Read Brohamer's Modern Pace Handicapping, confused about one element for beaten Ls

[cutchemist42]

Interesting read, even if I never do my own speed/pacce figures. However, I was confused by one calculation and tried to find an example of how he would do it.

Horse

1st fraction/2furlongs: 22.8 and 1.5 lengths behind
2nd fraction/4 furlongs: 44 and now in the lead by 1 length

I understand if horses are in the lead, they are calculated as 0 beaten lengths. So when Tom does this calculation, he would not use a gained length of 2.5 lengths for the calculation, simply a 0?

[cj]

He would use a gain of 1.5 lengths.

[Tom]

Yes, 1.5
He gained 1.5 lengths on the pace of the race, and from then on was the pace of the race, so no matter how much he opened up, he only gained the 1.5 lengths.

If he goes from 1st by 1 to 1st by 10, he has no gains as he was the pace of the race at both calls.

[cj]

Easiest way to think about it is by using time.

If we assume .16 second per length at the pace call, he went 22.8 +.24 for the 1.5 lengths for a total of 23.04. He was leading at the half, so he went 44. His second quarter time would be 20.96.

You'd get the same result the other way. 44 - 22.8 = 21.2 - the .24 for 1.5 lengths gained, or again 20.96.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by cutchemist42

Interesting read, even if I never do my own speed/pacce figures. However, I was confused by one calculation and tried to find an example of how he would do it.

Horse

1st fraction/2furlongs: 22.8 and 1.5 lengths behind
2nd fraction/4 furlongs: 44 and now in the lead by 1 length

I understand if horses are in the lead, they are calculated as 0 beaten lengths. So when Tom does this calculation, he would not use a gained length of 2.5 lengths for the calculation, simply a 0?

The beaten lengths metric although widely used today is an outdated. concept and iis still used today because the major providers of racing data have yet to update their data collection process with today's technology.

Having said that and using DRF/Equibase data time per length Will always be a guesstimate at best because distance is not measured by DRF/Equibase.

[cutchemist42]

So also to confirm

A horse who is 4 lengths back at the 2nd call, and closes andwins by a length has 4 lengths gained put into those formulas as well?

[Delta Cone]

Originally Posted by cutchemist42

So also to confirm

A horse who is 4 lengths back at the 2nd call, and closes andwins by a length has 4 lengths gained put into those formulas as well?

Yes. Don't over complicate this. If a horse is in first place at any call, the beaten lengths number is zero. Always. It doesn't matter how far ahead he is.

So, if a horse moves from 10 lengths back to take the lead, he gained 10 lengths (10 minus 0=10).

If he moves from 5 lengths back to take the lead, he gained 5 lengths (5 minus 0=5)...and so on.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cratos

The beaten lengths metric although widely used today is an outdated. concept and iis still used today because the major providers of racing data have yet to update their data collection process with today's technology.

Having said that and using DRF/Equibase data time per length Will always be a guesstimate at best because distance is not measured by DRF/Equibase.

I'm pretty sure at least 99% of serious horseplayers know that by now.

I'll add this too, even once times are given for each horse at each call, I still think there is a place for beaten lengths. Sure, we can say Horse A ran the half in 45.14 and Horse B in 46.12, but that is tough to visualize. I'd like to see accurate times and a beaten lengths number in the PPs.

[fmolf]

If you are a true believer in the herd mentality and the importance of how a race is run in relation to the herd ....then the old time trainers are right to say"time only matters in jail"

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by fmolf

If you are a true believer in the herd mentality and the importance of how a race is run in relation to the herd ....then the old time trainers are right to say"time only matters in jail"

There is enough anecdotal evidence out there, to prove -- or disprove -- ANY handicapping theory.

[Tom]

And enough hard data to suggest nothing readily available to the public out performs good speed figures.

[cj]

Originally Posted by fmolf

If you are a true believer in the herd mentality and the importance of how a race is run in relation to the herd ....then the old time trainers are right to say"time only matters in jail"

Old time trainers probably didn't make much money at the windows.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by cj

Old time trainers probably didn't make much money at the windows.

Are you serious? I certainly respect your figures and won't argue that today having accurate pace and speed figures are a must, but wouldn't you agree the game was far different before the "Information Age"?

Even as recently as 1990 when Unbridled ran a slow time in the Florida Derby, I recall Carl Nafzger being quoted as "time only counts when you're in jail".

Seems to me at least some of the old time trainers, with lowly win percentages half of today's norm, must have done pretty well at the windows.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

Are you serious? I certainly respect your figures and won't argue that today having accurate pace and speed figures are a must, but wouldn't you agree the game was far different before the "Information Age"?

Even as recently as 1990 when Unbridled ran a slow time in the Florida Derby, I recall Carl Nafzger being quoted as "time only counts when you're in jail".

Seems to me at least some of the old time trainers, with lowly win percentages half of today's norm, must have done pretty well at the windows.

I am serious. People have been making pretty good speed figures a long time before they became popularized by Andy Beyer. I have a book that is detailed in this piece:

https://www.thorograph.com/archive/h...%20lesson.html

People that said "time only counts when you're in jail" probably didn't understand why times didn't seem to matter, but I guarantee you some of the biggest gamblers did.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by cj

I am serious. People have been making pretty good speed figures a long time before they became popularized by Andy Beyer. I have a book that is detailed in this piece:

https://www.thorograph.com/archive/h...%20lesson.html

People that said "time only counts when you're in jail" probably didn't understand why times didn't seem to matter, but I guarantee you some of the biggest gamblers did.

Interesting read. That book, the 1941 print edition, is available on Amazon for a cool $1000.

I think we're looking at this differently. I would agree that professional gamblers would have a much higher vested interest in figures, and the race times used for calculating them.

But I would argue that trainers, making wagers on the stock they train, could do all right by using other factors, most importantly the intent of the connections (at least in cheaper races). And with horses racing more often in the good old days, it was also probably easier to know the class hierarchy at the local track as well.

Oh, and while I agree it would be nice to have accurate times and beaten lengths in the PPs, wouldn't that cut into your business?