Arlington Million Revisited

[JimP]

I posted the following shortly after the Arlington Million. There was no response. So I\'m posting again. I\'m genuinely interested in how the results of that race would be analyzed in light of the figures going in.

Author: JimP
Date:   08-15-04 10:04

TGJB: I would appreciate a post-race analysis on the Arlington Million. Did the Euros run new tops? Did the Americans, save possibly Kicken Kris, all X? Based on the figures going in, it seems like it would be difficult to make sense of the figures for this one. Would like to hear your thoughts.

As far as I am concerned, turf figures are a much less reliable indicator of ability than dirt figures because of the way turf races tend to develop compared to dirt races. There are WAY more slow paced races on turf. They often end in a 2-3 furlong mad dash sprint and blanket finish. That goes double for European races. That kind of development has an impact on final time and also masks the real difference between rivals that may have finshed close together.

I use turf figures to identify contenders on turf. But I also give extra credit to horses that have denonstrated high acceleration during the latter part of their races and horses that have consistently won or finished close in their races. They often have more in their tank than their figures indicate.

I don\'t have much experience with TG European turf figures, but IMO, Euprean turf horses (from France and England) tend to be better than their equally graded rivals in the US.



Post Edited (08-20-04 15:57)

[TGAB]

JB is up in Saratoga this weekend. Kicken Kris ran back to his top and the top two Europeans ran new tops, the others did not.

[JimP]

TGAB wrote \"Kicken Kris ran back to his top and the top two Europeans ran new tops, the others did not.\"

I thought that would be the case. There must have been a large number of X\'s among the others. Unusually so or not?

[Silver Charm]

I tend to agree with Classhandicapper on this one. I don\'t think it is a surprise that a horse like Kittens Joy probably equaled or slightly improved on his top in the undercard Stake simply because there were only 5 other horses in the race and he could \"run his race\". Sometimes with slow paced sprint to the wire races some horses never get a chance to run, however all things being equal it has been stated before on this Board that turf horses tend to \"bounce\" less.

One final comment if I may and others may chime in, it is not a surprise to me that the two Europeans received \"new tops\" because it appears to me there is a fairly consistent two point jump in the Euro\'s Figs when they come state-side and receive medication for the first time.

[JimP]

classhandicapper wrote in reference to handicapping turf races \"I also give extra credit to horses that have denonstrated high acceleration during the latter part of their races and horses that have consistently won or finished close in their races.\"

As do I. But I\'m afraid most turf handicappers do the same. And that means it is harder to find overlays among that population. So I\'ve been trying to make sense of the figures on their own merits. The figures for the Arlington Million participants look particularly puzzling in light of the result of the race. So I\'m curious about whether the race was an anomaly or if I have misread it.

>it appears to me there is a fairly consistent two point jump in the Euro\'s Figs when they come state-side and receive medication for the first time.<

Interesting point. Since I weight the figures less on turf to begin with, I\'ve always assumed it was a quality issue (both horses and complications with figure making on turf in Europe).

[Silver Charm]

>Interesting point. Since I weight the figures less on turf to begin with, I\'ve always assumed it was a quality issue (both horses and complications with figure making on turf in Europe).

When you say you weight the figures less does this mean you use them as less of a basis for making your selection then wager. Please explain.

There are others out there who know a great deal more about making figures than me and most certainly the Euro Figs. Maybe they could weigh-in. I trust the Euro figures but I have seen too many lines with trainers who receive a lot of imports and they suddenly spike to a new plateau once they arrive and begin receiving medication. I think the jump is more of a product of the medication than the quality of the Euro figures. As a matter of fact I would bet almost anything on it.

Why were so many of the Euros getting first lasix, etc at Arlington last weekend. This is not to imply something unscrupulous other than its within the rules and these guys know it works.

>When you say you weight the figures less does this mean you use them as less of a basis for making your selection then wager. Please explain.<

Yes, exactly. I weight speed figures less on turf than dirt.

I often come to the conclusion that a horse that has been running slightly slower figures is actually the better horse.

IMO, the paces of turf races are generally  slower and less demanding than what you see on dirt. Because of that, there\'s often a spirited sprint home during the last 2-3 furlongs (sub 12 second 1/8 miles).

If the superior horses are a few lengths off the lead at the top of the stretch in a slow paced race, they simply aren\'t going to blow their generally weaker rivals away and earn their best possible figures. There are limits to how much faster you can run than another fresh horse within 2-3 furlongs. There are also limits to how fast you can run late.  

As a result, there are many more very close finishes between multiple horses on turf. You don\'t see nearly as many huge wins or blow outs on turf as on dirt.

IMO, that means that the speed figures they are earning are impacted by the pace much more often.

What I am generally doing is looking to the figures to isolate the contenders. Then I am trying to seperate close contenders based on demonstrated late brilliance, the quality of the company they have been keeping and how consistently they have been performing well (especially winning) etc... I might also upgrade a figure if it was earned under an especially difficult pace scenario etc...

For the record, my results on turf aren\'t nearly as good as they are on dirt, but I don\'t believe that has anything to do with what I am saying above. I lost money betting on turf races for years before I started understanding some of the differences. Now I am at least in the game. :-)

[Lucy]

\"As a result, there are many more very close finishes between multiple horses on turf. You don\'t see nearly as many huge wins or blow outs on turf as on dirt. \"

there are also fewer turf races and bigger average fields, leading to more competitive races.
these fields (and race conditions) tend to crowd out, and drive off less competitive horses that would get distanced in dirt races.
also, turf horses tend to run to their \'form\' more often, w/less x\'s.

if turf #\'s were so meaningless, then it would be rather impossible to play turf races (w/any success) based solely on the #\'s.
it is not.



Post Edited (08-21-04 21:39)

[marcus]

Hi Al & Everybody - Howareya\' ? Got my fingers crossed to be up @ Saratoga next saturday the 28th myself , hope to see you up there ...
The TG ROTW for the Pacific Classic is right on the money as usual - excellent job!
The fav in the classic is sure to be tough sunday , I\'m going to try to hook it up w/ During & the other Perfect Horse underneath , if i do anything w/ that race at all , we\'ll see .
I\'m seeing alot talk regarding turf figure\'s as a result of the recent Arlington race and I have already sent in my backseat driver monday morning quarterback opinion on the DQ in an earlier post .
I\'ve found the euro figure\'s to be very solid , everything they are suppose to be and perhaps maybe even a little better than  that + w/ trainer - jockey - sire & dam info , the entire package has alot going for it and has got the competition by about 8 1/2 leanth\'s  .
Also , it\'s been my experience and understanding that Thorograph Turf Numbers are every bit as tight as the TG Dirt figures and overall. Turf pattern\'s are very reliable and are easily readable
due in part to ( in my opinion ) the Turf Horse\'s tendency to be more formfull and having lines which often times and for various reasons , hold together  when coming in to a race on short rest .
One widely accepted explanation for this for instance , if not mistaken is , i.e.
 first turf and dirt to turf horse\'s ( I think Da Hoss may fit into this catergory )
 don\'t always bounce off effective top efforts racing on a turf surface that is less stressfull and more forgiving on them physically .
What do you think - Whats happening ?



Post Edited (08-21-04 20:46)

[Lucy]

what do I think?

I think the rotw wasn\'t on the money last week, and I think they haven\'t run this week\'s yet --- jerry will let us know if it was right on the money when he comes back.
I also think you sound like you work for jerry, and I think I\'ll edit my reply, above.

>if turf #\'s were so meaningless, then it would be rather impossible to play turf races (w/any success) based solely on the #\'s. it is not.<

I certainly didn\'t say they were meaningless. :-)

Where we will have to agree to disagree is on the primary reason so many turf races have very close competitive finishes. You appear to view them as competitive because there are lots of evenly matched horses. I am saying they look much more evenly matched than they actually are because pace often   dictates closer finishes (and thus closer figures).

Here\'s a very extreme example of what I am saying.

Let\'s suppose I run a 1 mile race with the best miler in the world and we both run at a pace that is comfortable for us. He\'s obviously going to blow me away.

Now let\'s suppose I try to stay with his pace for the first 1/4 of a mile. He\'s going to crush me under that scenario  because his normal pace for the first 1/4 mile is WAAAY too fast for me. I will be exhausted and probably not even be able to finish the race.

Now let\'s say we agree to walk at a fast clip the first 7/8s of a mile with me in the lead by a few yards. Then we run home for the last 1/8. He\'s still going to beat me, but it\'s going to be much closer. I can run quite well for 1/8 of mile after using only minimal energy for th3 first 7/8s. Under that scenario, a top sprinter would probably beat the best miler at a mile.

I know this is an extreme example. But if you watch a lot of races closely, I believe the finish and time is impacted more often on turf than on dirt.

I can\'t prove it conclusively and I definitely can\'t provide you with a formula that measures all the impacts of pace on figures. It\'s too hard to isolate from other factors and IMO the impact it is different for every horse.



Post Edited (08-22-04 11:34)

[asfufh]

Clashandicapper, Wondering why some smart trainer or jockey with the best fig horse doesn\'t figure out the disadvantage of going along with the typical turf pace and go at a pace that best suits their horse. Asfufh

I think to some extent they do. However, to some extent your pace is dictated by your style and your ability to accelerate, find room and get position at key points. Plus, if you do attempt to get better position, it is possible you will wind up being used too hard to get it because the other jocks will respond.

By the way, IMO, the jocks are not riding turf races incompetently. I think the surface requires a different pace to maximize performance.