Track Effect on Pace

[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.

[cj]

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.

Generally, yes, a faster track will favor speed horses. The race is shorter time wise, so the horse will require less stamina than on a slower track.

That said, "generally" can and will get you into trouble. We bet on specific races, not general ones.

No track, slow or fast, really ever favors closers in my opinion.

[pandy]

I've always felt, and I have no way of proving this, that one of the main reasons closers are at a bigger disadvantage over a fast surface because there is simply less time to catch up. On the other hand, if a track is producing very slow times, that means that the last half and last quarter is usually slow so the closer has more time to catch up. Some people would argue that the slower track will make the closer's rally slower so things will even out, but it doesn't seem to work that way. One of the reasons why Santa Anita favors horses that race close to the pace is because it is a very fast surface.

Gulfstream had some dead rail slow track days this winter, such as Florida Derby day, and closers did much better than they normally do.

If you were running in a race and coming from off the pace, what would you rather run into a :46 last half or a :49 last half? Even if the footing is deeper, you still have more time to catch up.

Of course another factor is that closers usually rally wide while front runners are towards the inside and often slow tracks have deep, sometimes called, "dead" rails so the speed horses are running in quicksand and the closers are on the better part of the track.

This is what happens at Parx.

[DJofSD]

I believe that lactic acid plays a key role.

For shorter races, the lactic acid build up in the sprinters does not happen quickly enough to allow the slower but more tolerating of lactic acid closers to press their advantage. When the distance increases and/or the surface conditions require more effort, the closers will have the advantage.

[Robert Goren]

A slow track does guarantee a closer bias by any means. Some of the slowest tracks I have seen were huge front runner bias. I word of warning about front running style. You take a closing grade I stakes horse and run him against a bunch of 25k claimers, chances are that it will go to the front. That is one of the reasons why very good horses are often on the lead in their Maiden and "NW of a race other than" and then become horses that sit just off the pace in 3rd or 4th position or even become closers when they become stakes horses.
I am of the opinion that most runners have a distance that when they reach they will begin to stop. That distance can be added to by track condition or by the shape they are in. Some trainers also hold a theory similar to mine. That is why if you ask a trainer you know will say " the horse will be a little short today" even though it looks like in the DRF that the race may be too short for it or just right. It has been in these cases, the trainer is almost always correct. Which why a handicapper friend of mine developed the pace theory I now subscribe to many years ago.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I am of the opinion that most runners have a distance that when they reach they will begin to stop.

I agree.
Of course a lot depends on how many front runners will vie for the lead, with lone speed runners being dangerous in any race.
More importantly though, on any given day a 6 furlong track can behave "as if" it's longer than 6 furlongs, or "as if" it's shorter than 6 furlongs in terms of the energy it's taking out of front runners.

[pandy]

There are certainly exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking, lightning fast surfaces favor horses that race close to the pace, and vice versa.

[MPRanger]

Originally Posted by cj

No track, slow or fast, really ever favors closers in my opinion.

With that said, as you know, some pace scenarios favor closers. Do you think such a scenario as a faster or slower track adds or detracts from a closers ability to take charge?

Would a pace scenario with a lot of early speed favoring a closer be different at speedy Keeneland than it would at slower Timonium?

[cj]

Originally Posted by MPRanger

With that said, as you know, some pace scenarios favor closers. Do you think such a scenario as a faster or slower track adds or detracts from a closers ability to take charge?

Would a pace scenario with a lot of early speed favoring a closer be different at speedy Keeneland than it would at slower Timonium?

I would say yes, though I wouldn't use Timonium since it is such a small track. That effects times more than the surface itself.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by MPRanger

With that said, as you know, some pace scenarios favor closers. Do you think such a scenario as a faster or slower track adds or detracts from a closers ability to take charge?

Would a pace scenario with a lot of early speed favoring a closer be different at speedy Keeneland than it would at slower Timonium?

Not to answer for CJ, but IMO, few, if any, traditional sized track surfaces ever favor closers. Closers become favored by dead rails and/or multiple fast early speed horses competing against each other early in races. Generally, closers are at a disadvantage before the gate opens, unless the previous races have indicated a deep/dead rail or a couple of paths off the rail, where most front runners run. Even if there are multiple speed horses in the race, the closer is still disadvantaged unless/until a speed battle ensues among those speed horses, and if it never happens then the closer continues to be disadvantaged, regardless of the actual speed of the track.

[cj]

Originally Posted by raybo

Not to answer for CJ, but IMO, few, if any, traditional sized track surfaces ever favor closers. Closers become favored by dead rails and/or multiple fast early speed horses competing against each other early in races. Generally, closers are at a disadvantage before the gate opens, unless the previous races have indicated a deep/dead rail or a couple of paths off the rail, where most front runners run. Even if there are multiple speed horses in the race, the closer is still disadvantaged unless/until a speed battle ensues among those speed horses, and if it never happens then the closer continues to be disadvantaged, regardless of the actual speed of the track.

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

[raybo]

Originally Posted by cj

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

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.

[cj]

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.

I always consider predicting the pace a secondary factor, though there are times it is the main reason for the bet. Those times are when it doesn't appear obvious in print.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by cj

I always consider predicting the pace a secondary factor, though there are times it is the main reason for the bet. Those times are when it doesn't appear obvious in print.

Obviously, pace assessment is secondary, all the other work must be done first, but often that secondary pace assessment is the difference between losing the bet and winning it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by pandy

I've always felt, and I have no way of proving this, that one of the main reasons closers are at a bigger disadvantage over a fast surface because there is simply less time to catch up. On the other hand, if a track is producing very slow times, that means that the last half and last quarter is usually slow so the closer has more time to catch up. Some people would argue that the slower track will make the closer's rally slower so things will even out, but it doesn't seem to work that way. One of the reasons why Santa Anita favors horses that race close to the pace is because it is a very fast surface.

Gulfstream had some dead rail slow track days this winter, such as Florida Derby day, and closers did much better than they normally do.

If you were running in a race and coming from off the pace, what would you rather run into a :46 last half or a :49 last half? Even if the footing is deeper, you still have more time to catch up.

Of course another factor is that closers usually rally wide while front runners are towards the inside and often slow tracks have deep, sometimes called, "dead" rails so the speed horses are running in quicksand and the closers are on the better part of the track.

This is what happens at Parx.

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.