Pace is a secondary attribute, but many play it as a primary

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by cbp

It's a crap shoot. A horse bids at a key point of a 7f race but can't sustain it to the wire. Comes back in a 6f race.

Did the 7f race tighten it up and set it up nicely or did it wipe it out? And, is the trainer adept at using races to tighten his horses for a win or is he clueless and the horse won't change leads at a key point because it's not fit?

I don't think it's a crap shoot (at least most of the time). Your point of using only one race or the most recent race to base your decision is dangerous to follow. But, if you do then I can see why you would think it would be a crap shoot most of the time.

[Capper Al]

Form for me ends up being about elimination rules -- has this horse been on a layoff then what is the frequency of his works and how good is this trainer with returning horses etc....

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I sincerely doubt that a good trainer is routinely fooled by the form of his/her horse. I think that if they do get fooled it is after the horse has hit peak form and is starting the decline.

For determining emerging form there is no greater judge than the trainer and the people who work with the horse. Evidence is usually quite obvious. As such, I rely tremendously on trainer patterns for telling me when a horse is set to run.

Well, there definitely are some famous examples of trainer mistakes. Sunny Jim apparently didn't know what he had with Seabiscuit, and I distinctly remember Wayne Lukas admitting he got Charismatic totally wrong and gave up on a horse that almost won him the TC.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Well, there definitely are some famous examples of trainer mistakes. Sunny Jim apparently didn't know what he had with Seabiscuit, and I distinctly remember Wayne Lukas admitting he got Charismatic totally wrong and gave up on a horse that almost won him the TC.

Dilan, what you've given are "exceptions" not trainer mistakes. Try not to be a sharpshooter with other posters opinions, you end up looking petty....

[Speed Figure]

Form is the last thing I worry about. Horses that look bad in their last couple of starts, but show good back numbers and are a price today because of the bad couple of starts are horses that are on my tickets everytime.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Well, there definitely are some famous examples of trainer mistakes. Sunny Jim apparently didn't know what he had with Seabiscuit, and I distinctly remember Wayne Lukas admitting he got Charismatic totally wrong and gave up on a horse that almost won him the TC.

You are confusing ability with form. Totally different conversation.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Could you handicap a race for us...using your "primary factors"?

I think we can get more done by providing actual examples. You show us yours first...and then we'll show you ours.

I posted picks for KD in the selections thread, and now realize that my app is not in a state where these questions can be answered. All I'm doing at the moment is simply adding up factors like e-Ponies does. The handicapping in my system occurs when the elimination rules and some other modules get included.

Another interesting point of view here is how a race is looked at. It's a bit different when using an app than P&P handicapping. A lot of the handicapping becomes second guessing the app's output. I'll deal with this topic when I can.

BTW, KD is an unknown entity to me. I capped to see if I can get 50% winners in my two. Good Luck!

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Speed Figure

Form is the last thing I worry about. Horses that look bad in their last couple of starts, but show good back numbers and are a price today because of the bad couple of starts are horses that are on my tickets everytime.

There's money to be had on horses that show good back numbers. But I don't just bet any horse with good back numbers in hopes of getting a longshot.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

I want to hear from the "pace is the race" guys on this.

There are three primary factors in racing- form, class, and speed. Primary factors are different than secondary factors such as jockey, trainer, and pace. The idea of a primary factor is that together they should make your first cut for contenders in a race. After which, secondary factors are supposed to help one shift through the contenders that were cut out from the primary contenders. Yet many go right to pace as if pace is the race and the main and only primary factor. Some pace handicappers only consider other factors if they are extreme like a layoff of a year, but still weigh pace the main factor. Why?

Is it because today's racing secretaries group horses by class better than they did 50 years ago and, therefore, class is not an issue? Is it because form is too ambiguous? Is it because pace takes into account speed and, thereby, speed as an entity is not necessary to separate out?

Please speak up if you are a pace is the race player.

Thanks

Going back to your OP it appears that you have already decided what factors are primary and what factors are secondary. I doubt anyone here is going to change your mind about that but you ask the question anyway. Why is that?

If pace is a secondary factor, in your opinion, then how do you qualify a class rating/category or a speed rating, or for that matter a form cycle determination?

What I'm getting at is, if you think form, class, and speed are the primary factors then you must not use pace analysis to qualify any of those. Accordingly, you evidently are using these non-pace qualified primary factors for eliminations from win contention. And then you state that pace is used later to separate the remaining win contenders. This seems extremely counterproductive, to me.

IMO, factors used for eliminations should be as fair and unbiased as possible in order to "eliminate" the possibility of "eliminating" horses that pay higher prices. So, IMO, you are automatically throwing out all high priced horses, in the very first step of your method, they're gone forever. You are, in actuality, using factors for elimination that have not been qualified by the factor that is common to all of them, which is obtained via pace analysis. By eliminating higher priced horses you are limiting yourself to betting only lower priced horses.

My thinking is that, if you are going to have eliminations that remove horses from consideration completely, that process should go back to the most basic of all factors, the factor that is common to the ones you are going to use to make your final selection(s). IMO, that factor should be pace, and that is why many players start with pace analysis rather than class or speed, or any other factor. Using any so called "primary" factor at face value, without first qualifying that factor as to accuracy, seems rather obviously to be the basis of a poor strategy, one that will never give you any chance of making profit long term.

Call me crazy, or biased, or whatever, but the exclusion of pace analysis as a primary, and initial, factor, from any method that hinges on the PPs (and not on physicality, or trainer/jockey, or who beat who ideology), is a serious mistake and is doomed to failure.

Just my 2 cents worth, take it or leave it.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Dilan, what you've given are "exceptions" not trainer mistakes. Try not to be a sharpshooter with other posters opinions, you end up looking petty....

I don't know if they are exceptions. Horses are living breathing animals and we can only glean information about their conditions indirectly by observation. It strikes me that the assumption that trainers basically know their horses is sometimes going to be right and sometimes going to be wrong. The examples I gave are ones we know about because they involve famous horses; could happen all the time with claimers.

[classhandicapper]

I must use different definitions or a different style than most people.

I typically start by looking at a horse's last race in detail. Naturally, sometimes the last race is a total toss for some reason. Then I will go back a race or two. I look at the class of that race, whether the horses in that field look strong or weak for that class, my bias notes for that day, any trip notes I might have for that horse, how the horse ran relative to the other horses in that race given the race flow etc...

That tells me where the horse seems to be now.

Then I'll look at the horse's overall record to get a feel if he is likely to duplicate that race, exceed it, or regress based on any general pattern of development, his normal level, and who the trainer is.

At that point I usually have a feel for who the best horses are and by how much.

That's where I'll get into some kind of pace, distance, surface, post position etc.. analysis for today to determine if the conditions might favor or hinder someone.

I consider my style to be class handicapping because I am putting more emphasis on who beat who, by how much, and with what trip. However, I do look at speed and pace figures, especially for maiden graduates and other lightly raced horses whose ability can be tougher to determine.

[thaskalos]

I like reading the horse's past performances from the bottom up...and I would strongly recommend this practice to others. THIS is the natural way that the horse's races unfold...and this is the way to best assess the improvement or deterioration of the horse's form, as it gets to its more recent stage. This type of review takes a little getting used to, initially...but it provides an added insight into the game which makes the effort worthwhile.

I also like to note the time in-between the horse's starts. I actually write the days-away right unto the past-performance pages. I know that recent computer research indicates that the layoff factor is no longer a valid reason to eliminate a horse...but I have found that the trainers are "creatures of habit", just as much as the horses and the horseplayers are. I often see patterns in the spacing of the races of some of these horses...and I like to take note when a long-running training pattern has suddenly been altered.

Finally, as far as "figure analysis" is concerned, I can't help but notice that many players handicap as if they expect the horse to automatically repeat the best race that it has recently run. They'll find the horse with the most impressive recent race...and, after deciding that this race is "representative" of the class and distance of today's race...they determine that this horse is the best horse in today's field. I always remind myself that the horse is being asked to REPEAT his top performance today. Having the ability to run the best race at today's class and distance is one thing...but having the ability to REPEAT the race is often something totally different. I see that a lot of betting money is being burned up in the hope that a horse will repeat its most recent sharp race...when, sometimes, all the evidence in the past performances suggests that this horse lacks the ability to string two sharp races together.

The handicapping question we are being asked to answer isn't, "which horse has run the best most recent race under today's conditions?". This is an EASY question to answer. The pressing, and much more difficult question is: "Which horse will run the best TODAY?"

[raybo]

I agree on all counts!

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I like reading the horse's past performances from the bottom up...and I would strongly recommend this practice to others. THIS is the natural way that the horse's races unfold...and this is the way to best assess the improvement or deterioration of the horse's form, as it gets to its more recent stage. This type of review takes a little getting used to, initially...but it provides an added insight into the game which makes the effort worthwhile.

When I am "old-school" 'capping, mostly in the big races with huge pools, this is the way I determine form cycle. Starting at the 10th race back, if there are 10 PPs, looking at track, date, surface, distance, and class. Then scan the "numbers" for that performance and note any obvious obstacles that might be noted in the comments. Then I move up to the next race, looking at the same things (with days since the last race noted especially), and add a scan of the workouts between the first race and this one, if there are any listed, to see if the trainer appeared to make an attempt to strengthen any weaknesses observed in the last race through workouts (distance mostly). I then assign one of two categories for this race: "earning" or "conditioning" by asking myself: Was the horse entered to win money or was the race just a prep for the future? I continue that routine until I get to his most recent race, if that one was an "earning" race, was he fully extended and if so, did the horse get a rest before today's race. If that last race was a "conditioning" race, did the horse show the desired strengthening of the previous performance(s)? At that point I know pretty well why the horse is in today's race, "earning" or "conditioning".

I also like to note the time in-between the horse's starts. I actually write the days-away right unto the past-performance pages. I know that recent computer research indicates that the layoff factor is no longer a valid reason to eliminate a horse...but I have found that the trainers are "creatures of habit", just as much as the horses and the horseplayers are. I often see patterns in the spacing of the races of some of these horses...and I like to take note when a long-running training pattern has suddenly been altered.

Timing and intervals in both races and workouts (depending on the trainer and his/her general training methods) are an integral part of my above form cycle analysis.

Finally, as far as "figure analysis" is concerned, I can't help but notice that many players handicap as if they expect the horse to automatically repeat the best race that it has recently run. They'll find the horse with the most impressive recent race...and, after deciding that this race is "representative" of the class and distance of today's race...they determine that this horse is the best horse in today's field. I always remind myself that the horse is being asked to REPEAT his top performance today. Having the ability to run the best race at today's class and distance is one thing...but having the ability to REPEAT the race is often something totally different. I see that a lot of betting money is being burned up in the hope that a horse will repeat its most recent sharp race...when, sometimes, all the evidence in the past performances suggests that this horse lacks the ability to string two sharp races together.

The handicapping question we are being asked to answer isn't, "which horse has run the best most recent race under today's conditions?". This is an EASY question to answer. The pressing, and much more difficult question is: "Which horse will run the best TODAY?"

The assumption by many players that each horse is in condition and primed for a good effort, one representative of his best recent race, has always puzzled me. True, in the very big races, most of the horses have been prepped for this big race, so depending on the trainers involved one can be pretty sure that at least the trainers "think" the horses are ready. But, in the lesser grade races this assumption, IMO, is pure folly. I prefer my own analysis of form over assumptions, and sometimes I am completely wrong, as in yesterday's race in which Frosted exceeded my own estimation of what he would show in the race. I thought he would decline and was proven wrong. But, regardless, the practice of trying to assign a particular past race's performance to today's race is something I don't try to do. I generally use a combination of the horse's good races (similar surface and distance) or a combination of its average to poor races, instead, depending on my assignment of current form.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The handicapping question we are being asked to answer isn't, "which horse has run the best most recent race under today's conditions?". This is an EASY question to answer. The pressing, and much more difficult question is: "Which horse will run the best TODAY?"

I agree that we have to figure out who will run well today, but I don't think it's so easy to figure out who ran best recently. People that have total faith in the figures they are using and their interpretations of various trips, biases, pace impacts etc... may think it's easy. The reality is that 5 different sets of figures will give you 5 different answers and people will disagree on biased days (or not even look at that), trips etc...

The PA Derby was a good example.

I had some evidence that right on the rail may have been a little off on Travers day. Everyone on earth knew that Frosted ran a big race in the Travers pushing AP. But most people thought Upstart was terrible. To me the latter wasn't as conclusive. I was waiting for evidence from the list of horses I had from that day to come back.

I'm not sure what other people thought, but I was close to 100% sure the rail was total death at MNR the day of the WV Derby. So I knew Iron Fist and Tommy Macho were way better than they looked on paper.

For me, that was a complex mess to turn into a bet even before I tried to figure out anything about yesterday's conditions and the direction of the horses going forward.

I had 2 horses I knew were better than they looked that probably weren't good enough to win and a major question mark about the second choice. I don't think many people shared the same view as me about those horse's recent races.

[Tom]

I thought t was no-brainer. Frosted was by far the best horse and the odds prevented a bet on him. I gave no other horses other than Upstart a shot, and I did not really think Upstart is as good as he looked on paper.