions notwithstanding, the soft set-up does indeed mask deterioration. In any case, I would watch and REwatch the slow-paced win, while combing for ANY sign of willingness to flinch.

There are no certainties in this game.

You don't always know if you are dealing with a very good horse that just happened to catch a soft trip or a mediocre horses that took advantage of one, but it doesn't always show up in the figures or margins of victory. So if you automatically downgrade all those horses you'll be making an error some of the time. You'll make fewer of them by looking at the horse's form coming into the race. But in the end I agree the price matters.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

There are no certainties in this game.

You don't always know if you are dealing with a very good horse that just happened to catch a soft trip or a mediocre horses that took advantage of one, but it doesn't always show up in the figures or margins of victory. So if you automatically downgrade all those horses you'll be making an error some of the time. You'll make fewer of them by looking at the horse's form coming into the race. But in the end I agree the price matters.

Rubber-stamping soft wins based on prior performances leads to missed opportunities. The performance level of most horses varies, at least a bit, in every single start.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Rubber-stamping soft wins based on prior performances leads to missed opportunities. The performance level of most horses varies, at least a bit, in every single start.

Rubber stamping implies making no effort to understand what happened by watching the race and looking at the competition. That's not what I am doing. I am simply not just rubber stamping the downgrade like many people do because I know that soft trips don't always translate into higher figures and bigger winning margins like some people think. Prior races help clarify what kind of horse you are actually dealing with and whether it needs a soft trip to run its best figures or has the reserves to engage a bit and still run its race.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Rubber stamping implies making no effort to understand what happened by watching the race and looking at the competition. That's not what I am doing. I am simply not just rubber stamping the downgrade like many people do because I know that soft trips don't always translate into higher figures and bigger winning margins like some people think. Prior races help clarify what kind of horse you are actually dealing with and whether it needs a soft trip to run its best figures or has the reserves to engage a bit and still run its race.

Common practice to assume relatively accimplished horses could have done or overcome more than was required in soft assignments. Very often better value to speculate they could not have.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Common practice to assume relatively accimplished horses could have done or overcome more than was required in soft assignments. Very often better value to speculate they could not have.

I think our disagreement is more about betting patterns than handicapping.

It could be because we are looking at different types of races.

My Formulator notes are mostly focused on high quality races where I think a bias or the race flow impacted the outcome. Those races are covered so carefully, a lot of people know all the trips. So sometimes the best course of action is to find the nuanced situations where the commonly held views are wrong.

It could be a completely difference situation in claiming races that fewer people are paying attention to.