Interesting point of discussion in ROTW analysis

[derby1592]

In this weeks ROTW analysis was the following interesting statement:

\"It’s highly doubtful Repent will back up here but he is getting down to levels which are exorbitantly fast for young 3yr-olds. His pattern does not lead one to project a bounce at all but the sheer performance level itself may be too fast for his good and may cause a reaction because he’s not physically capable of withstanding the stress induced by such big efforts. Again, his pattern doesn’t lead to that speculation, the performance level does.\"

Particularly interesting are the words, \"his pattern doesn’t lead to that speculation, the performance level does.\"

This raises all sorts of questions.

At what performance level (if any) do you start to expect a reaction even with a strong pattern?

Are there some \"constants\" that even the fastest, fittest, and strongest horses cannot exceed (regardless of pattern) without inducing a reaction?

Are those constants changing over time (I know that sounds like an oxymoron) as horses seem to be getting faster and faster at a younger age?

If such constants exist, what are those \"dangerous\" performance levels as a function of age, sex, surface, etc. Wouldn\'t it be useful to have a set of guidelines (not rules) to help in analyzing a horse like Repent?

In the past on this board, we have discussed some possible constants such as a negative number or three straight negative numbers for any horse, sub-6 for a 2yo, etc.

I would be interested in hearing other thoughts on similar constants along with any facts and data to back them up.

Chris

[HP]

I don\'t know if I would call these rules, but these are some general observations.

At what performance level (if any) do you start to expect a reaction even with a strong pattern?

I mainly consider are the age/sex of the horse. Fillies are more likely to react to big efforts. So are younger horses. I don\'t know what kind of \'rule\' you can make out of this. If a 2yo ran a zero I would be more inclined to mark him down a peg than a 4yo who ran a zero regardless of the pattern. Older horses are more able to run and pair the big numbers. Pattern is a factor in the sense that if the big races are not huge leaps forward, the horse may be able to stay at that level longer, but I think you need to knock down the 2yos running 2\'s and 3\'s regardless of pattern based on how they\'ve fared over the past few years. I would imagine we will see the 2yo at some point who can run the 2\'s and 3\'s and persevere. He\'ll be a damn short price (more on this below).

Are there some \"constants\" that even the fastest, fittest, and strongest horses cannot exceed (regardless of pattern) without inducing a reaction?

Very few horses pair negative numbers, and I\'ve never seen one run more than three in a row. That looks like about the limit to me. A few have been able to stay in the 1-2-negative number range for quite awhile (Skip Away, Cigar), but they are obvious exceptions. Had a great chat with Chuckles about this.

Are those constants changing over time (I know that sounds like an oxymoron) as horses seem to be getting faster and faster at a younger age?

Over the past few years, I\'ve noticed that more top notch horses can pair the big efforts and negative numbers. A few of them have bounced a lot less that I would expect after two negative numbers as well. Things are definitely changing.

These big figure horses are going to get bet down to 1-5 most of the time. It\'s not like their quality is a secret. When I see them, I just try to figure out if they can get beat, and I don\'t make as much of an effort to figure out how much faster they can go, or how long they can keep it up. They can make for nice betting opportunities and that\'s my focus. Someday a horse will come along to break all the \'rules\', but until then, I stick with the percentages I\'ve seen and try to beat them when the time is right. HP

[tread]

I throw an additional variable in the mix, I think in many cases a horses running style has something to do with his/her ability to string together good numbers.  There are many ways of judging this, but I like the BRIS pace figures that show what part of the race the horse is doing it\'s fastest running.  The thesis is, simply stated, off the pace runners that close are usually more consistent than on the pace runners.  Ragozin makes reference to this in his book, I think.

There has been a great deal of talk about those 2yr old horses who have run a sub-6 not making it, but in most of the cases I can think of, these are all horses who tend to run the fastest part of their race (according to BRIS) in the front or middle part.  Some for-instances are Balto Star, High Yield, Favorite Trick (I\'m sure I\'m forgetting many others).  It appears to me that horses that run fast in the early/middle seem more likely to wear out, have erratic patterns, and not appreciate the stretch in distance to 1 1/4 miles.

This is the reason I don\'t like Came Home or Siphonic to win the KY Derby this year.  They are near-the-lead types whose running style and previous BRIS pace figures suggest they will have enough left in the strectch.  

Repent is quite different from most of the other horses who have run sub-6s as two year olds.  His BRIS pace figures are dramatically higher in the last part of each race.  For this reason (along with his performace so far) I think Repent has a great shot at beating the sub-6 jinx this year.

Last year, there were 2 nice horses to play with higher-back end BRIS pace figures that had fast thorograph figures to run back to.  Monarchos and Invisible Ink.  

As Mall was so kind to mention, I have yet to see Request for Parole, don\'t know his thorograph or BRIS figures, so I have no idea where he fits into this mix.  Nor have I seen many of the runners in the Florida Derby.  Hopefully the picture will get a little clearer after the FLDerby and Sprial and we\'ll see if there is any competition for Repent.  I do still like EasyfromtheGG\'s line, but I think he benefitted from a severe rail bias and it made yesterdays race look better than it actually was.  His BRIS figures were borderline going in, but after being close to the front yesterday, I don\'t think hes going to have the right running style to expect improvement at 1 1/4 miles.

[HP]

I think you are onto something Tready but it is very difficult to quantify. On Repent and Siphonic, it depends on how the rest of the field shapes up. If it works out (unlikely) that they can loaf on the lead for awhile, it may help them, and then you\'re tossing a horse that you KNOW is fast enough to win.

I will try to imagine how the pace shapes up but I would be reluctant to make this the primary reason to eliminate a horse that figures. Sometimes a race is loaded with speed and everyone decides to lay back and the one horse who sticks to his style and gets an easy lead has an unforseen advanatage. Young horses can learn how to do new things and surprise you with an unexpected change in tactics. These are just a few of the ways I\'ve gotten screwed out of decent scores by elevating pace over other factors. This isn\'t usually the case in the Derby, but it\'s tough for me to make pace the primary consideration under MOST circumstances.

That said, I\'m sure there are some people who make a living on nothing BUT pace considerations. HP

[MO]

 Looks to me that given the fact that Easyfromthegitgo\'s best prior to yesterday was a 7.75, and the slow time of the race, its reasonable to think that Repent bounced. Probably at a good time too. Next start he can get back to his top and then run a new top in Derby.
Mark

[rail]

Why do you see Repent bouncing yesterday? He ran all over the track (maybe they should replace D\'Amico with Bailey to keep him from going wide...OOPS LOL!!!!)

As for Easyfromthegitgo, Asmussen always has \'em ready to fire in FG Stakes and Donnie kept him to the rail the whole time as I recall.

I don\'t see Repent winning the Derby when he\'s never even tried 9-furlongs.

Let\'s see how Prado does on Harlan\'s.

[Mall]

HP: Correct me if I\'m wrong, but aren\'t you essentially saying that you take into consideration the factors which work for you in the context of a specific race to make a handicapping judgment re whether each contender is an overlay to go forward, backward, or stay about the same? If so, you might want to take a look at the Wired article when it goes online tomorrow, because the \"cutting edge\" of what a few sheets players are working on & doing is not all that different conceptually from what the HK & ND teams are doing on the handicapping side. On a different note, what can you tell me about Cary Fotias?

TH: I guess I deserved that, although I note that you & HP have put your scroll bar discussion aside & are now engaged in a very civil discourse on an interesting topic. I have also been using Brisnet for pace & some other non-TG info for a no. of yrs, and am probably somewhere in between you & HP when it comes to the importance of pace in any particular contest. One sort of late-breaking development in this area is the effort to combine sheet concepts & Sartin pace/velocity ratings, which is explained in a book by, you guessed it, Cary Fotias. I\'ll let you know what it says in a week or so, but in the meantime the concepts are explained in a general way at equiform.com, which I am not endorsing or plugging in any way.

[HP]

Mall: I had to read what you said a few times, but yes, that is what I\'m doing. By the time a horse has run a negative number or two, he will be bet down accordingly. With all the speed figures out there, the cat is out of the bag pretty quick. The public will almost always overbet the last race (the horse that\'s peaked) as opposed to looking for the horse that has yet to pop, or could take advantage if the 1-5 monster falters. So this is what I focus on instead of \'how fast are they?\' or \'how long will they keep doing this?\', which is, for me, more of an academic exercise. I will check out the Wired article.

As for the scroll bar thing, I was cranky after that whole thing. I\'m usually civil.

I\'ve looked into the Sartrin thing and talked to some people who\'ve done well by it. I admit I don\'t get it. Could be the greatest thing ever. Maybe some day I\'ll get out my calculator, but by then I\'ll probably be wearing plaid pants belted around my chest. HP

[MO]

Well, its just that he nosed a horse that runs 7 and 3/4\'s. Repent ran a 3 and a 4 last 2. If you take the point of view that Easyfrom... improved, then to what? a 5?
I don\'t know what the figure for the race will be, but a 4 or a 5 seems logical. I would be surprised if Repent got a 2 for that race. Its just speculation at this point.

[bdhsheets@hotmail.com]

If you can factor in Repents wide run on the turn and weaving down the stretch, shoot he may have run a negative number! LOL

\'sheets

[Ian Meyers]

There is a very logical way to tie pace ( be it early speed on dirt, or late speed on grass) into the process.  Mall references a very good Wired arcticle.  The logic is all  all there.  Start with the concept that when horses bounce they typically do it in the final fraction and go from there.  Unfortunately, its a lot more complicated in practice (lots of math) than it is in theory...

[derby1592]

Ian,

I am very interested in the theory and the practic. I don\'t mind the math. If you would rather not post the detail, please send me an email at kyderby1592@yahoo.com

Thanks

Chris

[gamblin man]

The speed figures I make ignore the first 1/4 mile. IOW, in a 6f race I use the time for the final 4f, at 1 1/8m I use the final 7f, etc. I do VERY well with turf races, where the run up could be a variable. I use a separate figure to compare each horse\'s first 1/4. Last year, Monarchos had monster ratings back when he broke his maiden and 1st allowance conditions, about par with older stakes horses.

[goofything]

Scott,

would you mind providing more information on how you go about calculating your numbers? (i.e. the mechanics).

Additionally, how do you do your track variant?