Fractions from todays races at Calder, The Summit of Speed which was a first class show put on by Calder and Gen\'l Mgr. Ken Dumb (sic).
This is a good example of comparing races and top class horses who all ran on the same day, at the same distance, at the same track, just not in the same race.
Woke Up Dreamin 117 3 4 4-1, 2-hd, 1-1/2, 1-3
Fractions: :21, :434, :561, 1:094 (:21.18, :43.92, :56.34, 1:09.80)
Madcap Escapade 120 6 3 1-2, 1-21/2, 1-4, 1-51/4
Fractions: :213, :443, :564, 1:094 (:21.69, :44.64, :56.88, 1:09.93)
Lost in the Fog 122 5 1 1-1, 1-1, 1-5, 1-7 1/4
Fractions: :222, :452, :57, 1:091 (:22.42, :45.46, :57.11, 1:09.30)
Lost in the Fog clearly benefited from the weak early pace and was able to draw away to a smashing vistory that will most assuredly result in a much faster number than Madcap Escapade and probably Woke up Dreamin who did have to go three wide to take over his weakening early speed.
The accelerating finish from Lost in the Fog was impressive but would have been even more impressive if he had run the same 22.42 opening quarter and sat 6 lengths back and mowed down the field in the Smile with a similar powerful finish. Keep in mind under the same pace scenarios as above Lost in the Fog would still have been 4-6 lengths back AT THE QUARTER POLE!!
Lost in the Fog beat nothing today, Madcap Escapade beat nothing today. Which one of these three sprinters is fastest, as far as todays results go, we probably learned nothing.
Incidentally the last week and a half of racing across the country has been something else. Particular thumbs up to Hollywood and Team TVG.
Excellent synopsis by S.C. on whether you can trust pace figures of races when early competition is nonexistent.
Same can be said of 2-turn grass/dirt races where fractions are slowed by top horse in that particular race.
I would be interested in continuing this dialogue once Beyer, and Brown, have released their figures for these three races.
I am sure both will get the ultimate final number correct but will it tell us that Lost in the Fog is significantly faster than the other two based on the way the three races were run.
Classhandicapper hopefully you played some Golf in Hilton Head but if you didn\'t I tee\'d this one up for you about as good as you can get.
SC,
I watched yesterday\'s major races at Calder. I\'m working on them. I don\'t know if the track changed speed, but on the assumption that it did not, I\'ll express a few initial thoughts until I examine the races more carefully.
1. IMO, it is not just the fractions that mattered (though I believe they mattered). It\'s also whether or not horses were pressured and how severely. Plus, not all quarters are the same even when the quarter mile times are the same. For example there is a difference between 11 + 11 and 10.3 + 11.2.
2. In theory a horse like Lost in the Fog could have run the exact same fractions he did in his race while off the pace against the stronger older colt field, but that\'s generally not what happens. What usually happens is that the horse runs close to its typical style and the jockey tries to remain in position to win without knowing what the exact pace is and how it will impact his horse. So the horse gets drawn into the faster pace to keep his position and not have to do something crazy to win later.
At first glance I would say it seems pretty obvious to me that LITF\'s race is not as good as it looks relative to the older colt race based on the time differential. LITF got loose and controlled his race against competition that didn\'t even have enough ability to challenge him, let alone pressure him or cause him to run too fast early. Those were pretty easy conditions. It seemed fairly likely before the race that he might run a new top against that field. The older colt race was loaded with high quality speed that battled and pressed each other pretty much the whole way and put up what appears to be fast fractions relative to the final time.
It\'s a nice concept to think you can make perfect pace figures and apply them to the speed figures with a perfect formula that applies to all horses under all conditions that then produces a new number that tells you everything. I don\'t think that exists. IMO, tHere are only approximations. I\'ll go through the process of making the numbers to get an idea of how extreme each pace was and then form a general opinion about the horse\'s performances.
I think these are perfect examples of the differences in the \"quality\" of performances that go beyond speed figures.
I think if LITF had run up against WUD on saturday he would not have had the same final time, or if he would have won. When you can set the pace the way he did you or going to smoke home, it will be fun to see him with a class older horse who can throw down 43 and change and still finish. He is so good it might not matter, but it will be fun finding out!
Excellent Handicapping Post.
There were three really good sprinters in three different races yesterday. Very rare.
When Orientate and Xtra Heat ran a Calder a few years ago that was top notch, but with Lost in Fog in the three year Stakes yesterday was better.
When Lost in the Fog faces older they will bring the heat. However he looked like a much different horse yesterday than the one who ran at Gulfstream on Millions Day.
If Lost in the Fog wins out he is a candidate for Horse of the Year.
CH--
Excellent post. If we are talking BC Sprint (or is it the TVG BC Sprint?), then the question becomes can LITF press a :21 quarter and finish against the top sprinters in the world.
Chances are, as a 3yo, he will not abandon his style and that could cost him (see HOUSEBUSTER). Older sprinters, e.g. SPEIGHTSTOWN, are more likely to adjust their style giving them the ability to finish up strongly as he did in last year\'s BC.
As for using pace figures, especially going short, running style and final figures are a far better tool, IMO.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
jbelfior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CH--
>
>
> As for using pace figures, especially going short,
> running style and final figures are a far better
> tool, IMO.
>
>
>
> Good Luck,
> Joe B.
Joe, I actually see it opposite, I think in sprints pace is even more the factor then final time. Last weekeneds Smile vrs Carry Back is the best example of that, I completely feel Woke Up Dreaming ran a superior race.
Saddlecloth,
Yes, in analyzing the races from Calder AFTER THEY HAPPENED, you can discount Lost in the Fog\'s race a little and upgrade Woke Up Dreaming, because of pace.
But how about BEFORE the race, as a handicapping tool. How would pace analysis have helped you bet on Woke Up Dreaming? In my book, it wouldn\'t have at all, it actually would have dissuaded you from Woke Up Dreaming. The pace figures for Don Six were superior to Woke Up Dreaming and the fact that several horses had superior pace figures, probably would have led you to bet on a mid range stalker or closer, not a early speed type.
Which is why final figures are more important in handicapping a race, in many people\'s opinion.
Interesting that there seem to be more \"pace handicappers\" on this board than \"t-graph players\" lately....
Jerry,
Your Belmont number for the Woke Up Dreaming race BEFORE Saturday is about 3 points slower than Rags. That seems like a big difference to me. (He got a negative 2.25 on Rags and I believe your scale is about 3 points different).
Since the Belmont race, The Jerkens horse in that race (can\'t remember his name, but was ridden by Chantal Sutherland), has come back and run what might be a big race. (I haven\'t seen the figure, but the horse won easily in what seemed to be fast time).
And now, Woke Up Dreaming won pretty easily in what most on this board think is a very fast race.
Any thoughts on how tight the Belmont figure was to you, and whether you need to go back and look at it. (Have enough horses run back from that race yet - I am not sure).
Also curious as to what type of change could happen to cause a 3 point difference between your figure and the Rags figure. I don\'t think we saw weather changes on that day at Belmont and the ground loss for Woke Up Dreaming would have to be really miscalculated for a three point difference.
Jimbo,
You are so right. Add in the fact that trainers and jockeys change tactics, frequently in inscrutable ways, and more often than not all this pace analysis does not add up to anything you can really get your teeth into and use. Once in a blue moon you can look at a race and see a horse will have some kind of advantage based on pace, but more often than not I will be surprised to see a horse I figured would benefit from rating running too close to the lead or vice versa and it\'s all up in smoke. The final figs are much more reliable indicators of a horse\'s ability, and more important, the patterns that you see are far more reliable indicators of future performance.
HP
Joe;
Not to dismiss your point which may very well be valid, but didn\'t Housebuster rip his foot up something awful in his BC flop? I remember that he grabbed a quarter pretty bad coming out of the gate, which seems a pretty valid stand-alone excuse.
Bob
He couldn\'t handle the early lick of Pine Tree Lane, then Very Subtle. Both gate speed fillies. Got him beat in both BC Sprints.
Madcap Escapade may do the same thing with this bunch
HP wrote,
>The final figs are much more reliable indicators of a horse\'s ability.
Do not disagree with what you wrote except for the above mentioned point. Would someone please publish some numbers for the Calder races particularly Beyers.
If I am supposed to believe that Lost in the Fog is three lengths faster than the other two,
FORGET ABOUT IT.
The way those three races played out could generate a false conclusion regarding the respective abilities of the three runners.
What would be the false conclusion?
Jimbo-- attached is the Belmont day race that Woke Up Dreamin won. It\'s almost definitely right-- if you take off two you do get Vicarage and Smokume close to their tops, but you give out some awful big numbers to others, including 7yo Voodoo. And while I haven\'t done the Calder day yet, it\'s pretty hard to believe WUD ran anywhere near a neg 5, unless the track changed a lot-- Madcap ran as fast, and LITF a lot faster.
I don\'t know what Ragozin did with Belmont day, and I don\'t know what he gave WUD other than what you are telling me. But that\'s the day I discussed at length in an earlier post, where the track got faster, then extremely slow at the end. Ragozin has the policy I have often quoted (see his book, or my \"Changing Track Speeds\" presentation on this site for details), which is that the track doesn\'t change speed except when there is extreme weather-- this results in him creating what amounts to an average variant for the day that he applies to all races. It\'s possible he did that here.
Hit the \'www.thorograph.com\' link below to see the earlier Belmont Day post, and below that to see sheets for WUD\'s race that day.
http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,20782,20782#msg-20782
jimbo,
I think analyzing paces and race results after the fact is useful. I\'d rather have a clear understanding of all the horses\' performances when they return than not.
Here\'s a little redboarding, but since I didn\'t bet the race and certainly wouldn\'t have bet the winner, I don\'t think there\'s any harm in presenting my thoughts prior to race.
It was obvious there was a ton of quality speed in the race. I was defintely looking for a horse that could sit just off the lead and pick up the pieces. I DON\'T THINK pace figures are all that useful in determining who will get the lead. They are most useful in determining how well horses actually have been running. I think style and quality are way more important in determining how the race will actually develop, who will get the lead etc... Pace figures are secondary because horses only tend to run as fast as required early. That\'s one key point.
I didn\'t think Tosconi or Don Six fell into the category of being able to deliver a peak performance without the lead and I thought they would compromise each other\'s chances. Woke up Dreamin was similar, but he did have one good performance from slightly off the pace and a bunch of other speed performances in routes. There wasn\'t much to learn about his versatility from those routes. I was less sure he would be compromised than the others, but there was still a good chance he would. The price made the decision easy. I could never bet him at that price with the pace risks involved and the incremental possibility he might not even duplicate his last performance.
Abbodanza was similar to Woke Up Dreamin in style, but IMO wasn\'t nearly as good. It\'s always tough for me to like the 2nd and 3rd string speed horses in a race loaded with quality speed.
After that, you are really starting to fish for a play based on the assumption that you will be 100% right about your fast pace assumptions (which is a silly assumption to begin with) and that it will impact all the superior horses by enough to get an inferior horse into the winners circle. That\'s a common mistake. Sometimes it does hurt them, but not by enough to get a dud into the winners circle.
IMHO, the idea pre-race is to understand the possible, probable, or likely pace outcomes and use that information to adjust your odds line to reflect those insights.
If there\'s no one in the race that seems to be an overlay given the pace risks and running styles, skipping the race is better than betting an underlay just because you don\'t want to pay attention to pace, don\'t believe in it, or are sometimes wrong about the race development. Not betting an underlay or in a situation you aren\'t clear about is just as good as betting an overlay.
Another key point to me is that some people think in terms of selecting a winner or assuming you have to predict the pace with certainty. You don\'t. You just have to understand the probabilities of the pace and adjust your line. At a certain price I would have bet any of those speed horses even though I thought the pace was going to be very fast.
After the fact, you analyze the pace and race results and use that extra information to evaluate them better the next time they run.
In any event, this is obviously all IMHO and I\'m sure there are pace applications others have to offer, but I think I bring something to the table on this issue because I\'ve been doing it for a long time and have already made all the mistakes that most people wind up making. So I have learned from them.
>The final figs are much more reliable indicators of a horse\'s ability.
At least from a Beyer perspective. do not know what jerry\'s numbers were. I saw the races and pace played a HUGE factor in the final raw times of all three races.
No, I was thinking of HOUSEBUSTER. However GROOVY is a better example. The MADCAP ESCAPADE reference may be a valid one. Visually, I have not seen anyone quicker once she gets going.
Bob: I do not recall HB getting injured. It certianly would be a reason for his sub-par performance.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I believe your right Housebuster ripped up his foot against Sheikh Albadou as a huge favorite in the 91 BC Sprint at CD.
SC it was nice to see you Sunday.
xichibanx
Silver,
\"I saw the races and pace played a HUGE factor in the final raw times of all three races.\"
And? Now what?
Class,
That\'s a very long post that could be summed up - (1) you didn\'t play the race but you\'ll redboard it now anyway (which you must realize COMPLETELY ignores Jimbo\'s point about talking about pace AFTER the race) and (2) you use pace to handicap and you make your own odds line accordingly to find value. Interesting stuff.
HP
Please HP don\'t be difficult.
Admit that you have been beaten in this argument and beaten decisively.
The figures do not lie. Compare Lost in the Fogs Beyer to the Beyers the other two received and bet accordingly when they all square off Breeders Cup Day.
Xichibanx if everyone had your discipline at the track, the tracks would all go bankrupt.
Silver,
I don\'t even know what the argument is. I\'m not trying to be difficult. I don\'t look at Beyers. I didn\'t play these races, and I only looked at the ROTW. I know Lost in the Fog is a monster but I don\'t know much about the other two. A lot will happen between now and the BC. Just say flat out what you want to say, in case I missed it...
HP
Jerry,
Thanks for posting the sheets.
I don\'t make figures and really am not in a position to effectively dispute any of them.
But I have to say in looking at the sheets for that race, it seems to me that if you take off 2, the only horse that looks suspect is Voodoo. Granted, a 7 year old running a new top by 2 points is pretty suspect, but you would be looking at a pairup for Smokeume and less regression from some of the others like With Distinction.
Anyway, I forgot that this day was the one where the track changed variant by something like 15 points or something ridiculous like that. So, not surprising that you and Rags would have a three point difference in a day like that.
Jimbo-- the 15 point change came later in the card. The two dirt races that preceded the one in question were plus 1.5, plus 1, the two that followed were plus 3.5, plus 2.8. I did the WUD race at plus 2, right in line.
Voodoo is the most extreme problem if you do it at 3 points faster, but WUD (based on figures up to then at least) is much more likely to run neg 2 than neg 4, and Aagadan and Mass Media look better this way, although faster is possible.
In a month or so I\'ll go back and look at the whole day.
SC,
The one thing LITF has going for him is that he\'s a 3YO. Even though I think he would have had a much more difficult time in the race for older horses and wouldn\'t have run nearly as fast a final time, by BC time, he may be a better horse. Personally, I think he\'s due for a break, but it looks like they are going to run at Saratoga. I think it\'s too long of a gap betweeen the 3YO sprint up there and the BC. The BC is a tough spot to come back off a mini-layoff. So if he runs again after Saratoga and before the BC, that\'s some long campaign with a lot of shipping. If they hold him together that long, the Cigar Mile would be interesting. :)
Jimbo
I agree, in this situation it is \"after\" the race handicapping, thats why I said there were lots of reasons to expect a regression from him, including a pace match up. I thought he was a miserable 7/5 chalk, even though he won.
HP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jimbo,
>
> You are so right. Add in the fact that trainers
> and jockeys change tactics, frequently in
> inscrutable ways, and more often than not all this
> pace analysis does not add up to anything you can
> really get your teeth into and use. Once in a
> blue moon you can look at a race and see a horse
> will have some kind of advantage based on pace,
> but more often than not I will be surprised to see
> a horse I figured would benefit from rating
> running too close to the lead or vice versa and
> it\'s all up in smoke. The final figs are much
> more reliable indicators of a horse\'s ability, and
> more important, the patterns that you see are far
> more reliable indicators of future performance.
>
> HP
>
>
HP, I would agree, trying to predict pace can often be very futile, I tend to use a multi facitated approach of form cycles, pace as a factor in ability, and final times. I know there was a comment about about pace handicappers, and while I completely agree that pace is a factor, I would say that form cycles is a major aspect in my selections. I think I was the one who posted frustration that form cycles and that methodology does not seem to get talked about here all that often.
Lost in the Fogs BIG BEYER WAS AIDED BY A SLOW PACE
Saddle,
Judging by the posts here, I think there would be quite a conflict between the \"form cycles\" seen by those who look at final figures and those who look at the \"form cycles\" seen by those who emphasize pace. I have no idea how pace handicappers in general (and those who post here in particular) extrapolate what they see.
Like Jimbo, I see a lot of pace analysis and dissection after a race (not all bad by the way)...and supposedly this post-race analysis leads to...something...down the road when the horses come back. Unfortunately I have not seen such a coup-de-pace on this board. I don\'t doubt that it\'s possible, but I haven\'t seen anyone deliver the goods yet. I haven\'t seen or heard of any specific significant paydays generated by these post-race (or pre-race!) pace dissertations. A lot of speculation, generalities and sizzle, but no steak.
HP
Silver,
Okay. I\'ll take you word for it. I still don\'t know what argument I lost.
HP
Saddle,
\"I think I was the one who posted frustration that form cycles and that methodology does not seem to get talked about here all that often.\"
I would like more of that also. I\'ve never found too much of value.
The one thing I like to bet against is a horse that has had a long tough campaign and then throws in a clinker late in the season. As a general rule, the public tends to be \"somewhat forgiving\" of a slightly sub par performance if the horse\'s overall record is strong and fairly consistent. I tend to agree with that. However, the public tends to be just as forgiving late in the season after a long tough campaign. I think a lot of those horses are just \"done\" for the year and less likely to bounce back with a top effort. Sometimes you can pick up on that and know which ones to toss out. They are a good bet against - especially in high level stakes because some of them get bet off their reputations for several races.
Other than that, I think most horses tend to come back off a layoff a little short (how much depends on the trainer and circumstances) and then trend faster for a couple of races before peaking for awhile and then heading south.
For me, the pattern stuff gets very difficult unless the figure moves are fairly substantial and I am fairly sure that other factors didn\'t impact the final times. I could never imagine myself making a play off a 1/2 point or 1/4 point move like the Ragozin\'s do.
I\'m all ears on this.
This is what we know: that in 3 races they ran certain fractions, and certain raw final times (and even conclusions about that are dependent on the teletimer,wind, and track speed. And they have had some wind down there recently).
Considering the above, and sample size, it\'s a little silly to draw firm conclusions as to cause and effect, no?
I would be interested in knowing whether Beyerguy has done any large population studies about fractions as they relate to final time.
CH-- be smart. If you are not going to address the above DIRECTLY, leave it alone.
HP,
I am always willing to post before the race and dont believe I have ever redboarded a \"i had it\" after the fact, doing so is a waste of time. I dont think there is anything wrong with post race analysis of what happened during the race, if its done right.
I think pace is a factor in handicapping just as weight can be, trainer intention, post position, etc etc. Obviously next to final time I hold pace in very high regards, much so then a one turn 3 wide trip. I mean Woke Up Dreaming certainly got the perfect trip last week dispite having to be in the 3-4 path, but the numbers I use dont have that componet built in.
The biggest knock I had going in on that horse was the sketchy injury riddled career and the big figure jump in the last race, not the type of stuff I bet back at 7/5!
HP,
There were more than a few times that I expressed views about certain horses being better or worse than their figures due to post race pace analysis and it lead to good bets by giving you an opportunity to bet against an overrated horse that lost etc...
I\'ve also tossed a few horses or suggested that certain horses were live at a price due to a pre race pace analysis that was subsequently validated (even though I didn\'t bet some of them and said so).
Unfortunately, some people understandably weren\'t particluarly receptive to \"my\" subjective opinions and others thought I was suggesting that some final time figures were wrong and/or should be adjusted to reflect those subjective views (which I wasn\'t doing).
This is stuff is not provable like a math problem because there are no exact formulas. It\'s a matter of looking at various paces, figures, results, etc... over time. If you are not receptive to me, that\'s fine. But there are guys like beyerguy, silvercharm, and others that seem to use the TG figures in combination with pace analysis very well.
To me, a post-race pace analysis \"done right\" would lead somewhere specific in the future. This never happens here. Looking for these links between races viz-a-viz pace is the proverbial needle in the haystack. On this board, when the pace analysis runs out of gas here we go with the track bias and the whole other litany of stuff that might or might not affect the race or happen again next out. They know they don\'t want to look at TG, but they can\'t really provide an alternative view that\'s either as clear or as useful.
Even if you do a \"post-race analysis\" in a somewhat useful way:
1) You can\'t really say for sure that the same circumstances won\'t come up again;
2) you can\'t be sure if even the horse you are focused on will use the same tactics;
3) you have no clue as to whether the other, new horses in the race will change their tactics and start the dominoes falling in another direction.
For me, the meat and potatoes are the final times and the resulting TG figures. If others want to analyze how pace affected those figures or whatever, happy trails. If I ever see a blow-by-blow example of this worked out before the race where it results in a decent priced mutuel I will be the first to stand and applaud. For all of this longwinded crap I\'ve read precious few CONCISE pre-race pace analysis (or other non-TG analysis) that led to a CLEAR PLAY, let alone a BIG WINNER. Judging by the results of what I see posted on this board I do just as well looking at the sheets and not even buying the Form...
Good luck to all.
HP
Class,
Look, given the amount of stuff you post here (you are on almost EVERY thread), you really don\'t provide much specific insight, pre- or post-race.
These Calder races are a perfect example. You\'ve posted A LOT and said NOTHING. And you REDBOARDED an entire race after Jimbo pointed out that post-race pace handicapping abounded here... Someday these insights of yours on your methods and the Calder races will come home to roost SOMEWHERE, and I\'m sure you\'ll let us know when...
I don\'t want to offend you, I\'d rather just give up...
HP
Couldn\'t agree more with what HP wrote.
Let\'s face it, we aren\'t betting on horses for some altruistic betterment. Any analysis should lead to a conclusion that is some type of \"bet on\" or \"bet against\". I think a lot of people on this board have an open mind and if there is a way to complement ground loss speed figures and form cycles analysis, with some type of pace analysis, then so be it. Bring it on. But before the race, not after the race, and not an endless post race diatribe which doesn\'t lead to a conclusion.
It doesn\'t have to be a major race.
Class, are you betting tomorrow? Pick a track and analyze a race, breaking it down. Point out a \"pace play\" or a figure play made better by a pace advantage.
By the way HP, you didn\'t lose any argument on Woke Up Dreaming versus Lost in the Fog.
If they meet up later this year, I would gladly take Lost in the Fog in a matchup bet. I am guessing that after the T-Graph figures come out for Saturday, many other players would also.
TGJB,
\"Considering the above, and sample size, it\'s a little silly to draw firm conclusions as to cause and effect, no?\"
Yes. I agree.
I think the conclusions and results were simply consistent with views that were developed over many years of seeing the exact same sort of thing. That\'s why \"I\" seem so confident.
\"I would be interested in knowing whether Beyerguy has done any large population studies about fractions as they relate to final time.\"
I don\'t know about beyerguy, but having worked with them for a very long time I think the complexities of both making accurate pace figures and then defining a formula that covers all the possible pace combinations within a race makes the task of proving anything very difficult except in the extreme situations. Plus, I also think that non pace issues like pressure/loose impact all this.
Where you and I probably part ways a little is that I think there are smaller impacts in less extreme situations that are worth at least trying to measure. If I had to guess I think you catch some of that in your variants when you break out races a little.
I also think there are sub plots within a race that are very easy to prove if you pay attention.
I\'m probably stretching my luck here by getting so deep into this, but I hope you will tolerate me this one last time because IMHO it has HUGE VALUE from a betting perspective and making final time figures and is fairly easy to prove via observation. :)
Extreme example to make the point:
If Seattle Slew set a pace that was average for him and he was dueling with a Grade 3 horse, the pace of the race might be in perfect sync with the final time because it was SS\'s race all the way. SS would not be impacted. However, SS\'s average pace would destroy the average Grade 3 horse because it\'s way too fast for him. There are subplots within races. So for example if SS draws off by 10 and you were only expecting him to draw off by 7 against that Grade 3 horse, 3 lengths of it are \"usually\" related to SS\'s pace killing off the other horse and not SS running a new top. Pace figures clarify that kind of thing easily!
IMO, don six would have run a faster TG figure if he was alone on the lead. IMO, madcap escapade might have run a slower figure if she had to run faster to get the lead. she will rarely have to run faster to get the lead against fillies and mares, but if she tries the BC, things could be different. i do not know if WUD or LITF would have run faster or slower given different pace scenarios. those are two gritty animals - the kind that might not be affected all that much by pace pressure.
I cant tell if everyone is jumping on me or not, I post about races, pace comes up here and there.
I can tell you lost in the fog is certainly a better horse the woke up dreaming, and given that sheet what are the chances baffert can even keep him together till the big race.
That being said, I think if WUD ran back to his race saturday and lost in the fog was in the race there would have been a real tussle going on for each of them, and given LITF would be 2/5 and WUD probably at least 5/1 I would take that wager if all signs were that he was healthy. Is that ok post race analysis? I am trying to figure out what boundary I am crossing here?
jimbo,
I have done a pre race pace analysis many times, but I do tend to only bet on big stakes (results are better). however, many of my plays have absolutely nothing to do with pace. It\'s only relevant when it\'s relevant. I can\'t make it relevant if it\'s not. It\'s one tool in an arsenal.
The obvious post race conclusion about LITF for example is that he earned a Beyer of 114 and a TG of \"whatever\". If he races in a field with horses that are earning figures like that coming off legitimate trips I\'ll happily bet against him. He\'s not a 114 horse right now. He\'s a 114 horse when he gets loose against garbage cans in a moderate pace. That\'s worth knowing whether it leads to a bet or not.
Whatever Beyer the two duelers in the Smile ran, they are better than that. If they are spotted in a field where the pace will be more average, I will evaluate them as if they can run faster than they did in the Smile. If that leads to a bet so be it, if not I am still better off knowing what really happened.
Saddlecloth,
I don\'t know if anybody else is, but I am not jumping you. Unless you are really hot - and a woman.
The thing is that the Calder race on Saturday is a really bad example of a race that pace handicappers should be jumping all up and down and discussing. After the race, we are discussing the pace in those races. Pace would NOT have led you bet Woke Up Dreaming.
My point, ignored to date by Class, is that PACE HANDICAPPING IS USELESS AFTER THE FACT. POINT OUT SOMETHING BEFORE A RACE GOES OFF IF YOU WANT TO PROVE A POINT.
Class and the recently absolute Clown, always dissect these major races AFTER THE RACE and usually pinpoint pace as the reason a race went a certain way. Not only is it redboarding, but it is useless.
On the contrary, at least the ROTW and some other posters on this board analyze a race before it happens and lay out reasons why a horse might be a good play. Those posts are often wrong and so be it. But at least it isn\'t redboarding.
OK,
But for future races, given these two horses, I think one could compete with the other, even knowing the final figure probably says one is not fast enough (meaning if LITF goes 43.4 he does not go 109.1). So in reviewing the post race analysis from the last race I believe it COULD make me money in the future. Anyways, thats alot of what I do. Thanks for the dime.
jimbo,
>My point, ignored to date by Class, is that PACE HANDICAPPING IS USELESS AFTER THE FACT.<
Absolutely disagree. What could be more imporatnt than knowing how well a horse really ran when he comes back and you are looking at his figures and patterns. It may or may not lead to a bet, but you are obviously better off (assuming we are right of course).
>POINT OUT SOMETHING BEFORE A RACE GOES OFF IF YOU WANT TO PROVE A POINT. <
I did (and have on other occasions). I redboarded the Smile, but since I didn\'t cash I didn\'t think it mattered and I assumed you would believe me (especially because I said there was no chance I would have bet the winner) .
I DIDN\"T BET the CALDER RACE because my pace analysis led me to believe that the outcome was going to be determined by what happened up front and it wasn\'t clear to me who if anyone would benefit. That the favorite rated just off and won doesn\'t matter. A single result doesn\'t matter. A series of 200 races might matter. What matters is that the pace WAS fast and IMO several horses were impacted and ran slower final times than they would have otherwise.
The whole point of my long post before was that sometimes NOT BETTING is valuable!
class,
regarding all those times you type in a thousand words, then tell us there is no value in the race - just end it. you do it too much, nobody wants to read it, and it clutters up the board. no opinion based on TG (and other factors), then don\'t post. i think i speak for everyone.
xichibanx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe your right Housebuster ripped up his
> foot against Sheikh Albadou as a huge favorite in
> the 91 BC Sprint at CD.
>
> SC it was nice to see you Sunday.
>
> xichibanx
Housebuster definitely went bad in his last B.C.Sprint start and I believe it was a hoof injury. I can\'t remember if Housebuster ran the B.C.Sprint the prior year. I think he may have skipped it due to injury or form issues.
Housebuster grabbed a quarter leaving the gate, or so Jimmy Croll said. Bet Twice was drugged, and Holy Bull was also sabatoged.
Housebuster wasn\'t going to win anyway. Lukas sent \"Hammers\" horse Media Plan, a gelded sprinter he sold to him for about a $Million, out in an opening quarter of about 21 flat. He may do the same thing this year with Going Wild. I wonder if P. Diddy is into horses.
HP I read where you said you go to the track and only buy \"Sheets\" but not the Daily Racing Form.
Is that legal??
\"I think it\'s too long of a gap betweeen the 3YO sprint up there and the BC. The BC is a tough spot to come back off a mini-layoff.\"
What silliness CH. The BC Sprint has more wins/itm finishes off long layoffs than any other BC event. Not even close.
I think the price was closer to 400K, but still ridiculous.
Class,
Here\'s what I think you should do (IMO). Since you wrote this incredibly pedantic and longwinded post about the Smile and analyzed this race so carefully after the fact, show us how you use this in the future (i.e., when one of the horses come back) and DON\'T POST ANYMORE UNTIL THEN. Go back to your Smile redboard post, pull out your \"analysis\" and apply it before a race. It should be relatively simple for you to tie this up in a few weeks when one of these nags shows up for a race.
Since you really haven\'t said anything new and have repeated yourself 10,000 times (and there are at least three other people on this thread who are telling you the same thing) maybe you could benefit from the \"layoff\" as well.
HP
BD,
\"The BC Sprint has more wins/itm finishes off long layoffs than any other BC event. Not even close. \"
I\'m not sure what the exact stats are on a ROI basis for the BC sprint, but it can\'t be a very big sample. I can tell you that I do well playing against short priced horses trying to win Grade 1 dirt stakes off 2 or more month layoffs. (sprints also) If the horse is a standout, it can come back 95%+ or so and still win, but that\'s rarely the case in Grade 1s (standouts). I think you are way better off betting against horses like that. In the money finishes don\'t mean much to me in this case. A lot of layoffs come back just sharp enough to get a piece of the purse and run very close to their best figure without getting the job done in the last 1/8th.
HP,
\"Here\'s what I think you should do (IMO). Since you wrote this incredibly pedantic and longwinded post about the Smile and analyzed this race so carefully after the fact, show us how you use this in the future (i.e., when one of the horses come back)\"
You really crack me up.
I already did and already know. Read my post about LITF and the duelers in the smile.
I\'ve also done that about a million times already with other horses including as we moved through the triple crown trail and other races. Every time I did it someone trashed me about bringing up pace again or misinterpreted what I was saying as a criticism of the accuracy of the TG\'s speed figures.
What you have to get past is the idea that only cashing a bet or picking the winner demonstrates the value of the insights.
What you have to look at is the subsequent performances of horses that I\'ve said weren\'t as good as their speed figures indicated and vice versa. You also have to look at the bets NOT MADE because a possibly more accurate appraisal of their performances indicated that there was no value even though it looked like there was based on speed figures alone.
Granted, my posts are often long winded, but if I tell you a horse sucks without explaining why I think that\'s the case how are you going to evaluate whether or not the specific insight might have any merit. If I say there\'s no value in a race without explaining a pace reason why I think a 5-1 shot with the top figure might not run back to his best, what good is it.
Class,
I don\'t want to read through all of your crap again. I\'m not giving you credit for bets you are not making, and if you think anyone else here does I believe you are sadly mistaken.
Let me know when you are ready to bet for or against Lost in the Fog or any of the Smile horses based on your eye punishing nonsense. Otherwise I would recommend you give it a rest.
Obviously I have no control over whether you post or not. It\'s just a suggestion. I\'ve been reading this board for years and I\'ve NEVER seen anyone as relentless as you -- with your expertise on pace, insurance, drugs and everything else. You just know everything about...EVERYTHING. With the slightest imagined prompting you are off on a diatribe about...your knowledge...of everything!
I\'ve argued with Michael D on this board, but I think he reads the posts and responds to them without blowing his own horn 10,000 times. He\'s even right about a few things! I\'ve disagreed with others too and at least there is some DIALOGUE. I don\'t think any post or response here (even from Jerry, who has only looked at every major race at every major track in the U.S. for the last 20 years!) has produced a dent in your opinion of anything.
You remind me of a joke --
\"ADVERTISEMENT
Encyclopedia Brittanica for sale -- no longer needed by owner. F**king wife knows everything.\"
HP
BD,
I took a quick look at the BC Sprint stats. It\'s possible I missed a horse here or there, but it looks like there were 4 winners from a total of 25 layoff starters.
Precisionist - 8.80
Very Subtle - 34.80
Desert Stomer - 31.00
Lite De Justice - 10.00
They were obviously highly profitable given the two longshot winners. The sample is kind of small considering the longshots.
Among the losers were many terrible longshots that weren\'t expected to do much and a few decent contenders that ran poorly.
I can\'t think of any reason obvious reason the BC sprint would produce better layoff results than the typical Grade 1 sprint because there are very few Grade 1 sprints and horses are usually totally geared up for them.
I don\'t remember the figures going back that far, but I think it\'s possible to conclude the Precisionist would fall into the category of being solidly better than his field and only paid as high as 8.80 because of questions about distance and form just prior.
I know Very Subtle had a monster race in the Test, but beyond that I can\'t remember exactly where she fit.
I remember not liking the other 2 very much for reasons other than the layoff.
In any event, it was eye opening to see the results. Thanks for pointing them out. I still think LITF would be better off resting now and having a prep before the BC or with a race between Saratoga and the BC.
I can appreciate the goal of having a fresh horse, but I think more than 2 months is too long coming into a field of Grade 1 monsters. If a horse needs that much time to recover, there might be something wrong or being 97% may get him beat at a short price.
Deleted
Just because you talk a lot about something doesn\'t mean you are good at it. Trust me. HP
Now that we are talking about Class\'s pocket billiards skills, blues music acumen, fantastic guitar playing and light bulb changing, any chance the board police will get involved.............
Jimbo-- look, as everyone knows by now, the guy drives me nuts. I cut him a little slack because we have a mutual friend for whom I do have some respect-- he\'s a stand-up guy. But yeah, I\'ve had about enough, especially since it\'s clear everyone else feels pretty much the same way, and it\'s affecting the business of this board. I will point out to HP (again) that the worst thing you can do is respond to this guy-- he\'s a guy with a weak ego, desperate for attention, and all his posts are in the end about himself. The more you respond, the more important he feels, and the more he is encouraged to do it. Which is why I stopped responding to him.
CH-- don\'t respond to this, if you do it will be taken down. If you post on a handicapping topic (including pace), I will let it stand (for now), if it\'s really about your navel gazing (or redundant) it will come down.
CH,
You need to do some more research on this one. The studies on the BC Sprint have been done and the stats have been published. A layoff preceeding the race is a strong positive indicator. If you have stats on Grade 1 sprints overall, I would like to see them. You can post them here or point me to another web site where they exist. Thanks.
I know gilded time came off a 1 year layoff to run a very good third in this race. I dont have a problem with a layoff entering this race as long as I trust the trainer.
jim p,
I did a study on layoffs by class level in NY using a database that had several years of races. I forget the exact years, but it was late 80s and maybe just into the 90s. At the Grade 1 level, horses off more than 2 month layoffs were underperformers on a ROI basis. The few that really laid over their fields did fine. Those that figured as contenders or were marginally best often ran well without winning and underperformed most from a ROI betting perspective. Since that time I\'ve played against many horses in Grade 1 events when they were coming off a layoff and were bet as if it wasn\'t a factor - in other words a short price. I\'m pretty sure I made good money on those bets. I can only remember a few that beat me. Birdstone was one last year.
I never bothered to study the BC races separately because I didn\'t think there would be anything to be learned from a small sub-sample of that kind. I was kind of surprised that the BC sprint had 4 winners off a layoff. I probably didn\'t notice because I didn\'t like any of the horses to begin with for other reasons. I tend to notice things when I dislike a specific horse for a specific reason and he wins anyway.
Personally, I\'m not going to put too much weight on a stat of 25 horses that contained two $30+ winners, but I guess it\'s worth watching.
Class,
You wrote --
\"The few that really laid over their fields did fine. Those that figured as contenders or were marginally best often ran well without winning and underperformed most from a ROI betting perspective.\"
What were the criteria for determining the horses that \"really laid over their fields.\" This is what YOU thought, or was there some real statistical basis? Who decided which were \"contenders\" or \"marginally best?\" Again, this sounds like your opinion, and not really any kind of factual or statistical study. It obviously wasn\'t based on anything like TG numbers (did you use Beyer numbers to determine whether they really laid over their fields or your own...whatever?).
Given this language, it sounds totally subjective. If there was any real statistical criteria used to establish who \"laid over\" and who didn\'t, I would be interested to hear what it was.
HP
Did your study break out sprints and routes? Are the results you quoted consistent for both groupings?
By the way, the data that I\'ve seen on the BC races show that a layoff is a positive indicator in the Sprint but a negative indicator in the longer races, especially the Turf.
Jim P,
I broke everything out at the lowest level that made sense. I had stats like this - stake sprints, layoff of 60-90 days, that went off the favorite etc.... It was a computer report, but I had access to all the details like the dates of actual races, race #, odds, class, distance, track condition, Logic Dictates speed figure for the race (no Beyer\'s back then), my own pace figure for every call of every race (Logic D. didn\'t make pace figures back then), the running position of the eventual winner of the race etc...
I also looked at higher level groups like all sprints, all routes, all claimers, all favorites etc...
When I had a large sample within the lowest level category, I took it at face value. When I had a small sample, I looked at some of the higher level trends to try to draw conclusions.
In the \"rare\" cases that I found something that stood out, I pulled out the racing forms and actually looked at the individual horses and races. I used to keep about 18-24 months of DRF\'s handy in those days so I could look up a horse\'s races that were already off the DRF PPs.
When I examined the stakes in further detail, I noticed it was the Grade 1 level layoffs that did the worst. The one exception was when a very good horse just happened to be returning into a field where he was an obvious stick out. Most of those went off at very short odds and did fine as a group.
It was the more marginal favorites and contenders that seemed to underperform the most even though many did run well.
My conclusion was that in that over 60 day range, the best layoff trainers could get their horses close to their best, but not 100%. Others just had problems. Being a hair short was often enough to get them beat at the Grade 1 level where there are almost always multiple tough contenders and a tough competitive pace etc... but that was not reflected in the odds properly.
It isn\'t an automatic toss out. I weigh it as a negative that sometimes does not get built into the odds properly.
I haven\'t kept any further stats since then, but I\'ve been betting against them ever since with success. As with all things, I use some judgement about whether the odds reflect the greater risk etc...
I actually still have most of the original computer print out somewhere, but the database was lost in a computer crash. (and I\'m a compuer guy) :)
If you know of any other stats like that, please let me know because that BC Sprint stat was very interesting to me. I always game to learn something new.
vicarage goes tomorrow, again 6f at bel. if we get a fast track, it should be a good comparison. diamond isle looks a bit interesting. ran a very nice \"6.5\" in his second start as a two year old, caught a dead rail in his first sprint since then. could jump a bunch. tashdeed looks to run in the \"4\" range, but will most likely lose ground. byanosejoe look stuck at the \"6\" lvl. storm creek rising, well i guess you can\'t ask for a better pattern (12,10,9,7,6,5). don\'t know what to think of big apple daddy\'s last. the cutback to 6f should help though. tough one - any thoughts out there?
Michael,
The one problem with using Vicarage as the basis for double checking a figure (if that\'s what you were referring to) is that his form tends to be all over the place. This is the one Pletcher horse that IMO opinion has been handled terribly. This spot makes a little more sense.
Big Apple Daddy\'s last was a pretty savage pace. IMO, he ran well.
assuming the track condition is fast, this is a perfect race for comparison purposes. vicarage ran a \"2\" back in jan going 6f off decent rest, and he ran a \"4\" in the true north going 6f off decent rest. the horse goes 6f tomorrow off decent rest (same track as the true north). you are confused because vicarage stretched out and flattened out like a pancake in a few races, and came back on short rest in one race. in terms of apples to apples, this comparison is about as good as you are going to get.
Michael,
I agree that the stretch out clouds the issue a great deal because I\'ve doubted he wanted to go a full route all along, but there\'s not much of a consistent record there to pin your hopes on for using him as the basis for checking a prior figure. I personally wouldn\'t be shocked if he ran a new top or ran like crap tomorrow. :) I guess every bit of evidence helps. For me, the Jerkens horse verified the quality of True North.
Class,
Nobody is questioning the quality of the True North. Jerry gave the winner a negative 2. The \"other guy\" gave the winner about a negative 5. Both are quality numbers, it is the degree of quality.
And it matters. At a negative 2, I (and probably many others), thought Woke Up Dreaming was a bet against at 8-5 in the Calder race.
At a negative 5, I guess I would have expected regression, but 8-5 was more understandable.
Jimbo,
what we\'re talking about is not 3 points...but 6.Brown is usually 3 faster than rags when both parties agree on a race.
At Jerrys, number it was a bet against.Looks like Len just got the best of us on that one.
PARTYpokerON!
rex,
read through it, jim\'s got it all in there.
The only possible way of doing the WUD race at Belmont, other than the way I did it, would be to make it 2 points faster, not 3. I\'m going to give it another week or two, and review all the races before the Belmont.
i havn\'t been watching bel today, so i don\'t know how fast 1:09.3 is, but i really do think that race was ideal for comparison sake. a few more from the true north go in the tom fool on sunday. that\'s at 7f though, not as easy
Big Apple Daddy has been a fast horse, for quite a while, running a bunch of numbers in the 1 to 3 range.
Either that horse bounced really badly, Vicarage ran a big new top, or this is some evidence that the True North was a faster race than originally thought.
Maybe JB can comment early next week when he does the Belmont numbers for today, as it would be good to keep an eye on some of the others coming out of that race in the next few weeks, for betting opportunities. (I know in a previous post that Jerry mentioned he would look at the again several months from now when enough evidence is there, which helps the database stay accurate, but the betting opportunities are gone by then.
the true north # looks a bit slow, although it\'s certainly not a definte yet. i do think, however, that the fortitude TG shows in reviewing these things is a positive. can only make the product better.
Jimbo-- I won\'t be waiting a couple of months, just a couple of weeks.
Vicarage isn\'t a great horse to do this with, because he has 2\'s before. Even if he ran another one, it wouldn\'t mean that much. WUD running the big # subsequently does mean something.
Thank You - I had asked a couple of these \" pace folk\'s \" for a morning line for a stakes race run in NY recently and got some smooth talk but no ML . One of the most intresting features to ponder in the now defunct Colts Neck pace data was their ML .