after watching Cosmonaut\'s last few, I don\'t see it happening at this distance...showing up must be the real deal. Relaxed Gesture looked to me like he\'s given efforts and been right there. No English channel in here to oust Cacique.
Any thoughts on Bushfire -off the layoff in the other race?
Lastly, in race 7 ....30:1 on May Night? Count me in! Saw her @ DelMar, finished nicely...30:1? boxing w/jade queen, mag.song,take the ribbon. Could make for a nice pik 4 pay as well...30:1?
Shanahan,
Would caution that the Belmont turf course(listed good on fri) was more on the soft side with slow races all day on the grass.
Certain runners do not handle too much cut in the grass so I would be careful when mapping out the grass races until it firms up.
Re Bushwacker, it looks like she will have early company from Teamate. Interesting that Bushfire has not come back to match it\'s highly questionable 1 which he received as an early spring 3yr old filly.Ironic that she has \"regressed\" fig wise and still won two Gr 1\'s.
Good luck
Mike
I loved Cosmonaut even before seeing the ROTW. He had no chance in the Million with the slow break and wide trip behind a crawling pace, but he showed excellent late speed.
Improving 4-yr-old is greatly undervalued at the morning line.
Jerry,
How did Showing Up get a fig of 2.25(running 200.09) whereas Cacique gets 1(running 201.35) same day same weight and ground only negligibly different in Cacique\'s favor.
SU outran Cacique 6 and 1/2 lengths against the clock. Please explain.
Mike
adjusted for pace Miff.
performance figures rather than speed figures.
in these cases, there really is no other way to do it.
Thanks Mike D,
5 other sources don\'t agree that Cacique ran faster than SU by any method of measuring. The adjustment for pace is pretty un-scientific.
Mike
Miff,
Actually, by the clock, the difference is closer to 8 1/2 lemgths. Cacique did go 1 path wider around both turns but that would only account for 2 lengths.
I know Jerry does not consider pace in his figures, so for some other reason, he split the variant between the 2 races - probably based on the horses\' times.
Looks like he made the right decision as both horses ran to their figures today as Cacique beat Showing Up by about 2 lengths and Go Deputy beating SU by a head.
Bob
Hi Bob,
Good explanation, have not had Jerry\'s response yet but a split variant on the grass in app one hour seems highly unlikely( beyer did not split it). By way of the race, SU stumbled slightly was pulling early. No close to the pace turf runners have won a race at Belmont, a closers bias for sure, so far.Nice ride by Prado and sharp late acceleration by the winner.
Mike
we have had this dicsussion in the past.
Jerry has written:
\"Michael-- the definition of an \"S. Pace\" race is one where we didn\'t use the final time literally. In grass races the pace is often very slow relative to the final time, and the final time is therefore not indicative-- this happens extremely often in Europe, which is why TimeForm publishes two figures for the races. The one based on \"collateral form\" is the right one to use, and that\'s what we do here.\"
in the Arl Million, the final time was not indicative because the pace was so slow. TG therefore put less emphasis on the final time, and got the race faster than others. TG was essentially judging the \"performance\" of the race, as opposed to the \"speed\" of the race (although I know Jerry doesn\'t like the \"performance figure\" characterization).
Michael is right (except that I was the one that came up with the term \"performance figures, on Post Time). And Beyer definitely did split the races, though not to the degree I did.
There is also an answer here somewhere that I gave to CH about doing figures for grass races that goes into this more fully.
Mike D,
One observation, the final time was not that slow, the pace was.Jerry has confirmed on many occasions that pace has nothing to do with making the figs.Notations re pace are all you get. Lets not forget Classhandicapper often pointed this out and was villified for the suggestion.
This requires Jerrys explantion.
Mike
Miff-- as I have said before (in what Michael quoted and in several responses to CH and others) I definitely adjust the figures for pace so slow it compromises the final time-- that\'s exactly what \"S. Pace\" means. That was not the bone of contention between me and CH (aside from his refusal to shut up).
Hi Miff,
Thanks for raising the issue of what appear to be strange changes in track speed. I can see that such a radical change in variant in a short time on a grass course might seem unlikely, but if the times the horses ran indicates it occured, knowing the precise reasons for it, be they change in wind or an abnormal pace scenario, are only secondary to me - as long as the figures hold up.
The exception is on the occasions when I do a pace analysis to evaluate a figure. This can be a problem since I will then be doubling the effect of the pace.
I think Showing Up ran his race today and lost by about the margin the figures predicted. As far as being handicapped by a closer\'s bias, I know that this is a very unpopular view, but I believe that most apparent speed biases are more a reflection of how horses are ridden then whether or not a true bias exists. But that\'s a hornet\'s nest I\'d rather not stir up now.
Bob
Jerry,
Won\'t ask how the adjustment is made or what you consider a slow pace in a grass race, which often feature slow paces.
On that score do you adjust figs for inordinately fast/wicked paces.If no, why not?
Mike
bob,
slow pace doesn\'t affect the variant. different issues.
slow pace was the main issue here.
Michael,
You\'re correct. Strictly speaking, varient refers only to change in track speed. I meant to refer more broadly to all factors that can affect a horses final time and can be taken into account when making the final figure, including a very slow pace. Adjustemnts to final time would be a better term for what I was discussing.
Bob
Michael D. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bob,
>
> slow pace doesn\'t affect the variant. different
> issues.
>
> slow pace was the main issue here.
>
Michael, with all due respect, slow pace races, especially upon turf, can have a significant impact upon trying to calculate a variant. Tgraph will argue that Race to Race changing track conditions add to the dilemma. Factor also that with Turf, there may only be 1 or 2 Turf races run a day on many cards.
I\'m not sure how important the variant is to some of the elite figure makers, but a variant or a variant deduction to me is still essential. Obviously, the less you deduce the better. Which is not to say, you can\'t deduce and get it right on.
bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael,
>
> You\'re correct. Strictly speaking, varient refers
> only to change in track speed. I meant to refer
> more broadly to all factors that can affect a
> horses final time and can be taken into account
> when making the final figure, including a very
> slow pace. Adjustemnts to final time would be a
> better term for what I was discussing.
>
> Bob
yes, i like to separate the traditional variant, meaning track and weather conditions, from pace, but i understand what you are saying .....
interesting point you make about double counting the effects of pace on a race (earlier).
how many times have you looked at a 95 or so beyer from a :50, 1:38, 1:49 type turf race and wonder if it has been adjusted? are the closers that were mindlessly rated ten lengths off the pace until the top of the stretch faster than that? can they go 105 under different circumstances? how about the 90-1 shot that was ridden all the way around and faded late? was his number adjusted? is he an 80 beyer animal that was just artificially bumped to a 90? it\'s all or nothing right?
adjusting for pace is not easy. it\'s also not easy for the handicapper to factor in what the figure maker did. the \'sl pace\' notation that TG gives is a big help though. beyer would be wise to start doing something similar.
....
beyerguy, you around? thoughts?
Miff-- I only adjust figures when the pace is so slow that it affects the actual final time of the races, where the horses simply can\'t make up the lost time. In the case of a hot pace the final time is not affected for the entire field, we mark it so that everyone can draw their own conclusions about how it affected individual horses. Problem with hot paces is that they are subjective, and we don\'t always catch them-- with slow pace races they jump out at you because the final time comes up out of line.
Grass courses when dry are generally much faster than today\'s sandy dirt tracks, and the pace is usually slower,so it\'s more likely the time will be affected (you don\'t see many dirt races where the second half goes faster than the first, it happens frequently with grass races). Fortunately, grass horses are much more consistent and run in tighter ranges, making it easy to figure out the right way to do the race-- turf races with several horses that have turf histories are almost never a problem no matter the circumstances (pace, rain, no other grass races). Once you make the adjustments for weight and ground everything falls into place nicely, but only for those who use weight and ground and have a data base ground fine over the years.
In the end you do it off the horses. I have heard that Ragozin uses a formula for slow pace races, if he does he\'s nuts.
Europe features lots of very slow paces, to say nothing of funny distances with hills, and short meets where you might only see three races at a certain distance. It\'s a good thing grass horses run in tight ranges, otherwise Timeform would be screwed.
Good info, although a misprint on dirt races having faster second halfs. Also when the rails are up on turf, the pace can be very slow. BBB
Today, BC Turf champ Shirocco won the Prix Foy in 2:32.90 and Mandesha a 3yo filly won the Prix Vermeille in 2:29.20 over the same trip. In clock cuckoo land that\'s about a 22L or 48lb better performance by the young lassie.
Fabre mentions strong possibility Shirocco points to BC Classic after L\'Arc.
Jerry,
Thanks. I thought forever that the pace designation was just an alert to an inordinately slow pace. I was unaware that you actually adjusted the fig because of the very slow pace (on grass only)
I\'m aware you follow track speeds closely but I\'m surprised that a premier grass course like Arlington changed speeds in one hour on 8/12.
Mike
\"Adjust\" is a euphamism for \"I threw the old tick tock out the window\".
Seriously, how many times does he have to say I did it off the horses? How many times? Heading toward infinity. *click*
Bell-- fixed the typo. The \"slow\" splits are often due to short run-ups at certain distances at certain tracks-- from memory, the 1 1/16th inner turf without a rail at Belmont is way backed up into the chute, almost no runup.
Michael,
Accounting for the affect of pace is truly a challenge for both handicapper and figure maker. While I agree with pace handicappers that it can and does affect final time, I don't think it's effects can be quantified in a uniform linear fashion as they attempt to do. The reason for this, without getting too technical, is given in the formula for kinetic energy where KE = 1/2 MV squared, so the effects of velocity are exponential and cannot be calculated in simple linear fashion.
Beyer has also written that since the effects of pace cannot be (or are difficult) to quantify, he views extreme pace scenarios qualitatively as trip factors, such as dead rails or poor starts.
My basic approach is to deal with extreme variations from even pace, whether fast or slow, as bad trips and put a plus sign next to a horses figure, as Timeform does.
The only problem occurs when the figure maker has already adjusted the figure, which is why the TG notation for slow pace is a big help there.
I share your surprise that, given his position on the effect of extreme pace deviations, that Beyer does not include fast or slow pace notations with his figures.
Bob
I listened to that race the pace was very very slow. It caused the race to become a 3 furlong sprint at the end.
Whatever the case may have been in the Man O\'War with regards to pace, that was one of the most impressive finishes going long on the turf that I have seen in years.
By my calculation, CACIQUE came home in :10 4/5 on a slow turf.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I swung by Bay Meadows and played the Belmont pick 4 Saturday. I singled Magnificent Song and Cacique in the 7th and 9th respectively. I played Pine Island, Bushfire and Teammate in the 8th and spread out to 7 horses in the 10th including the 10-1 winner (can\'t remember his name). Had teammate held off Pine Island it would have been a great score. As it was, it paid 710 the way I had it. Not bad for not even handicapping the card at all and just playing off the $2 program. I couldn\'t beleive that Showing Up was pounded like he was. He\'s nice but he ain\'t no Kitten\'s Joy. I thought Cacique would blow them away and I thought right. Prado is the bomb. Diving down to the rail and asking the horse for everything at the 1/4 pole was brilliant!