To: TGJB
Just curious but where does Ghostzapper\'s Iselin number fit amongst your all time best rankings? Also I noticed they watered the track a mere 11 minutes prior to the Woodward today. I read your piece at the DRF symposium but I\'m still not sure how you quantify the effects of watering.
The Iselin figure was the best we\'ve given out, and renews my interest in adding 5 points to the base-- but I think I\'m going to wait to see what comes out of this new demand for detention barns, etc.
We get info regarding between which races the track is watered at most major tracks (and other work done on it), only occasionally at how many minutes to post. All that stuff is a clue as you try to put together the puzzle, but quantifying things comes down to using the figure histories of the horses.
Certainly watering the track can speed it up, especially at a very sandy track like Belmont, but there are a lot of variables like moisture content pre-watering, which in turn can be a function of how much water they have already put in it and humidity, and evaporating factors like sun and wind, and harrowing.
when you get the figure for the woodward, is it possible tor release it, for disussions sake.
Perhaps you might want to take an on line poll amongst your customer base whether to change the scale. For what its worth count me in for moving it, I know it will be a pain in the a-- on your end but negative sixes are tough on the eye.
I\'m no \'projectionist\' by a million miles but would be interested in TGJB\'s take on how he called it.
I read beyer gave 114, which means I think they keyed St Liam calling it a paired top (to them). This also means they see the race collapsing a bit underneath though.
If you instead pair Seek Golds last at 99, this also pairs Newfoundlands last of 98, which would give Bowmans Band 110 a number he ran 2 back, implying St Liam and Ghostzapper are on 124 (making Stellar Jayne around 107).
So I think TGJM will either sort of agree with beyer or say Dutrows horse ran a huge one and beyer blew it. The rate of deceleration at the end of the Woodward is quite disturbing in that Stellar Jane would have dead heated in another furlong which suggests the Woodward might have been run optimally and St Liam did run big. But what do I know?
Nuffink.
>I read beyer gave 114<
That seems logical to me in light of the way both horses were used hard in the middle of the race. In other words, they both ran a little better than a 114 even though that\'s the speed figure.
Stella\'s figure also makes sense in light of the fact that she closed in 11 4/5. That pace was so slow it helped her win, but probably slowed down the actual time. A horse can only run so fast late at the end of a route.
I\'m a couple of days away from doing the figure, but there ain\'t no way SL didn\'t run a significant new top-- time aside, the huge gaps behind those 2 (and 3) would mean ridiculously slow numbers for a lot of horses if you did it that way. Also, they carried 126, which Beyer doesn\'t factor in.
>there ain\'t no way SL didn\'t run a significant new top-- time aside, the huge gaps behind those 2 (and 3) would mean ridiculously slow numbers for a lot of horses if you did it that way.<
They would not be ridiculous if the inferior horses ran lower figures because they got bottomed out by the fast middle splits. (something you would ignore)
I do not believe that\'s the case here as someone else suggested, but you are highlighting an EXACT set of cirumstances in which your figures could theoretically incorporate pace right into the final time.
If inferior horses are used up chasing a fast middle pace and run lower figures, you would wind up adjusting the variant for the whole race to make it faster and give the badly beaten horses full credit for their performance. (building the impact of pace right in)
However, you might then also overrate the winners who would be less impacted by the pace because they are superior horses and could handle a faster pace without (or with less) impact. (by the way, repeatedly doing that would tend to produce slowing improving figures over a very long period of time).
I think SL\'s figure is a new top on the Beyer scale also (by one point 114 vs 113 if the 114 reported here is accurate).
Beyer also doesn\'t factor in ground loss which would be important (that\'s something that someone using Beyer figs should do seperately). I haven\'t tried to make a Beyer figure for the race. My first guess was about 118.
Just to make one point clear-- when I agreed that variations in pace could affect a figure, what I meant was that they can affect final time of the race, and we would then adjust the figure SLIGHTLY. Exception would be a very slow pace, where the adjustment is often more than slight.
I definitely do NOT agree with your point about horses behind a fast pace. If you want to say that there are occasionally times a very hot pace causes front runners to spit it out, I\'ll agree with you, but there is no evidence (or physiological logic) that would cause \"less classy\" animals to not handle a pace they themselves were not part of. A far more likely explanation here is that one horse ran back to one of his huge figures, one jumped up for a trainer who once again is getting some huge jump up figures (Allday?), and the rest ran somewhere in the vicinity of what they usually run-- and that\'s just looking at the gaps, never mind the fast time, weight etc. If the front two had come back to earth in the stretch the performances of those behind them would have looked just fine.
All this pace hoo-hah about a horse that figured to run a monster race and did? I don\'t get it.
Also, 108+ for 6f SEEMS LIKE 108+ for 6f, period, in comparison with the other races or not. It doesn\'t \"seem\" better or worse than anything that I can see. That\'s fast! Even non-pace scholars like me can say that is a FAST pace for a nine furlong race, outside of Monmouth Park, of course.
This \"bottoming out\" stuff sounds like nonsense. Two ran and the others didn\'t. I can\'t see how you can ascribe this result to pace as opposed to what you might have come up with just looking at TG and never cracking open the Racing Form. He ran like a horse paying $2.80. Sorry. HP
As an aside, maybe wrong, but forgetting ground loss (which only makes it look worse) to get a 128 pair they wanted 1.44:8 and a 6L thrashing of Forego\'s race record. That was some race he ran at Monmouth.
Post Edited (09-13-04 16:56)
There is. I am probably not explaining it well.
Here\'s 2 examples in Beyer terms (that\'s the way I think about pace figures)
This is not science. The numbers do not represent formulas. They simply demonstrate principles.
Example 1:
Assume 2 horses of different ability.
Horse A = usually runs around 118
Horse B = usually runs around 100
The race itself earns 125 - 120 - 116 (first call, second call, and final time) Just a slightly fast pace.
Horse A wires the field.
Horse B was 3 lengths off the lead at the 6F point of the route.
Horse A has 118 potential/ability and thus has only a little trouble handling a 125-120 pace and more or less reproducs his typical final figure.
Horse B has 100 ability and will not cope with a 113 pace for 6 furlongs (3 lengths off a 120) and reproduce anywhere near his 100 final time figure. His figure drops by more that the 118 horse even though he rated off the pace. He was going too fast for \"HIM\" at that point.
It would be like me rating just behind world class milers for the first half. It\'s still way too fast for me.
Example 2 using the same 2 horses:
Race Rating: 80 118 115
Horse A gets away with an easy first part, but accelerates very sharply during the middle part of the race to get to his average pace for the 2nd part. His second fraction is much faster than is normal for him. His effort in the middle takes a minor toll even though he had it easy the first part.
Horse B rates just off the pace the first part with no difficulty, but is used much much harder than his natural ability during the second part just trying to maintain his position. He does not cope with that middle fraction nearly as well at the leader because he has much less ability. His figure declines much more that the 118 horse.
This is like me rating last in a field of world class milers during a slow first quarter but then trying keep that exact position during the faster 2nd quarter. I would be a dead man carried off on a stretcher if I tried. Trying to keep up with a fast middle pace of world class milers is way beyond my natural ability. It would kill my ability to reproduce my optimum mile time.
I suspect some are going to say I cannot prove it.
I agree.
I suspect some are going to say give me the formula.
I can\'t. There isn\'t one. Horses have unique abilities. Creating very accurate pace figures is virtually impossible. Form fluctuates.
I suspect some will argue that there is nothing forcing the weaker horses to run too fast at times.
I know that. The reality is that sometimes they just do.
There is some logic to this point of view. All you have to do is look at the natural abilities of the horses, the fractions they run, and think about what would happen to human runners in similar circumstances. That\'s enough to concede it is possible.
I\'ve studied this kind of stuff enough to be almost certain it is true for horses also.
Very many other people have studied this and concluded the same thing.
I don\'t want to convert anyone. I know it isn\'t science. In fact, I love the fact that so many others ignore the subtle aspects of pace in their handicapping. They sometimes reach false conclusions about race results, form and figures. Not very often, but often enough.
Post Edited (09-13-04 20:36)
Pace figures are all over the place, some proving to be very accurate. I won\'t say here because this is TGs\' site and it would not be appropriate to mention competitive products.Fairly soon, I\'m thinking that a product with pace figs, weight consideration, ground loss, stats and track bias will come to the market.
>This \"bottoming out\" stuff sounds like nonsense. <
I do not think it happened in the Woodward. The leaders were drawing off from the others. I said it is possible for horses that are off the pace to run too fast in the middle of the race and impact their time.
2 race shapes:
24 - 46.1 - 109.3 - 138
22.1 - 45.3 - 109.3 - 138
45.3 is way too fast a 1/2 mile for 138 mile horses.
One race had a 45.3 early.
One race had a 45.3 in the middle.
Most people would have no difficulty noting that the front runners in race shape 2 that went 22.1 and 45.3 were running too fast early. They would totally miss the closers that went 22.1 and 45.3 in race shape 2 in the middle because they were off the pace.
Closers that maintained their position or tried to improve it during the 45.3 middle race would be running too fast even though they were off the pace. It would impact their time. It would \"bottom them out\".
Post Edited (09-14-04 13:54)
Miff,
I made pace figures for myself for many years. I had a several year database of fractions to work with. It is impossible to make pace figures that are of equal quality to speed figures. They are helpful, but not as accurate. I buy them from someone else now. He makes them well. Less work for me.
I think it is necessary to both look at pace figures AND actually watch the races to see how hard horses are actually being used at various points in the race. The two methods often reinforce or contradict each other. It\'s helps to know how certain you are about your conclusions because of the complexities.
Miff (and JB),
I think you are right Miff, in that we will have a product out there that combines pace figures, with ground loss, weight consideration, stats and track bias. I think it would be THE comprehensive product for handicappers.
It really is a major part of the reason I continue to post on this board about the fact that I think JB is missing several key points in \"handicapping theorem\", both pace and bias.
I understand being resolute in his thinking and sticking with what he believes and I respect this. However, if enough of us customers can convince JB he might be wrong, I am hopeful that he will be open to this thinking and consider it.
T-Graph really could be THE PRODUCT on the market and not just \"one of the products\" on the market!!
Jimbo and Miff,
Personally, I think JB would be making a huge mistake to even try to incorporate pace figures into the horses\' ratings if that\'s what you are suggesting. Making the pace figures is one thing. Trying to combine them with speed figures is another.
I\'m not sure if you\'ve ever made pace figures yourselves or if you\'ve just used someone elses\'s, but IMO it is close to impossible to make pace figures that are even nearly as accurate as the speed figures made by competent final figure makers. Even excellent speeed figures are prone to occasional inaccuracies due to interpretation. Heck, when I look at 4 or 5 sets of speed figures they often disagree by a wide margin even when adjusted for methodology.
The complications are endless for pace.
1. Horses rate so it\'s difficult to project the pace. You are more dependent on pars.
2. The wind is much more of a factor depending on the distance and the run against/with the wind.
3. Track speed is not always uniform.
ex. The backstretch could be a lot slower than the turn. That would effect the fractions differently than the final time.
4. The starting gate is not always in the same exact position.
That\'s just some of the major problems with making the pace figures.
Then, IMO, trying to create a precise formula for estimating the impact of pace on final time is doubly impossible. There are some rough guesstimates out there that work OK, but they are not perfect. I really believe the impact varies from horse to horse.
Between slightly suspect speed figures, more suspect pace figures, and a suspect formula for combining them you are often going to wind up with a very inaccurate appraisal.
IMO, the best way to do it is to look at the pace figures and look at the race development and determine if the pace was fast or slow, how fast or slow and when. Then look at the individual trips and see who may have benefitted and who may have been hurt by the pace. Then when you look at the speed figures, view them in light of the pace aspect of their trip and appraise the horse.
For example, you could make some kind of pace figure for the Woodward, but I don\'t think you will get a better rating than by just using some common sense. You might get something worse in many cases though.
You don\'t have to be rocket scientist to see that the second and third quarters of that race were really quick.
So if for example you are using Beyer figures combined with trips you know that Ghost isn\'t nearly as good as the 128 earned at Monmouth suggests. He beat a weaker field on the mud with a relatively easy trip that day.
You also know he\'s better than the 114 he earned this weekend because he was used extremely hard in the middle of the race battling St Liam.
I don\'t think you need to be much more precise than that.
\'You don\'t have to be rocket scientist to see that the second and third quarters of that race were really quick.\'
You don\'t have to be a rocket scientist to see that, but does it hurt to be one? I will say yes, based on the racetrack performance of my pals at work... Woody, you listening?
Classhandicapper wrote --
\"Closers that maintained their position or tried to improve it during the 45.3 middle race would be running too fast even though they were off the pace. It would impact their time. It would \"bottom them out.\"\"
This is EXACTLY the black hole of pace handicapping. The horses you refer to as \"closers\" are actually not operating as \"closers.\" For whatever reason, the jockey(s) involved have decided to \"stalk\" a hot pace. After a reasonable first quarter, the front runners picked it up and these guys said \"hey, let\'s go!\" No pace figures are going to give an insight on the likelihood of this occurring.
This \"on the fly\" tactical decision making by the jockeys is a steady factor. In Classhandicapper\'s example, I would probably have upgraded the closers chances since I may have guessed they would have something to run at. And I would have been looking at the fractions and cursing and saying \"you\'re moving too soon on my 3 you nimrod! Stay on the rail and wait!\"
If you could reliably guarantee that all the horses would run in the pace style you assigned them, that would be great, and there ARE races like this. But there are more races where it ISN\'T predictable or pace just isn\'t as big a factor (like Ghostzapper hammering them into the ground). HP
HP,
I believe you are missing the usefulness of pace handcapping. It\'s not so much about predicting the duels and slows paces (though sometimes that is possible). It\'s about measuring horses performances in the past properly. In other words, you want to know when the pace impacted a horse\'s final figure because that means he\'s better/worse than he looks.
Post Edited (09-14-04 11:55)
CLASS,
I do not think it is possible to incorporate pace figs into the final figure.I would much rather have separate pace figs than the pattern stats which I personally find to be of little use.
Incidentallly, some people making pace figs are very aware of wind speed /direction, moisture, run-ups etc.
I can tell when pace has impacted the final figure by looking at the final figure. I get out the Racing Form and I look at the final figures and I\'m done. HP
Miff,
>Incidentallly, some people making pace figs are very aware of wind speed /direction, moisture, run-ups etc.<
Understood. I made that attempt also, but I was only making them for NY. I think it\'s really tough to be accurate. Certainly tougher than with final figures.
By the way, Racing Form people are currently working with the Beyer people to produce pace figures for the Racing Form. Not sure how far off it is, but I spoke to someone at the Form last week and the project IS IN PROGRESS.
Class,
I heard the same thing in Saratoga, very, very interesting development. I know that many \"players\" have approached Steve Crist with this issue and apparently he is looking into it quite seriously.For me,I think it\'s a great idea as I have long held that the adjusted internal splits are just as relavent as the final figure is.
For most dirt races, pace figures are too dependant on how the jocks ride the race. They are totally irrelevant on the turf.
Pace figures may give you an occssional insight that escapes the masses for a particular race or two, but overall the speed figures will be more reliable.
Did anyone really need pace figures to know that Saint Liam would be an early pace factor in the Woodward??
Good Luck,
Joe B.
JoeB,
I know I repeat myself a lot, but here goes.
I never have and never would use pace figures to try to determine how a race might develop.
Horses rate. So their pace figures generally tell you very little about how fast they \"could\" run early if pressed or allowed to by their jockies.
When trying to determine how the race might develop, I am much more interested in a horse\'s running style, the consistency of that style, the quality of the horses early speed types have been outsprinting, the horse\'s versatility and the jockey\'s tendencies.
The only thing I use pace figures for is to help evaluate prior performances. I want to know if the horss recent final figures were hindered or helped by the pace scenarios in its races.
Post Edited (09-14-04 15:55)
CH--
Well put. A horse that goes :47 around 2 turns going a mile and an eight may indeed be able to run a :45 flat down the Belmont chute at the same distance.
So now are you/we saying that pace figures may be of significant use in sprints, especially at 6f or less???
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I\'m not sure how other people use them.
There may be great applications that I haven\'t come up with that others have. You tell me. :-)
I just use them to evaluate past performances because I know that works great.
Ex.
Pace-Final
100-100
120-88
93 (loose) - 106
100-100
105-96
Given the above series of races I know that the horse has been running approximately the same way in all his races even though it looks like he bounced off a peak and then recovered. No such pattern exists.
The pace figures simply help me interpret results, current form, and often explain fluctuations in final fgures that otherwise don\'t seem to make sense.
Classhandicapper, I think your approach is sound. And similar in principle to what I suspect most of us use. You see the figures as a pattern with some anomalies. Then you look closely at the anomalies to see if there are logical explanations for why they occured. You postulate \"pace\" (in several forms) as a possible explanation. Makes sense to me. I\'m sure you agree that there are other factors that might explain the anomalies as well. Some obvious ones are dry vs wet surface, distance, etc. Don\'t we all look for those. And after we sort through the possible explanations we try to see if a real pattern does emerge. I think it\'s a fairly standard approach. And I don\'t see why pace, in the context of a particular horse\'s pattern, couldn\'t be one of those possible mitigating factors. So what is everyone arguing about?
Good discussion. Here is something else to consider that is building on what classhandicapper described but with a different spin.
Let\'s add one other line to the horse CH used as an example. Let\'s say the horse is a 3yo or even a 4yo and in his most recent race he was was part of a pressured pace in which he earned a pace/final rating of: 120/100
Note that from a final-figure only perspective any improvement would be \"hidden,\" but by looking at both pace and final figure you could interpret such a line in some very interesting and potentially profitable ways the next time he runs.
Of course, this all assumes we have reliable pace ratings to work with...
Chris
Chris,
You nailed it on the head. That\'s exactly the kind of value play I will often get!!!
Please save yourselves all this trouble.
Go find Dave Litfins first book called \"Dave Litfins Expert Handicapping\". He has a section in the book called, Won the Speed Dual Lost the Race Angle.
All you needed to do was observe Silver Charm duel through vicious fractions with Sharp Cat in the Santa Anita Derby and still be a very game second to see he was going to be hell on Ky Derby Day.
That and the fact he had the SHEET related Explosion Horse Angle working for him, also discussed in that very same book.
This is almost enough for somebody to publically guarantee him as the \"Biggest Lock since Citation\"
CH---
Excellent. A recent example was the winner of the last race several Sundays ago at Saratoga.
SALTY CHARACTER, dropping from 35K to 25K. His 35K running line looked awful, running 8th at every call and beaten over 20 lenghths. However both the pace and final numbers for the 6f race were par--- for 50K claimers.
He closed strongly at 7f for 25K claimers who could not finish after splits of :22 and :44 2/5....$24.60 mutual.
Now I realize this is just one example, but you do not need many $24 winners to keep you afloat in this game.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
SC,
I loved Silver Charm in the Derby for that reason. That style of handicapping falls into my \"visual skills\" and \"quality of speed caetgory\".
I think it helps to use a COMBINATION of visual skills, pace figures and the quality of the speed when evaluating the pace.
Pace figures are complex and prone to occasional errors, but it is just as difficult to see just how fast or slow horses are running relative to what is normal for them. Horses can be dueling without really running all that fast. Others can be running well within themselves and be flying.
Sometimes, viewing the race using various handicapping tools clarifies what really happened.
For ex.
I still do not believe the Woodward pace was extremely fast for true G1 horses even though it looked very fast and they opend up on the field. It was fast, but not earthshattering (expect maybe for a few weaker horses trying to cope with the 2nd quarter)
The 6F pace figure did not come back all that fast. On my figures it was a 126 pace 116 final. 126 is fast, but not killer (unless of course you aren\'t a Grade I horse). :-)
Post Edited (09-15-04 11:52)
classhandicapper,
Where do you get your pace figures?
mike
I am a long time customer for the trip notes. I was making my own pace figures, but this fine fellow agreed to take over the chore at a price and quality that allowed me put my energy elsewhere. They are Beyer-like pace figures.
http://www.logicdictates.com/
JB, if you object to me posting this link please tell me. I won\'t do it anymore.
CH---
Nick\'s a hell of a guy with a terrific product. Like anything else, it is another weapon in the horseplayer\'s arsenal.
Good Luck,
Joe B.