The Bloodhorse just ran an article claiming there is a \"historical\" advantage to to early speed horses in the Belmont. I think this notion of race specific data is nonsense. Ask any statistician. The sample size for a race run just once a year is way too small to be significant unless one goes way back which then gives you an unrepresentative sample of what\'s currently the case. There is nothing magical about one particular race that defies the laws of probabilities of all other races.
Yes the lack of early speed in this years Belmont gives speed horses an advantage but that is true for any race from $5,000 claimers to the Classics.
Bob,
I just got beat on the wire with Wild Chatter out of the pick 4 and then read your post.They say timing in life is everything!
My advice to you is to private message Miff and ask him to please reserve you a burn barrel in the Bowery in the statiscians unit. Believe me you will have lots of company and probably will run into a colleague or 2 from MIT.
In the words of Harvey Pack \" Have A Good Life\"
Frank D.
Frank,
Sorry but I don\'t get your Wild Chatter reference.
Your reply may be clever but cryptic. Are you taking a shot at me for debunking the pseudo-statistical notion of race-specific analysis?
I can\'t recall enjoying a post more that I understood so little!
You and me both. Now if we could just find a betting site that paid off on obscure humor....
Two things that I think make it legit:
#1. 1 1/2 mile is an extremely rare distance for these jockeys to run. Virtually all of those races on turf. 1.5 miles on Dirt? Who runs them? Many jockeys think they have to take back. Meanwhile, most of these champion caliber horses can clip off 24 seconds all day without blowing out a candle.
#2. Lots of jockeys come to Belmont and are inexperienced with the layout and panic when asking their mounts for their runs. One run closers get asked too early and they putter out early in the stretch.
I\'ll never bet a horse that figures to be more than 5 off the lead in the Belmont.
True many Belmonts have been lost due to the riders\' ignorance of the large Belmont track. However these were not just closers. Smarty Jones and Real Quiet made premature moves from the front. Afleet Alex made his winning move from off the pace as did Birdstone.
There is no reason not to evaluate the race like any other race according to figures and pace scenario analysis but with added emphasis on the jockey\'s ability to ride intelligently.
I think Sek is dead right on this. How many of these colts will ever run 1 1/2 on the dirt again? Probably none or for sure not many. And anyone who makes a move early on the final turn is usually moving too early. Closers have their late kick muted if the front runners go slow enough early, which they usually do. Clicking off 12 and change 1/8ths helps the fromt running types. Trainers have caught on to this. Pletcher almost always sends his Belmont starters out of the gate to be towards the front, regardless of previous running style.
There\'s been some unlikely results, in part, because of this. See Ruler On Ice, etc. Far as i\'m concerned Da Tara should be a cuss phrase.
Forget who on this board correctly predicted that Pletcher was going to send Commissioner and he lost by a nose.
Destin??
The owner of scout stable or Covello
It was me, that horse was the worst beat of my life I had the tri, super, Pick 4, Pick 3 and a big win bet on Commissioner at 28-1 if he only would hang on to win.
bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Bloodhorse just ran an article claiming there
> is a \"historical\" advantage to to early speed
> horses in the Belmont. I think this notion of race
> specific data is nonsense. Ask any statistician.
> The sample size for a race run just once a year is
> way too small to be significant unless one goes
> way back which then gives you an unrepresentative
> sample of what\'s currently the case. There is
> nothing magical about one particular race that
> defies the laws of probabilities of all other
> races.
> Yes the lack of early speed in this years Belmont
> gives speed horses an advantage but that is true
> for any race from $5,000 claimers to the Classics.
The Preakness has had many closers hit the board, often at nice mutuels.
Yes, correct.
Another painful moment in my life. Should rename it Tonalist Park.
Checkout the Belmont Stakes archives. Interesting connection between certain distances run prior to running in the Belmont and the 1 1/2 distance. Stay Thirsty, Ruler on Ice, D\'Tara, Sarava, just to name a few.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Do you have a link for this? Sounds interesting.
Whether or not the horses will ever run this distance again is irrelevant to betting the race in the present.
Actually 12 second clips are not a slow pace in a long 12 furlong race.
Premature moves due to jockey ignorance of the Big Sandy are a big factor whether the horse is speed or a closer, as I said, and this is especially true in long distance races whether in the Belmont or not.
Agree about the early move worry, but you are exactly right about the pace. These top level horses can run 12 second fractions all day, if by \"all day\" people mean 6F.
A 1:36 mile is a winning time in most G3 races. A 2:00 Derby almost certainly wins, and a 2:24 Belmont equals the record of whats-his-name. In the past 20 years, exactly 2 Belmonts have been won in less than 2:27 (Point Given and last year). Nine times it\'s been over 2:29 - so if a trainer thinks he can get his horse to go around in :12 2/5 he should do it, since it will win this about half the time.
I get that running 12 flat 1/8ths for a mile and half is Secretariat. But to be clear, I said 12 and change 1/8ths, not 12 second flat 1/8ths. And there\'s a big difference between those two statements. Run the numbers and see what times you come up with.
On the upper end, at 12.8 1/8ths you would have 6F in about 1:16. That\'s crawling.
In the middle at 12.5 you would wind up with fractions that look like this: 25, 50, 1:15, 1:40, 2:05, 2:30. That\'s still pretty slow early.
On the lower end, at 12.2 you get 24.4, 48.8, 1:13.2, 1:37.6, 2:02, 2:26.4 which would be a pretty strong race.
Of course horses don\'t usually run evenly every 1/8th. But even if you take the 12.2 numbers above, if a front runner set those types of fractions early and gradually slowed down a few ticks for the last few, which is more representative of what actually happens, you would have a race that finished in 2:28 and change.
The front runners are able to hang around at those kinds of splits, at least for a piece of it.
Belmont preview
Everything you say is completely fair. But my main point (and maybe it was more to sek) was that even for what seems like a slow pace, these top flight horses still can\'t keep it up at this distance.
At the 12.5 clip, all the way around - a final time of 2:30 wins 4 of the last 6 Belmonts - a career making score for the vast majority of horses and trainers. The 2:26.4 is not only pretty strong, it\'s the 3rd quickest time going back to Secretariat.
Union Rags and Tonalist both came home in :26 with opening fractions above :48.5. The danger isn\'t that the front runners get away with an easy early pace that allows them to cruise to the finish. It\'s that at this distance, the horses just aren\'t good enough to run that final 1/4 in under :25, regardless of the opening pace. Which means that for most horses, if they\'re behind at 10f, they probably aren\'t getting to the winner.
Unless you\'re the kind of horse who can negative split the race, like last year (hashtag #betterthannyqyuist).
cubfan0316 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Belmont preview
I was responding to the comment about specific races. He\'s saying the sample size is too small, I\'m pointing out that this race with a small sample size has had many good prices closers hit the board.
Too small sample sizes lead to unpredictable results in the long run, regardless of the prices paid by the insignificant sample. No reason to believe the results will continue.
I recall that someone once put out a book based on race specific data on the Derby. Filled with such nonsense that a horse must have at least 3 preps as a 3YO to win the race. Wonder what happened to that theory now?
bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too small sample sizes lead to unpredictable
> results in the long run, regardless of the prices
> paid by the insignificant sample. No reason to
> believe the results will continue.
> I recall that someone once put out a book based on
> race specific data on the Derby. Filled with such
> nonsense that a horse must have at least 3 preps
> as a 3YO to win the race. Wonder what happened to
> that theory now?
Its about odds Bob.
Closers at good odds have hit the board many times in the Preakness. We can go back and forth about how many races are significant.
Your Derby example I agree with, but has no bearing on this discussion.
Odds, like everything else, are meaningless unless you have a significantly large sample to prove you have an advantage.
If the Derby is not relevant to this discussion, than the Preakness is not relevant to this discussion of the Belmont, as cabanfan has pointed out.
The thing these races have in common in this discussion is the irrelevancy of race specific theories.
bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Odds, like everything else, are meaningless unless
> you have a significantly large sample to prove you
> have an advantage.
> If the Derby is not relevant to this discussion,
> than the Preakness is not relevant to this
> discussion of the Belmont, as cabanfan has pointed
> out.
> The thing these races have in common in this
> discussion is the irrelevancy of race specific
> theories.
I wasn\'t talking about the Belmont. I was talking about any race that could be labeled specific. In this case, The Preakness. That race has a specific distance at a specific track. Finding a constant, even if it doesn\'t go back 239 years, doesn\'t make it irrelevant.
Regarding sample size, its also important to get ahead of the curve. While you wait for a larger sample size, you pass on winners. If race after race has closers hit the board at good odds, I\'m not going to wait until 2050 to use that data.
I never said, key these horses with every last dollar to your name. But they can be used them to spice up exotics.
You cited an obscure piece of data regarding the Derby. I\'m talking about something specific to the running of the race.
\"The thing these races have in common in this discussion is the irrelevancy of race specific theories.\"
Your opinion, which your entitled to. Results say otherwise.
I\'ve got a 4th quarter to sweat through.
re: P-Dub\'s 4Q
That was nerve racking. I\'m watching the T.V. and not at all comfortable. Thinking how you and my Brother (the two most invested Warrior fans I\'m familiar with) must feel?
Great effort by Thompson!
Tavasco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> re: P-Dub\'s 4Q
>
> That was nerve racking. I\'m watching the T.V. and
> not at all comfortable. Thinking how you and my
> Brother (the two most invested Warrior fans I\'m
> familiar with) must feel?
>
> Great effort by Thompson!
Sharks go to the Stanley Cup for the first time in history.
Dubs force a Game 7 with a legendary performance from Klay. The entire team showed a lot of heart tonight.
And once again, my dogs had to leave the room. They got a victory treat to make up for the yelling tho.
Last year, when they won for the first time in 40 years, it felt like a fairy tale. This year, with all of the disrespect, it feels like a mission. This win tonight felt so good, I can\'t wait for Monday night.
What a week.
When have I ever said that one has to wait until 2050 to get a sufficient sample size? One can do a retrospective study (going into past runnings) where you can use a sufficient number of of races to assure a decent sample size today. The problem with that you have to go back too far and bring in out of date information, so that doesn\'t work either. I have already stated this.
The only solution is to use all the races run at this or similar distance run this year, there are hundreds.
If you think there is something supernatural about the Preakness that favors longshot closers, that\'s magical thinking. Closers are favored when there is a hot pace in any race and are disadvantaged when the pace is slow in any race, period. Why would anyone exclude this relevant data? Nothing weird about the Preakness.
If memory serves me correctly, it was 1 1/8 mile, the significance of which I can\'t imagine.
Read that Smith is getting the up on SBN for the Belmont
Would be interesting to know what his reason was. I suspect that he knows that SBN\'s stretch gains are due to the speed collapsing in front if him and with the likely pace of the Belmont being slow this year, he would be at a disadvantage.
Why is this conversation still going on?
Because we are debating the the validity of \"race specific\" handicapping over more more significant factors like figures trip, pace etc with more statistical validity.
Everybody made their case and I was ready to put it to bed until the absurd claim that I Implied that we have to wait until 2050 to get a significant sample, to which I had to reply.
Frankly, I\'d like to see this whole thread closed as it\'s now going nowhere.
I thought I already did that until I saw this.
All deep closers gain some position because of horses slowing down in front of them, but SBN is running at the end of all his races. In a derby supposedly loaded with closers, SBN was much the quickest coming home.
The winner got the last quarter in :25.7, and SBN made up more than 11 lengths in that span. That\'s something in the high :23 range. But he likely needs to be closer to the pace to make that pay off in the Belmont.
Edit: whoops. Just saw JB\'s post. Sorry
ajkreider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All deep closers gain some position because of
> horses slowing down in front of them, but SBN is
> running at the end of all his races. In a derby
> supposedly loaded with closers, SBN was much the
> quickest coming home.
>
> The winner got the last quarter in :25.7, and SBN
> made up more than 11 lengths in that span. That\'s
> something in the high :23 range. But he likely
> needs to be closer to the pace to make that pay
> off in the Belmont.
>
> Edit: whoops. Just saw JB\'s post. Sorry
No need to apologize in my view. Good points relevant to Belmont preview.
I agree that he is the strongest closer in the field but my concern is that this was the case in all his previous races and he still didn\'t get up in time even with the fast paces. As with most closers, you can\'t expect him to repeat those fast late fractions if he races closer to the pace. Not saying he can\'t win the Belmont but will have to see how his figs compare to others and how the pace scenario shapes up. Of course a major factor will also be his rider\'s familiarity with Big Sandy\'s unique configuration.
\"I agree that he is the strongest closer in the field but my concern is that this was the case in all his previous races and he still didn\'t get up in time even with the fast paces.\"
That\'s not true, Bobphilo. How many times did he finish first?
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"I agree that he is the strongest closer in the
> field but my concern is that this was the case in
> all his previous races and he still didn\'t get up
> in time even with the fast paces.\"
>
> That\'s not true, Bobphilo. How many times did he
> finish first?
I stand corrected. He did win the Southwestern. However, he still wasn\'t able to get up in time in his last few, including the Derby, despite quick early paces.
ajkreider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All deep closers gain some position because of
> horses slowing down in front of them, but SBN is
> running at the end of all his races. In a derby
> supposedly loaded with closers, SBN was much the
> quickest coming home.
>
> The winner got the last quarter in :25.7, and SBN
> made up more than 11 lengths in that span. That\'s
> something in the high :23 range. But he likely
> needs to be closer to the pace to make that pay
> off in the Belmont.
>
> Edit: whoops. Just saw JB\'s post. Sorry
aj,
trakus has SBN running a 25.14 final 1/4.
Nyq 26.42 and Exag 25.09
Here, Trakus has it at :24.67 for SBN. Different numbers for the others as well.
Derby Trakus - Final Quarter (http://tnetwork.trakus.com/tnet/t_Churchill.aspx?EventID=94806&Date=5/7/2016&Type=TBRED&Venue=18&DisplayType=1)
Either way, someone\'s wrong. Equibase has Nyquist 2nd by a head at the mile call, and the race finishing in 25.70.
they have SBN finishing in 6.40 and 6.52, a few lengths slower than Exag. the full 1/4 times look better.
either way, SBN is now 5 or 6-1 with Mike Smith up, in a race with little pace.
Computer geeks \"tracking\" Trakus for over one year,find a fair number of discreapancies with overall times and splits.
Something as simple as accurately timing races seems a Herculean task. A former employee of Equibase opined that 30% of the published times were inaccurate.
JB, in the hand timing exercise you do(used to do) did you often find discreapancies?
Don\'t look at Trakus much (early on I posted here about some stuff they had that was questionable), but track times are off fairly often. And reported runups are wrong pretty regularly.