Correlating race-flow, winner's running style, and winner's odds with speed-figs

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Since speed ratings are a function of pace--and not the other way around...I don't see any value there. Pace figs would be more telling, IMO.

Food for thought, though.

So does a fast pace make a deep closer run faster?

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

So does a fast pace make a deep closer run faster?

I would say indirectly, yes.

[sjk]

Originally Posted by mountainman

It stands to reason that races won by chalk would result in higher beyers ( sheets-figs..etc). And shouldn't races in which a loose lead is established early- whether wired, or not-also trend toward bigger numbers (when allowing for class-level, of course) ?? And do front-running winners, on avg, post higher numbers than victorious closers or stalkers??

I'm wondering if any poster has explored such presumed correlations.

Mark,

I looked at your thought about odds being related to winning speed without really expecting to see anything but its there.

Odds-on horses run around 1 1/2 points better than average and double digit odds horses run 2 or more points slower than average with the more increasing at higher odds ranges.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

--and:


Ok. Here's a real life example that just happened a few minutes ago on the AQU inner during the running of R7:

The favorite, #3 MANIPULATED, a horse I see as mostly a closer, and who I thought would distribute max enegery in the latter stages of the race - ended up pressing the pacesetter from the outset - and in so doing - distributed his energy early - and even though he was the best horse in the race (my opinion) -- had become softened up about the time they hit the sixteenth pole.

On the other hand, #4 DO SHARE, a horse I see as much more of an early runner, and who I thought would distribute max energy during the early stages of the race - sat chilly while covered up behind dueling leaders.

And when his rider caught a break because a hole opened up in front of him during the stretch run when the now softened up #3 MANIPULATED momentarily drifted in -- that's when Mike Luzzi said "distribute your energy NOW!"...

And DO SHARE responded by doing what racehorses are supposed to do: He gave his all, surged forward, and ran down a tired favorite.

Both riders changed up the run styles of their respective mounts -- and both horses distributed their energy in a way that was the opposite of what I would have predicted.

EDIT: Taking things a step further within the context of the question being asked in post #1 at the top of this thread:

When MANIPULATED comes back to race again: As a bettor I think I might do well to refer back to my notes about his AQU R7 01-15-2017 running line because his speed and pace figs from that line aren't likely to paint a true picture of his ability or form.


-jp

.

Much of that could be attributable to temperament and running style, rather than early velocity. Lots of races are won by apparent speeds that adapt to a contested pace or speed-laden race by displaying an unforseen ability to sit and pass horses. And many of those winners have buried history of stalking or even closing with some success.

In a similar vein, lots of closers fold up after prompting sluggish fractions. And lots of THOSE horses aren't moving any faster than they do before launching successful rallies. Again, the difference isn't velocity OR energydistribution. It's temperament, training, and running style.

Tx very much for weighing in, Jeff. Your posts are always thoughtful and illuminating.

[sjk]

The other one is true too. Winners who were clear at the first call ran about 3 points better than average, other leaders 1 point better and the closers a couple of points below average.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by sjk

Mark,

I looked at your thought about odds being related to winning speed without really expecting to see anything but its there.

Odds-on horses run around 1 1/2 points better than average and double digit odds horses run 2 or more points slower than average with the more increasing at higher odds ranges.

Bingo. As I suspected. And you ARE, by the way, always the answer man.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by sjk

The other one is true too. Winners who were clear at the first call ran about 3 points better than average, other leaders 1 point better and the closers a couple of points below average.

Tx again. It's all as I suspected. And I'm sure some other posters would have assumed as much, also.

But it's gratifying to see my assumptions confirmed.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by AndyC

So does a fast pace make a deep closer run faster?

Post #20 in this thread would imply otherwise.

But my gut says yes. Horses are mentally fragile creatures that thrive on confidence and function best as BULLIES. So, when fast splits begin to take a toll and rivals begin coming back to them, (sharp)closers (who are destined to fire) are emboldened and really kick it in.

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by AndyC

So does a fast pace make a deep closer run faster?

I would say no...a closer isn't part of the pace--so he either will benefit from--or lose due to what happens ahead of him.

The one-run deep closer is still going to run his race... as with the one-dimensional speedball, who's dependent on what happens behind him.

Interesting as it may be--where's the predictive value in knowing a horse with a clear lead @ 1st call will probably run to a faster final time?

Odds-on favorites run fast. And double-digit longshots run slower. The toteboard has already predicted that for us.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Interesting as it may be--where's the predictive value in knowing a horse with a clear lead @ 1st call will probably run to a faster final time?

Odds-on favorites run fast. And double-digit longshots run slower. The toteboard has already predicted that for us.

My agenda is pretty simple: to verify alternative ways of determining how formidable a task vanquished opponents were faced with. Easy ways that a bit of homework-looking up charts on invading horses, for instance -might pay off for weekend players.

And I don't think it's ever pointless to challenge things we hold true but have never objectively verified-however evident they seem.

Nor were all the findings completely expected. Would you have anticipated that frontrunning winners post speed-figs THAT much higher than horses that score from off-pace?? Or that favorites aside, winning beyers correlate that precisely with such a wide spectrum of winning odds??

Plus, I do suspect that , obvious or not, these now-verified tendencies can be tweaked, incorporated, and played with.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I think Mark hit on one example of where I think that in some cases a closer will run 'better' if there are horses to run past. Those that seem to pick up interest, momentum, and confidence as they advance through the field. I think that there's an element of parsing what is meant by how they are 'helped' and of course their best races are those where the pace is collapsing and they are passing horses by default. But imaging the scenario of the race where a pacesetter in a short field has spurted clear into the turn and opened up nine on them just as the closer is rallying into second past the others at the head of the lane - as I think Mark is alluding to, that closer is just going to run faster if there are six horses between him and that pacesetter to pass on the way there and give him a constant achievable target to run at. When those six horses don't exist and there's just that nine length gap to look at, some horses just won't be as aggressive running through the lane with a lonely target in the horizon. The fact that maybe Mark and I kind of see something alike her may in part be reflective of just how much time we spend in the midst of cheap claimers.

In my opinion, of course.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I think Mark hit on one example of where I think that in some cases a closer will run 'better' if there are horses to run past. Those that seem to pick up interest, momentum, and confidence as they advance through the field. I think that there's an element of parsing what is meant by how they are 'helped' and of course their best races are those where the pace is collapsing and they are passing horses by default. But imaging the scenario of the race where a pacesetter in a short field has spurted clear into the turn and opened up nine on them just as the closer is rallying into second past the others at the head of the lane - as I think Mark is alluding to, that closer is just going to run faster if there are six horses between him and that pacesetter to pass on the way there and give him a constant achievable target to run at. When those six horses don't exist and there's just that nine length gap to look at, some horses just won't be as aggressive running through the lane with a lonely target in the horizon. The fact that maybe Mark and I kind of see something alike her may in part be reflective of just how much time we spend in the midst of cheap claimers.

In my opinion, of course.

Sharp post. You stated my opinion much better than I did.

The overlooked factor, I think, is that speedballs don't hold a monopoly on mental fragility. Closers also are weak-willed bullies, and perform best when horses they pick off put up little resistance. They then smell blood, and that makes them run faster.

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by mountainman

And I don't think it's ever pointless to challenge things we hold true but have never objectively verified-however evident they seem.

Didn't mean to imply anything here was pointless, Mark. I could have been more clear.

Was posting while watching football

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Didn't mean to imply anything here was pointless, Mark. I could have been more clear.

Was posting while watching football

Me, too. Extreme Steeler fan. Soooo ominous that they couldn't score a single td. Not even with Superman in the lineup. He wears a Lev Bell mask.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Sharp post. You stated my opinion much better than I did.

The overlooked factor, I think, is that speedballs don't hold a monopoly on mental fragility. Closers also are weak-willed bullies, and perform best when horses they pick off put up little resistance. They then smell blood, and that makes them run faster.

Based on your belief, wouldn't the final fraction of a closer be faster in races where the speed backed up?