The Mystery of Pace Figures

[Capper Al]

Traynor and Class,

You two seem to have a different view on the usefulness of pace from one another. I'm in the middle. I agree with you both. Sometimes I see value other times I don't. I'm thinking the word extreme makes some sense with pace. If we have two horses A and B and A has a 120 pace figure and B has an 80 then we might have something, but if we're comparing horse A with 94 to B with an 91 then we don't have anything.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Yes. I agree.

But if you are getting the running styles right often enough and getting the extreme paces right often enough, you already have a tool that enables you to downgrade or upgrade certain horses that might not be bet right.

For me at least, none of the pre race stuff is ever enough to stop the rest of the handicapping process right there. You have to look at the ability of the horses that may benefit also. I also try to profile the kinds of horses that win under that scenario .

I agree wholeheartedly. That is at odds with those who seem to believe that "pace analysis" (more or less on its own, and however that individual defines the term) is sufficient to use as a basis for wagering. It definitely is not.

The question becomes, then, exactly what is one analyzing? If one can narrow the probable winner of a given race to (for example) four horses that otherwise seem appropriately placed, in decent current form, not brutally outclassed, have reasonably competent trainers and jockeys, and whatever else, "pace analysis" may seem to be predictive. In some extreme cases, it may even be. In many other cases, it is about as useful (and about as predictive) as astrology, numerology, or other more esoteric forms of divination. It can be (generally) ignored with little impact on one's bottom line.

The only real way to determine the value of pace analysis (in isolation) is by conducting reasonably thoughtful research on test sets of similar races. That seems to be the area that many "pace analysts" avoid, most often with interesting and convoluted rationalizations of how and why such cannot (or should not) be done. And that seems to be the area so lacking in "credible research that establishes the validity of pace analysis (as generally viewed in the pop culture of handicapping) in predicting the winners of races."

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Traynor and Class,

You two seem to have a different view on the usefulness of pace from one another. I'm in the middle. I agree with you both. Sometimes I see value other times I don't. I'm thinking the word extreme makes some sense with pace. If we have two horses A and B and A has a 120 pace figure and B has an 80 then we might have something, but if we're comparing horse A with 94 to B with an 91 then we don't have anything.

In a field of entries at six furlongs, two of those entries have never finished in less than 1:10. All the others routinely finish in less than 1:10. I don't care how sophisticated one believes his or her "pace analysis" to be, or how advantaged or disadvantaged one believes the various entries to be in their "projected pace scenarios," I think anyone betting on one of the two entries that have never finished in less than 1:10 had best hold on tightly to his or her day job.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by traynor

In a field of entries at six furlongs, two of those entries have never finished in less than 1:10. All the others routinely finish in less than 1:10. I don't care how sophisticated one believes his or her "pace analysis" to be, or how advantaged or disadvantaged one believes the various entries to be in their "projected pace scenarios," I think anyone betting on one of the two entries that have never finished in less than 1:10 had best hold on tightly to his or her day job.

Traditional handicapping order is

Form
Class
Speed
Pace
Connection -- some use both Jockey and trainer other use just one

Pace follows speed. Your two slow horses should already be eliminate by the time one gets to pace. I agree with you.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Traditional handicapping order is

Form
Class
Speed
Pace
Connection -- some use both Jockey and trainer other use just one

Pace follows speed. Your two slow horses should already be eliminate by the time one gets to pace. I agree with you.

The question then becomes, is one actually "using" pace, or is the race already reduced to a sub-set that may simply have "pace values" that seem to be significant, but are only (loosely) correlated with some other factor(s) that may be the actual (and superior) indicators of an upcoming win?

Unfortunately, a lot of "pace analysis" is little more than busywork that produces what seem to be meaningful values that faint-hearted bettors can use to rationalize wagering. (An example is "matching the horse's preferred running style and pace figures to the track profile of winners.") A bit like betting on jockeys with green caps. Sometimes it "seems to work" (occasionally at generous mutuels) but is mostly nonsense.

[PICSIX]

1. For dirt races where all entrants have five or more running lines.
2. Sort your PP's by speed points (high to low).
3. Look for the winner in the top three, that's it.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If you are going to get into projecting pace, I think it also makes sense to get comfortable categorizing running styles. Horses will typically only run as fast early as required to get the desired position. Pace figures are measuring how fast they had to run to get that position, but not necessarily how fast they could have run if desired or whether they are comfortable sitting off the pace and finishing well.

That is what perplexes me, while the methods I use are complex my pace figures end up an adjusted Beyer for each stage of the race. Picking the early leader is probably my strongest trait, I clean up during speed biases, but poor results in other areas leave me just breaking even the last decade.
Lets say we have a two turn mile that is pretty much full of plodders. I use the last 3 races and find a horse who has run against a stronger pace than he will today and gets the 1/2 mile and 3/4 mile mark at a pace figure averaging in the high 60's even though he is mid-pack or worse. No one else in the field has ever exceeded mid 50's at the same early distances.

I envision my horse plodding his was to an easy 4-5 length lead down the back stretch and gliding home to an easy win. Instead another jockey sees an opportunity to control a slow pace and hustles his horse out of the starting gate and wires the field setting pedestrian fractions. My horse breaks mid-pack and rallies in the stretch for show money, not threatening the winner.

Often my horse will do what I expected and find himself leading for the first time in the early stages, but not as often as one would think. I wonder why? Does that horse like to run mid-pack early no matter how fast or slow the pace. Is the jockey going to ride the horse the same no matter what the projected pace? I am curious, what do the masses think?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by traynor

The question then becomes, is one actually "using" pace, or is the race already reduced to a sub-set that may simply have "pace values" that seem to be significant, but are only (loosely) correlated with some other factor(s) that may be the actual (and superior) indicators of an upcoming win?

Unfortunately, a lot of "pace analysis" is little more than busywork that produces what seem to be meaningful values that faint-hearted bettors can use to rationalize wagering. (An example is "matching the horse's preferred running style and pace figures to the track profile of winners.") A bit like betting on jockeys with green caps. Sometimes it "seems to work" (occasionally at generous mutuels) but is mostly nonsense.

I would say that's were I'm currently at with pace, a sub-set.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

I clean up during speed biases, but poor results in other areas leave me just breaking even the last decade.

Often my horse will do what I expected and find himself leading for the first time in the early stages, but not as often as one would think. I wonder why? Does that horse like to run mid-pack early no matter how fast or slow the pace. Is the jockey going to ride the horse the same no matter what the projected pace? I am curious, what do the masses think?

1. I think you should focus on what you are doing well. I know most horse players like a lot of action, but it's not against the law to pass races or to look for a track where your insights come into play more often.

2. It's probably a little of both. I own a small percentage of a few horses. Just last week one of them drew into a race without much speed after scratches. My horse is versatile. The rider was under instructions to go for the lead (and he did). A few weeks earlier in another race he was under instructions to take back because there were a couple of other fast horses (and he did). So the fact that he has speed or can finish late matters, but so does what the trainer is telling the jockey to do after we all analyze the PPs.

[Capper Al]

And so, tbat is the chess game.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

1. I think you should focus on what you are doing well. I know most horse players like a lot of action, but it's not against the law to pass races or to look for a track where your insights come into play more often.

2. It's probably a little of both. I own a small percentage of a few horses. Just last week one of them drew into a race without much speed after scratches. My horse is versatile. The rider was under instructions to go for the lead (and he did). A few weeks earlier in another race he was under instructions to take back because there were a couple of other fast horses (and he did). So the fact that he has speed or can finish late matters, but so does what the trainer is telling the jockey to do after we all analyze the PPs.

A VERY important (and routinely overlooked) aspect of pre-race analysis of any flavor. Horses only get to do what the humans want them to do.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

In a field of entries at six furlongs, two of those entries have never finished in less than 1:10. All the others routinely finish in less than 1:10. I don't care how sophisticated one believes his or her "pace analysis" to be, or how advantaged or disadvantaged one believes the various entries to be in their "projected pace scenarios," I think anyone betting on one of the two entries that have never finished in less than 1:10 had best hold on tightly to his or her day job.

The merest TYRO is capable of eliminating the two "slow" horses in your above example...usually at first glance. The effectiveness of pace handicapping cannot be seen in the elimination of the obviously slow horses...where words like "never" and "routinely" apply. In the "real world", to which you so often refer, the serious handicapping question confronting the player isn't "how to eliminate the obvious throwouts"; it's "how to separate the remaining contenders". And, if the handicapper is to do an adequate job of THAT...then he will have to use all the tools in his arsenal. And, in that regard, "pace analysis" is a mighty useful "tool" to have.

I would offer a detailed example of what I mean, but I am still a little reluctant at this moment. You know...this being a "competition", and all...

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

1. I think you should focus on what you are doing well. I know most horse players like a lot of action, but it's not against the law to pass races or to look for a track where your insights come into play more often.

2. It's probably a little of both. I own a small percentage of a few horses. Just last week one of them drew into a race without much speed after scratches. My horse is versatile. The rider was under instructions to go for the lead (and he did). A few weeks earlier in another race he was under instructions to take back because there were a couple of other fast horses (and he did). So the fact that he has speed or can finish late matters, but so does what the trainer is telling the jockey to do after we all analyze the PPs.

Thanks for the reply, on #1 so far in 41 years of betting horses (I started at 14, Step dad liked Los Alamitos). I have just recently learned a little patience and only mostly on Pick Sixes. If there isn't at least 3 dirt sprints I don't play, as I am so bad at turf routes I need to go 3 deep to catch a 6-5 shot. I am pretty sure I am a little ahead in my lifetime, but if I was more disciplined I would be well ahead. Back before OTB's (They weren't around till late 80's where I lived) I had a $250 or nothing rule (When in my late teens to mid 20's). If I was less than $250 ahead going into the 9th, it was all getting bet. I was either going to score big or walkout even. On the other side if I was in the hole I would bet enough to get even. Even if that last race was for 3 legged maidens dragging bags of cement.

As far as #2, I am pretty sure most trainers and jockeys do not have the time to become expert pace handicappers. Do they simplistically just look at naked times and running positions in the Racing Form, or do they buy pace figures?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

As far as #2, I am pretty sure most trainers and jockeys do not have the time to become expert pace handicappers. Do they simplistically just look at naked times and running positions in the Racing Form, or do they buy pace figures?

I don't know what other people do. Ownership is relatively new to me. I owned a piece of a horse with Team Valor years ago, but that was a very passive position. Barry Irwin called the shots. I'm a little more active in this case because the major partner is a friend. I handicap the race and discuss it with him the day before. He talks to the trainer, gets feedback, and then they decide. If I see the possibility of a bias before the race is run, I discuss it with the majority owner and it becomes part of the conversation in the paddock.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I don't know what other people do. Ownership is relatively new to me. I owned a piece of a horse with Team Valor years ago, but that was a very passive position. Barry Irwin called the shots. I'm a little more active in this case because the major partner is a friend. I handicap the race and discuss it with him the day before. He talks to the trainer, gets feedback, and then they decide. If I see the possibility of a bias before the race is run, I discuss it with the majority owner and it becomes part of the conversation in the paddock.

In other words...you've become what trainers call a "pain-in-the-ass owner".