TimeformUS Figs Key to Belmont Longshot Win

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by Tom

When you finish your physics homework, this is the article Bob referenced. Good read, and I thing it will explain the race more than theoretical formulae will.

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...delssohns_Euro
tactics_influenced_Travers_Stakes_123

I took the last 42 10 furlong races at Saratoga, the distance he used in the article and calculated the fractions and percentage as he showed in his chart.

Looking at the slow down between F1 an F2, the average through 2017 was (-.31) in percentages.

The chart below shows the races in order from 2005.
Funny, the two absolute greatest slow downs, or Brakes on, and called it.....the two races THIS year.

I like your cynicism and I don’t have an adverse retort. Also, I was asked to post support of my assertion that this could be done mathematically.

Therefore, if you believe what you have responded with, the problem is your lack of understanding of math and physics.

On this forum from time to time there are complaints about the “The Whales” and their participation in this game; I only wish you had been with me during the Saratoga Meet because you would witnessed some sophisticated gamblers using some very intricate software programs based on math and science; and winning with some of the algorithms which I contributed to developing.

I like you, wager on horseracing to win and therefore I have been able to win and wager in this “game” at a high level for an extended period due to my expertise coupled with my partners knowledge and diligent help.

Lastly, why the cynicism? Does it make you feel better? If so, please offer some up to any of my posts in the future because now I know I am contributing to your betterment.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I only wish you had been with me during the Saratoga Meet because you would witnessed some sophisticated gamblers using some very intricate software programs based on math and science; and winning with some of the algorithms which I contributed to developing..

I only wish that you would quit REDBOARDING.....

[thaskalos]

I must have wasted all my years in this game. To me, when a sprinter takes the lead and maintains it while running a below-average half mile because of a slower-than-average second fraction...then the horse has placed itself at an enviable advantage, and its chances of victory have improved greatly as a result. Now I have discovered that the ideal setup is for the front runner to "utilize his early speed to its utmost"...and maintain a "slightly less than full speed pace"...up until the unavoidable deceleration at the finish. I only wish that I would have found this out sooner...so I could make full use of this knowledge at the betting windows. Well...better late than never, I guess.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

I only wish that you would quit REDBOARDING.....

It amazes me how persons who don't know each other and probably never will meet each other have Internet animosity.

If you think I am "red-boarding", you should not read my post(s) because you don't believe them and they would be a waste of your time.

But no, you need to vent your sarcasm as though it is fact.

However, I have neither ownership interest or influence on this forum and over the past 14 years that I have been here, I posted about .84 posts per day.

However, if my small amount of posting concerns you, go to the powers who control this forum and asked that my permission be taken away.

Your anger (which I will never understand) is your way of venting and to that extent, that is both healthy and good for you because it is said when you vent, you become more relaxed; and apparently you need it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I must have wasted all my years in this game. To me, when a sprinter takes the lead and maintains it while running a below-average half mile because of a slower-than-average second fraction...then the horse has placed itself at an enviable advantage, and its chances of victory have improved greatly as a result.

I sense a little sarcasm.

There are 2 things going on.

1. Conserving energy for the finish.

2. Your position relative to the other horses.

What you gain in energy by slowing down the pace may not be as much as you lose by allowing the horses behind you to get closer to you because you are going slower.

IMHO, the tradeoff depends where you are on the pace scale.

If you are sprinting and run 48 to the half instead of 47, you aren't saving a ton of meaningful energy. Those are both slow fractions. If by going 48 you allow 3 closers to be 5 lengths closer than they would have been they may nail you. I'd rather be 5 lengths further ahead after a 47 than going 48 with a bunch of horses on my ass.

Change the fractions to 44 and 45 and I'd way rather get away with 45 because the difference in energy consumption between 44 and 45 can be huge (unless we are taking about an elite sprinter). The extra lengths ahead is swamped by the energy differential.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I sense a little sarcasm.

There are 2 things going on.

1. Conserving energy for the finish.

2. Your position relative to the other horses.

What you gain in energy by slowing down the pace may not be as much as you lose by allowing the horses behind you to get closer to you because you are going slower.

IMHO, the tradeoff depends where you are on the pace scale.

If you are sprinting and run 48 to the half instead of 47, you aren't saving a ton of meaningful energy. Those are both slow fractions. If by going 48 you allow 3 closers to be 5 lengths closer than they would have been they may nail you. I'd rather be 5 lengths further ahead after a 47 than going 48 with a bunch of horses on my ass.

Change the fractions to 44 and 45 and I'd way rather get away with 45 because the difference in energy consumption between 44 and 45 can be huge (unless we are taking about an elite sprinter). The extra lengths ahead is swamped by the energy differential.

I am tired of arguing...so, I will tone it down for a while. This conversation got me so agitated that I actually picked a fight with Cj...which is something that I haven't done here since the Zenyatta days. I will quietly bow out of this thread...with the following parting comment:

I disagree with 91% of what you and bobphilo have stated in this thread. Ciao!

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Cratos

However, if my small amount of posting concerns you, go to the powers who control this forum and asked that my permission be taken away.

It obvious that English is your second language and you're having a hard time understanding what REDBOARDING means....However, I will show you compassion by never replying to another one of your posts....or reading them as well.

You'll self-destruct on your own, as usual...

[jay68802]

Interesting comments here, did not play the race myself. So I put the race into the computer and have the ranked the lowest or best (column AM).

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I sense a little sarcasm.

There are 2 things going on.

1. Conserving energy for the finish.

2. Your position relative to the other horses.

What you gain in energy by slowing down the pace may not be as much as you lose by allowing the horses behind you to get closer to you because you are going slower.

IMHO, the tradeoff depends where you are on the pace scale.

If you are sprinting and run 48 to the half instead of 47, you aren't saving a ton of meaningful energy. Those are both slow fractions. If by going 48 you allow 3 closers to be 5 lengths closer than they would have been they may nail you. I'd rather be 5 lengths further ahead after a 47 than going 48 with a bunch of horses on my ass.

Change the fractions to 44 and 45 and I'd way rather get away with 45 because the difference in energy consumption between 44 and 45 can be huge (unless we are taking about an elite sprinter). The extra lengths ahead is swamped by the energy differential.

Not exactly. The reason that the accelerate - decelerate - re-accelerate pattern is so negative is due to the tiring effect of the stop and go accelerations on the horse. This is true without relation to the position of the other horses, though the possible advantages of the scenario you describe may be an incidental by-product.

You are correct however, in saying that the negative effect of this uneven pattern is increased as the pace increases.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Interesting comments here, did not play the race myself. So I put the race into the computer and have the ranked the lowest or best (column AM).

Forgive my ignorance but I have no idea of the meaning of the numbers on your spreadsheet. Please explain to a computer software newby.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Not exactly. The reason that the accelerate - decelerate - re-accelerate pattern is so negative is due to the tiring effect of the stop and go accelerations on the horse. This is true without relation to the position of the other horses, though the possible advantages of the scenario you describe may be an incidental by-product.

You are correct however, in saying that the negative effect of this uneven pattern is increased as the pace increases.

THERE IS NO NOTICEABLE STOP-AND-GO ON THE HORSE! The fixed points of call report the running times as if the fractions were somehow fragmented...but the reality is that these fractions flow into one another...and the acceleration/deceleration is a lot more gradual than the separated fractions make it seem. Take a look at a large group of fractional pace ratings...and you'll see that these "stop-and-go" patterns are the NORM rather than the exception. This isn't the same as the "stop-and-go" traffic that we encounter in our cars.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

THERE IS NO NOTICEABLE STOP-AND-GO ON THE HORSE! The fixed points of call report the running times as if the fractions were somehow fragmented...but the reality is that these fractions flow into one another...and the acceleration/deceleration is a lot more gradual than the separated fractions make it seem. Take a look at a large group of fractional pace ratings...and you'll see that these "stop-and-go" patterns are the NORM rather than the exception. This isn't the same as the "stop-and-go" traffic that we encounter in our cars.

for the most part the fractions show rates of deceleration, how do you "Stop and go" and decelerate at the same time?

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

THERE IS NO NOTICEABLE STOP-AND-GO ON THE HORSE! The fixed points of call report the running times as if the fractions were somehow fragmented...but the reality is that these fractions flow into one another...and the acceleration/deceleration is a lot more gradual than the separated fractions make it seem. Take a look at a large group of fractional pace ratings...and you'll see that these "stop-and-go" patterns are the NORM rather than the exception. This isn't the same as the "stop-and-go" traffic that we encounter in our cars.

"I will quietly bow out of this thread".....Not a chance..

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

"I will quietly bow out of this thread".....Not a chance..

That was my last reply here...EVER!

I've had enough.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Forgive my ignorance but I have no idea of the meaning of the numbers on your spreadsheet. Please explain to a computer software newby.

All 38? Most of them are where a horse ranks in my own factors developed using my eyes and result charts. The 2 columns after the average rank are how a horse uses his energy. The first (AN) is projected total pace to the pace call, notice the is highest in this column and would be expected to be in the lead. The next number (AO) is the remaining energy for late pace. For pace setters at Belmont this number needs to be over .33, for the horse to be considered.