Speed is Speed, or is it?

[JimP]

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.  

[Saddlecloth]

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.    

[HP]

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

[JimP]

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.  



   

[Michael D.]

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.

[Michael D.]

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.

[jimbo66]

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.  

[davidrex]

     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!

[Michael D.]

rex,
read through it, jim\'s got it all in there.

[TGJB]

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.

[Michael D.]

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