Track Effect on Pace

[classhandicapper]

I suspect the prevailing wisdom on this issue is all wrong, but I don't have proof of my own theory yet. All I have is strong evidence that I have yet to translate into numbers I can test.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by raybo

Yeah, trainers and jockeys have "snapped to" regarding the presence of multiple speed horses in races. Because they are aware of the deleterious affects of the "race within the race" scenario, some of them decide it is to their advantage to not take part in the speed duel and hope that others do become engaged in that duel. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, because they are not the only participants thinking the same thing.

I would say that, these types of perceived pace aberrations cause the vast majority of my losing tickets.

If one is a good handicapper, and is disciplined, patient, and consistent, and can also accurately assess the pace scenario, in enough races, that player is in perfect position to beat the game, consistently and continually.

It has been my experience unless there is a real speed ball front runner in the race trainers have no problem with their horse vie for the lead even if their are 3 or 4 need to lead types in the race. The exception is they have tangled with one them before and came out 2nd best.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I suspect the prevailing wisdom on this issue is all wrong, but I don't have proof of my own theory yet. All I have is strong evidence that I have yet to translate into numbers I can test.

What is the prevailing wisdom?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by cj

What is the prevailing wisdom?

I had the same question.

[Tom]

Guess it isn't that prevailing!

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by MPRanger

Track Effect on Pace

I suppose fast tracks are fast because horses run fast on them. But does the track itself favor closers or front runners?

Does a fast track favor front runners?
Does a slow track favor closers?

I'm not referring to an aberrant bias. Assumming a normal day with a variant of zero.

Thanks for any opinions.

Racehorses run fast or faster at a given time for a given distance because of the environment in which the horse is running is less resistance.

The racetrack surface is involved because of surface resistivity and plays a part in the horse’s speed impact, but so does aerodynamic drag and surface wind drag.

The environment components contribution to the horse’s speed retardation can easily be estimated with calculations and are very reliable.

The environmental resistances in general will always favors the front-runner because the slope of the performance curves typically will be downward and the rate of motion (pace) by all horses generally will be decreasing as the distance of the race increases.

Also in solving for displacement with respect to acceleration, it will always be difficult for the come-from-behind horse to catch up and there is an historical example of this in the first two races between Forego and Wajima.
Wajima would get the jump out of the gate and it was difficult for Forego to catch him.

Afterwards Sherrill Ward, Forego’s trainer said publicly that he would have Gustines put Forego on the pace and the rest is history.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by cj

I agree, predicting pace scenarios with accuracy can be harder than picking the winner.

Agree with both of you. I think you could make a case that trying to predict the pace scenario is a complete waste of time in most races. I've bet many horses that looked like lone speed, and yes, some did go wire to wire, but many others got into a speed duel and lost. Why? Because jockeys can read the past performances.

[dirty moose]

This is a great conversation fellas. Since Pandy and Cj, you both think the pace scenarios is secondary. What would be primary to you both? I guess what I'm asking is, you both open up the pp's and the primary thing you guys are looking for would be....?

[pandy]

Originally Posted by dirty moose

This is a great conversation fellas. Since Pandy and Cj, you both think the pace scenarios is secondary. What would be primary to you both? I guess what I'm asking is, you both open up the pp's and the primary thing you guys are looking for would be....?

I think trying to find the fastest and sharpest horse in the race (that is not outclassed) is primary, secondary, and thirdary... Find the horse that's ready to win and let the jockey figure out the pace scenario.

If you can't find a horse that looks ready to win and is decent value, find another race.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by dirty moose

This is a great conversation fellas. Since Pandy and Cj, you both think the pace scenarios is secondary. What would be primary to you both? I guess what I'm asking is, you both open up the pp's and the primary thing you guys are looking for would be....?

LOL, you just opened another can of worms!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Pandy, I would agree with you if races were run against the clock. Races are run over a distance of ground and closers run out of ground to cover. I know you write handicapping books and I assume when you say out of time you mean the same thing I am saying. I am being literal to make a specific point, which is closers are at a disadvantage due to the head start given to the leaders. When the dynamics of pace or track surface nullify the benefit of the head start, the closers benefit.

Everyone should try this experiment. Time the front running winner from the 3/4 pole and time the losing closer. You should find the closer if it is trying will cover the 3 furlongs about same time, sometimes faster, as the front runner, the only difference is the front runner reached the 3/4 pole before the closer.

Of course the closer will run the last part of the race faster than the pace-setter will...how could he not? The front runner used up energy during the race's early stages which the closer reserved. But the closer's apparent late charge is often an optical illusion. The closer is probably slowing down late too...although at a lesser rate of speed.

The front-runner's early lead should not be looked upon as a "head start", IMO. It's just that the other horses are employing different racing tactics.

[dilanesp]

One thing to remember is that there are far fewer pure speed/closer biases, and that a lot of those that appear to be that are actually good rails or bad rails (which of course, can happen on any track, fast or slow).

Not saying that's a total answer-- speed and closer biases do happen, but I've seen numerous situations where a speed horse won almost every race because of a rail bias, not a speed bias.

[pandy]

A lot of closers that win are just kind of grinding out similar splits and then passing tiring horses with their one paced style. But fast horses with off the pace styles, like Silky Sullivan and Zenyatta, obviously, these horses were very unusual in that they actually finished extremely fast, so fast that they could easily overcome a slow pace, which is supposed to be impossible for a deep closer. There aren't too many horses like that, though, very rare.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

One thing to remember is that there are far fewer pure speed/closer biases, and that a lot of those that appear to be that are actually good rails or bad rails (which of course, can happen on any track, fast or slow).

Not saying that's a total answer-- speed and closer biases do happen, but I've seen numerous situations where a speed horse won almost every race because of a rail bias, not a speed bias.

To me it's the same thing. If I see every winner go to the lead, race on the rail and wire the field, that's a gold rail, and a speed bias. If the rail is dead and all the winners rally wide, that's a dead rail track that favored closers.

[pandy]

Some of these tracks can drive you crazy. Gulfstream is bizarre. Sometimes the rail is dead and the track is tiring, often in early winter, then usually in the spring it changes to the exact opposite...but this spring for a few weeks the rail was dead and the track was deep and slow.

Monmouth was tiring for a few years after they put a new surface in for the Breeders Cup, then it went back to it's old speed favoring ways for a couple of years. This year so far it seems fair on most days.

NYRA does an excellent job. Years ago when Charlie Hayward become CEO he fired the track super and told the new guy that he would not tolerate biased tracks. He also said, no more dead rails at Belmont.

Saratoga and Aqueduct inner track used to be very speed biased, and Belmont had dead rails where almost every race was won by horses making 6 wide moves on the far turn, the old Balcony Move, as New Yorkers called it. Ever since then all of the surfaces have been fair to all styles more often than not. Yes, there are some biased days due to weather, but not many extremes. In fact, they do such a good job that most of the time when the track is sealed and sloppy it's still fair to all styles, and that's amazing because years ago all of the sloppy tracks in New York were very speed biased.