In what way(s) does a slow pace possible not enable a horse to run the number that might have otherwise? Thanks
Here\'s an example.
Let\'s say you are capable of walking to the store in 10 minutes at a brisk pace.
You do this every day. One day, someone you know that walks much slower , occupies you in conversation for half the distance. Being courteous, you slow up to stay with them.
They bid you adieu at the halfway mark and you resume your normal brisk pace.
Takes you 13 minutes to get there, not 10. You could have gotten there in 10, but after walking much slower for half the distance, that was no longer physically possible.
The next trip to the store , you do it in 10.
Or, more realistically, on your walk to the store, a man occupies you in conversation for the first 1/4 of the way and then pulls out a knife, you run like hell the next 1/4 until he gives up the chase and, exhausted, you just sit down never making it to the store.
Jerry in Baltimore
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or, more realistically, on your walk to the store,
> a man occupies you in conversation for the first
> 1/4 of the way and then pulls out a knife, you run
> like hell the next 1/4 until he gives up the chase
> and, exhausted, you just sit down never making it
> to the store.
>
> Jerry in Baltimore
eased
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or, more realistically, on your walk to the store,
> a man occupies you in conversation for the first
> 1/4 of the way and then pulls out a knife, you run
> like hell the next 1/4 until he gives up the chase
> and, exhausted, you just sit down never making it
> to the store.
Great example.
Of course pace impacts how a number is earned, but in
my experience such discussions are not welcome here.
A track can change speeds during a card, but a horse
doesn\'t change speeds during a race -- or if it does,
it nets out neatly to the number the horse was going
to earn anyway, right?
OK. More Kool-Aid, please.
Pace matters.
There are very few absolutes in handicapping. It\'s what makes it so intriguing.
For years, folks thought the final time was an absolute. 1:10 was 1:10. Though they realized 1:10 at one track was not the same as 1:10 at another track.
Then 1:10 on Wednesday at Churchill was 1:10 on Saturday at Churchill. Until it was not.
Then 1:10 at 1pm on Saturday at Churchill was still 1:10 at 5pm on Saturday at Churchill. Until it wasn\'t.
If they go slow early, are they really going slow early? And if they are can they really make it up late? But what if the \"late part\" of the track is like Churchill on Wednesday and the \"early part\" of the track like Churchill on Saturday? Does it really all equal out?
It comes down to compromises, but when one compromises does one risk a compromise that isn\'t a fair reflection of the conditions? Of course. But many times that\'s all one can do and then rely upon handicapping acumen.
It\'s getting harder. I can remember using this product and it pointing out a clear 35-1 horse in a claiming sprint @ Calder. There was no question that horse was the winner. The horse won laughing, but how many clear 35-1\'s are on a Card or Meet today? The reason? Everyone now uses figures with varying degrees of reliability.
A good example of all of this is the Travers won by Keen Ice. Many of the variables outlined above came into play there and that\'s what makes it so exciting.
...yet, if the pace is extremely fast,the whole number is rarely extremely fast, save gr 1 types...fair surface.
Race #7 @ AP yesterday (Thurs) is an example of sorts regarding your slow pace question. The 2nd place horse #5 Royal Standard was overlooked @ 25/1.
If you glance at his sheet from the red board room his last race is noted sl_pace. That last race was also his first turf race and interestingly a big jump up new top.
The other semi-clue was the trainer, although a low pct winner, has a positive ROI with short rest which in this case was about 11 days.
Bottom line the horse did not look competitive at first glance. To further complicate the issue the race came off the turf yet sl_pace split the three horses tabbed in the TG analysis to create the only significant payoff of the day that I noticed.
For those who read between the lines and exercised some imagination in this race I salute you. I like the way TG notes data that is not objective and cannot be measured. I would be disappointed if they did speculate - that\'s my role.
On another subject, what is the symbol (just kidding) for large heart gene which evidently AP as well as Rachel Valentina? are suspected to have?