Ask The Experts
General Category => Ask the Experts => Topic started by: jimbo66 on September 06, 2004, 09:17:24 PM
-
JB,
I have spent a summer of racing trying to objectively find out if \"sheets\" are a bunch of bologna or if there is something to it. Six weeks of Saratoga racing and a bunch of cards from Delmar. In case you aren\'t tracking it yourself your ROI on your Saratoga analysis for the summer was -18%. Somewhere between the takeout on win bets and exotics. This is the entire meet. Those cards I didn\'t buy, I downloaded from the redboard room. Not horrible, but certainly not good. I have to admit, slightly better than my own ROI at Saratoga this summer, but then again, I am not a pro and I had a lousy meet.
Today was a pretty lousy day as well. \"A-\" plays on Pies Prospect and Snookie\'s Boy coming out of the lousy Haskell kind of typify my problem with the sheets. The Haskell was a lousy race, as some on this board pointed out. But that \"negative\" key race has no home in your theories. I am curious as to why you suspect they both ran up the track, especially Snookie\'s Boy. I guess Laura\'s Lucky Boy running 3rd in another race T-Graph loved wasn\'t a bad race, but it certainly didn\'t help anybody cash.
Anyway, this isn\'t meant to be an \"flame\" email. Just my honest view at summer end. Objectively speaking, I can\'t say for sure that the product doesn\'t work, but the fact that for a six week sample, you lost about what the takeout is, doesn\'t support a lot of value added either. What I have seen from using the sheets analysis product is the following, which I would like to hear feedback from others on, if possible.
1. It is clear that often, the sheets plays move and affect the odds. I have seen T-Graph picks that don\'t as much form to the normal handicapper, go off at underlaid odds quite often.
2. It is my own opinion that it is easier to \"weed out\" the lesser T-Graph picks than it is to point out the higher % plays. I am convinced the major flaw in the system is the complete disregard to pace. The last two weeks I have used the product, I have not bet any races where it was obvious to me that the pace scenario did not factor into the handicapper\'s pick and was likely to impact the result. (no JB, I did not post beforehand, because I don\'t work for Ragozin and don\'t want to discredit you, I wanted to win money playing the ponies this summer)
3. Playing only the T-Graph picks the last two weeks that I felt ignored pace, lowered the ROI loss for the period from -22% to -6%, a little better. Of course this requires objectivity. A \"pace problem\" as defined by me is not the same as defined by anybody else.
4. I didn\'t find any increase in ROI on \"B\" selections, versus \"B+\" selections versus \"A-\" selections. Again, only a sample of one summer (1 1/2 meets)
Considering all these things, I am stuck as to a conclusion. I have given some thought to the validity of betting \"against\" the Sheets opinion as a strategy in instances where point #1 occurs (the odds reflect a strong sheets opinion that I strongly disagree with). Two examples would be betting against Snookie\'s Boy today and with Midas Eyes in the Forego. But although they are great examples, i am not sure this is a viable strategy either.
I don\'t know. Sheets, valid handicapping tool or is JB a marketing genius?
I really don\'t know.
Better luck next year.
-
jimbo66 -
Would the TG analysis have done better by limiting plays to stakes races?
-
1-- The analysis is certainly not a good guide for deciding whether TG has value, even if you did a study over a representative period of time, at a lot of tracks (say, 100 days at 5 tracks). We have never claimed the analysis would show a positive ROI-- it is done the day before racing in order to have it available for those who want to download at night, without access to odds, fluctuations, track conditions, scratches (which at Sar are done off the program-- I was forced to pass a lot of races because I had no way of knowing whether a fast AE would draw in). Late decisions have a big effect-- one late decision I made was to throw in that $60 Fout horse and that caused me to hit a $1,400 pick 3, which took me from red to black for the meet, and would have done the same thing for the analysis.
2-- Over 36 days the results will be pretty random, subject to a couple of big hits and winning or losing a high percentage of photos. If we had done more than 10% profit or 30% loss I would have been surprised-- you are slightly lower than I would think we would be over a longer sample. My guess would be about minus 10%-- doing better than most and beating the takeout, but not showing a profit. Too many disadvantages doing it in advance.
Having said that, I\'m curious how you measured it. Did you set up a unit for each race, and adjust it for the strength of the bet (unit, double unit for B+)? Did you use seperate units for doubles and pick 3\'s? If we had a win bet and 3 horse exacta box in the same race, how did you split it up? Did you only count ones that surpassed the odds minimum, or did you upgrade/downgrade the unit by odds?
3-- Part of my play on the Pa Derby was a 5 horse tri/super box which included the first 2 finishers, but not the third. It should have been obvious from my ROTW comments that I would use the Dutrow horse at the price-- there was no way to know whether he would handle the distance, but a repeat of his last at the weights saving ground made him almost a sure thing to finish in the money. Sure looks like he went forward.
I said in my comments that MSB was only about 50% to run a big one off the two tops. I read PP to run well off the pattern-- to not bounce off an effort that he has bounced from (depending on how you view the off races) twice before. He did not fire. Considering the price, if I\'m right half the time in that situation I\'ll do okay (and would have here given the first two finishers). Beav\'s nonsense notwithstanding, those who have been following ROTW over the years know I have indeed done okay.
3-- My request for you to post examples in advance where another handicapping theory would cause opinions that are contrary to ours (even assuming TG players agree) has nothing to do with Ragozin-- those guys are FAR more dogmatic than I am. Please do so, so the lines can be drawn clearly in advance, and the issues discussed. My interest in this is as a teaching tool and to show how TG works in conjunction with or sometimes as opposed to other methods. It has nothing to do with Ragozin at all.
4-- By the way, did you use the Haskell in your ROI? What was your opinion going in, and would you have hit it?
5-- There is probably some super hot pace at which the Dutrow would have spit it out. But if you are asking me whether the pace played an important part in the outcome, I doubt it.
6-- There are ways to tell whether TG is a powerful tool, and it\'s much easier than with any other data I know of. We have gone on the record in advance with an analysis of several hundred ROTW\'s now-- take a look at them, look at the odds for the race, and work out a play based on our comments. It\'s a lot of work, but it can be done. Also, as you say, the RBR is up every day-- anyone can look at the data and the results and draw their own conclusions, as they can with all other data and theories, except we make it available for exactly that purpose. Finally, I have a pretty good record buying and managing racehorses using the data-- see if you can get anyone else to make a complete record available for any lage sampling of doing that.
-
jimbo 66
A couple of weeks ago, a thread talked about spending at least an equal amount of time to structuring your bets as you do handicapping. Simply giving equal weight to every play on the analysis report is misleading.
This year at Saratoga, I attended the races opening week (6 days) and lost a minor amount (-.05 or so ROI). The remainder of the meet I primarily played weekends and in checking my account, I had a positive ROI of 1.02. As an example (I did not buy or red board Sunday\'s analysis), IMO, Humaita was a standout based on top and pattern in the 7th, especially at ML 12-1 (off at $5.70). I hit the pick 3 for all 3 legs that included this race as well as hitting the race itself. I\'ve never had the confidence I do today in taking a significant stand on a longshot and it is all because of the information provided by Thorograph.
-
TGJB
I have been using your data the past month or so from the ROTW or redboard room and find some compelling features.
I hope you dont mind a unbiased opinion.
Obviously you are just one of many companies that provide speed figures, each company has their own pluses and minuses. I do believe yours to be more accurate as I think some of the factors you incorporate are relevent to a final number.
The form cycles and graphs, everyone can create those realtively easy with a excel program. So that is nothing valuable to me.
I think the real power of your product is the trainer information. I dont see alot of these features that you offer in other products on the market. I find the new trainer pattern for the past three races very usefull and have done well using that as an indicator of todays predicted effort. The sire information as well is a usefull tool for me.
This product is for bigtime players (of which I am not), but I appreciate the oppurtunity to gleen a little bit of knowledge from your service and will continue to peruse the site for more information.
Speaking of another portion of the site I listened to the expo seminar. I agree with everything you said, and I suppose you are saying it to discredit the ideas of some of your competiters. I say this as I dont see a way anyone could measure the variables that you talked about on a dailey race to race basis. What do you have someone do a dickenson sticking things into the track between each race? lol.
-
Thanks for the input (seriously)-- it\'s been clear, not just from the number of new accounts that have been opened and sales but from the comments on this board, that a lot of new people are trying our data. A couple of things--
1-- Those 3 race patterns are not trainer specific, they apply to all summer 3yo\'s (etc.) that have that pattern. The breakdowns in the trainer profile ARE trainer specific. The best thing is to use them with each other, weighing them as you see fit under the specific circumstances.
You are not the first to think those are trained patterns. We\'re going to have to do something about that.
2-- The point of my presentation was only that it is not a safe assumption to tie races together and assume the track stays the same speed when the times of the races indicate it has changed. The only way to figure out track speeds is to use the figure histories of the horses. It is not an exact science, but once you use the individual horses (not pars, not just the winners) you have a fair amount of information to work with, and over time it gets more and more accurate, and therefore more and more easy to work with. No way to know this unless you are actually working with the data.
I watched the DVD of the expo, and I was jumping up and down with responses I wanted to make, but that I did not either because I didn\'t think of them at the time or because the format did not allow for direct dialogue-- when I did ultimately do that I came across as Attila The Hun. I would love to do one of those DVD\'s with voice over comments-- I\'m thinking specifically about Friedman\'s comment about random distributions.
-
JB,
I measured the ROI as follows: I assigned a dollar amount investment for each race. If the race was a B+ or A-, I doubled that value. I didn\'t differentiate between A- and B+. I also did not account for your \"odds allowances\". To be honest, I found them to be one of the single most annoying parts of the analysis. The odds laid out were often not near the actual post time odds. I know that predicting odds is very difficult and not a science, but I think your handicappers could imnprove in this area. Laying out a \"B+\" bet for a horse at 5-1, who has string figures and is the 3-1 ML favorite, is unrealistic. So, I counted the race whether your odds were met or not and I did not upgrade or downgrade based on final post time odds. Perhaps this is the correct way to do it, but I have only so many hours I can dedicate to a \"hobby\". If you laid out an exacta and win bet strategy, I allocated half of the amount to each bet. If you also allocated an additional \"multi-race\" bet, I counted that as a separate and additional betting unit. Maybe you would do it differently, but I had to come up with some kind of rules and be consistent, to achieve any kind of results.
I know you thought the winner was \"usable\" in exotics in the PA Derby. And I have no \"beef\" with Pies Prospect at 13-1. If you look at my post BEFORE the race, I did not like Snookie\'s Boy. And at 7-2, he was an absolute throwout in my book (before the race). I boxed five horses as well in the race, the first two finishers, with Master David, Pies Prospect and the other Zito. I didn\'t like the Dutrow, but threw him in because he had a big number (and I followed your lead on the analysis product). He was probably my 5th.
I did not use the Haskell in the ROI. I used all of the Saratoga cards + 15 Delmar cards. I admit, inclusion of the Delmar was less scientific, only those I bought.
I have to disagree with your point about relative sample size. One race is too small. One racing day is small. One racing week is pretty small. But the entire summer of the #1 racing meet in the US is a decent sample, especially when you have professed numerous times on this board that Saratoga is a place where you do well.
Interesting that you estimate a -10% ROI on your analysis product. The customer is paying $25 for this premium product. I respect your honesty though.
I just don\'t get your resistance to pace as a handicapping tool. Loose on the lead speed, loping along uncontested, is dangerous. It happens every day and at every level. It wouldn\'t have taken a super hot pace to beat the Dutrow or at least make the race competitive. (IMO)
JB, I gave a lot of thought to the possibility of superior analysis on Stakes races as opposed to normal racing cards. To that end, I enterprised to look at the past two years of ROTW. To my dismay, it was not possible to do this effectively and I suspect you know why. HAve you ever read Nostradamus? If you have, then you will know what I mean. It is true that many of his prophecies have been interpreted to be true. However, the prophecies were so vague and sometimes inconclusive, they could be interpreted many ways. Now, I am exaggerating here (and trying to be a bit humorous), but the fact is that the ROTW is a discussion of the horses. \"Contender\". \"Strong Contender\". \"Marginal contender\". And such. No definitive \"plays\" or way to bet the race. I could go back in time and reread the ROTW\'s and craft a play around your comments, but that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy in many cases. I will agree that some of the ROTW\'s are definitive, like the Haskell. But many are just discussions and a \"teaching tool\". The analysis product, with its definitive conclusions and clear betting strategy for each race, was much easier to use and more concrete, in my opinion.
I don\'t question your record in buying and managing race horses. However, I am guessing that most of your customers are like me, that is gamblers and not owners. So, your ability to manage horses doesn\'t help me, I am only concerned with good racing figures (in the context of the T-Graph product and Thoro-Quick) and good handicapping (in the context of the Analysis product).
I like the website. I like the forum here. I like the discussion. It is all good for racing. However, when it comes down to it, people will buy your product if you produce winners. I know you know that. And I am sure we got your best effort to achieve that. It just didn\'t happen this summer at Saratoga.
-
>1. It is clear that often, the sheets plays move and affect the odds. I have seen T-Graph picks that don\'t as much form to the normal handicapper, go off at underlaid odds quite often.<
I think everything else you observed flows from the above.
No one makes perfect figures.
No one has a perfect methodology.
No one can systemize all of racing\'s less objective complexities like the impact of pace, bias, class, form cycle etc... into an easy to use method.
Even though t-graph may make the best speed figures available, it is not uncommon for me to find value going totally against the consensus view of the biggest sheet players.
IMHO, they have a huge influence on the board and they are not always right. Their interpretations and bets are based on their figures and their beliefs about bias, pace, class etc....
-
Your way of breaking down the analysis for ROI was close enough-- we did something pretty similar when we charted daily about 3 months of FG meet here a few years ago. I think it ended up even or a little down. But there is no question a meet is a very small sampling, where one or two photos or results can skew the whole study. But as I said, I think a long run study would have produced results that aren\'t that much better. I\'m surprised that you\'re surprised-- we\'ve been telling people for years this is the case, and that they are better off learning how to use the data themselves.
The ROTW is indeed a teaching tool, and we don\'t make picks. I think you could craft plays in conjunction with the odds-- but it would take a lot of work. (Note-- we did come up with a specific play for all those races. I could tell you they showed a large profit-- which they did-- but since the plays are no longer findable, there is no way to prove it).As a self-serving side note, think about what Friedman does in just listing horses in a race-- he is intentionally making it hard to track his results. For every race he lists, we are actually making a play that can be viewed for free the next day in the RBR, and judged to have won or lost.
You have made your OPINION clear on the pace issue. I did take pace into account in the ROTW-- I predicted the horse would be on the lead saving ground. Again-- instead of making a general statement that can be neither proved or disproved, give me examples in advance of where it WILL be a factor that will lead to a result contrary to what TG players would predict. Over a group of these we\'ll see how it turns out.
-
>give me examples in advance of where it WILL be a factor that will lead to a result contrary to what TG players would predict. <
I think you are less likely to find profitable situations from pace based on pre-race predictions of how the race will develop. (some exceptions)
In fact, if anything, it\'s the other way around.
If it\'s clear there\'s a lot of early speed, the value will often be on one of the potential duelers because the consensus view overdoes it on the board. (War Emblem comes to mind immediately)
If everyone thinks a horse will get loose, they bake that right into the odds too.
I think you have to take those probabilities into account, but realize they are not certainties.
IMO, the value of pace is in finding horses that were overmatched in their last race because it had a fast pace for the class. 2nd and 3rd best speeds often completely collapse without it having anything to do with form. (sometimes this is predictable pre-race)
A simple example might be a duel in a MSW race in fractions that are faster than average. If a maiden claimer happened to be part of that pace, he\'s dead. A fast pace for a MSW horse is VERY fast for a maiden claimer. Hence, when he comes back, he can be viewed as much better than his speed figure indicates even though the pace for the MSW race would generally only be viewed as a bit faster than average and thus not have much of a \"measureable\" impact on genuine sharp MSW horses.
That kind of thing happens between duelers
across all classes where the pace is WAY too fast for just one or two of the duelers.
Everyone sees the really big duels. It\'s the hidden ones that offer value.
-
Jimbo,
Appreciate your diligence and thoughts. Some rather lengthy comments follow about the game we all love and the challenges it poses everyday.
My perspective:
I\'ve been playing horses a long long time. I can recall fighting with my sibs about who would get First Landing in the race of the week program that was shown on WOR Channel 9 (maybe WPIX 11) in the late 50\'s.
Lived in Edgewater NJ at the time and my dad worked at Lever Brothers (one of the many manufacturers that dotted the Hudson River on the Jersey side. It was so long ago that I used to swim in the Hudson River under the GW Bridge!!
AS I adoleseneced, Canonero II go me hooked on the Classics and Beyer turned me on to speed figures.
Did some crude numbers of my own that gave me Bold N Determined (10-1) over Genuine Risk and the undernourished Hugable Tom at $9.00 against my father\'s advice.
Over the years, style and substance for most players has changed ....some more than others. I have met players that focus on lone speed scenarios, trainer patterns, pedigree, tote action and \"stats\" (% type bets).
I really don\'t think better or worse of any handicapping style. After all, handicapping is an art form not a science. Their is no magic potion that can be bottled and sold to guarantee a positive ROI (if there was each pick would be like Bimelech in the 1940 Derby-- 1-99).
TG\'s have most definitely improved my ability to make money at the track.
My style:
1) Determine shape of the race (need to leads, pressers and deep closers).
2) Determine probable fitness (looking for the obvious only)
3) Determine # power (of those who pass the fitness test who is too slow, or, better yet, who is obviously very fast.)
4) Develop a betting strategy depending on odds, # of qualifying horses etc. (sometimes the strategy is to pass. sometimes to box, sometimes just flat win betting. Since I pick 4 a lot, this style lends to spreading in hotly contested races and keying if possible in one or two of the legs).
The TG\'s have played an instrumental part in almost every facet.
1)The pattern analysis I have learned over the years (from readng both boards, attending seminars, perusing books on the subject, sitting with experienced and sucessful players and most of all just by attending the School of Hard Knocks), has greatly enhanced my ability to determine what I call Potential Fitness.
2)The fine fine numbers produced help eliminate non-contenders almost at the glance of an eye. ( 2 very recent tosses--Tapit and During in the weekend stakes)
3) The extra trainer, pedigree,(I love the dam side stats) and now pattern stats offer the ability to fine tune selections.
In sum, Jimbo, you srike me as a serious and thoughtful player grapppling with \"Style\" issues.
Analysis of any sample created before odds, scratches, track conditions etc are available isn\'t all that useful. I would focus, instead, on successful plays and determine what factors contributed to that analysis.
Best of luck
Bob
-
Really, I thought it was trainer specific, but I could see where it could not be and have a decent sample size.
Will have to factor that in I guess.
On a side note, if I had enough money to buy a horse or two I think I would head east and buy a horse and take them west in the older handicap division. Both even the score and super blitz probably have paid for themselves already.
I cant believe that no one ships to the west for these grade 1/2 races given the size of the purse and the current level of competition in a few of the divisions.
-
Classhandicapper-- Okay, this is something we can take a look at. When you see one of these-- a horse compromised by pace previously-- that you think will run better this time, point it out. There will be some times that we like the horses for other reasons, others where we are neutral. We can track the ones that are neutral or where we don\'t like the horse and see how they do.
-
Class Handicapper,
I agree with you and have used your \"general\" example in a previous thread to Jerry. MSW horses that show sharp pace, but fade and get bad overall figures, but are still good plays in the drop to Maiden Claimers.
There really are two different things to discuss here.
1. Handicapping a race before it is run, using pace as a tool and predicting the outcome. This is what JB is challenging me to do (in the case where the \"pace\" play is different than the \"figure\" play.)
2. Accepting that pace is a factor in racing and upgrading or downgrading figures AFTER a race occurs, because of the horse\'s pace advantage or disadvantage.
Agreed that point #2 can be used to achieve point #1.
What I have trouble with is the fact that Jerry doesn\'t recognize that pace plays a role in final times and figures and disagrees with point #2.
Whether i am good enough to come up with plays beforehand on a consistent basis, using pace handicapping, is a different question than the fact that pace plays a role in final times and figures.
Even if I accept that I am a lousy handicapper and can never pick winners successfully using \"pace\" as an angle, I cannot be convinced that pace variants in a race don\'t impact the final times and figures.
-
jimbo,
I agree with you.
I think it is MUCH easier to point to horses that were advantaged/disadvataged by the pace in their last race (better/worse than they look on final time figures alone) than it is to predict the likely race development pre-race.
One of the problems I am certain we are going to run into is the figures themselves.
It\'s long been my opinion that TG is building the impact of pace right into their final time figures \"on occasion\". That sometimes accounts for the huge differences in figures between various figure makers.
When that is the case, you would be double counting the impact of pace if you adjusted the TG figure.
-
Pace has alot to do with final time, but its awful hard to quantify what that is, and if you cant quantify it how do you handicap it?
To illistrate how hard it can be I will use Azeri, often times she was running pace numbers well below what she was truely capable of. She would come home in decent late pace numbers but when you looked at the final figure it was very average (her 100 beyer in the ladys secret in 02\' being a great example). She was certainly capable of running faster final times, as she has proven. In fact her very best overall speed figures are when she runs the half and three quarters the fastest. Her breeders cup being a prime example.
I believe this happens becuase she could run the final few furlongs just as fast as she did if she ran 46 or 47 for the half. But the difference in final time is one second slower or faster, thus a big discrepencey in speed figures. Now of course if she was overextended early it would catch up with her (ie personal ensign last week).
I hope this makes sense, though its hard to express.
-
Jimbo---
I keep saying this over and over. The Thoros work wonders for me on the lawn. Can\'t explain why, but I just have better luck with them on turf than I do on dirt.
I\'ve also compared the Thoros with the Rags and Beyers and I give TGJB a huge edge in the grass # department.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
-
Jbelfior,
I have also had good success with the TG Grass Figs. After looking at TG SHEETS for many moons, my personal conclusion is that the grass numbers are more reliable because ground loss is very important in the outcome of grass race and, IMO, less important on dirt where you catch dead rails that can actually aid wide runners.
Also, I know that grass is \"kinder\" to a horse overall and they may bounce less than dirt runners.
-
\"Loose on the lead\" is NOT pace handicapping. As Tom Brohamer, Jerry and anyone who goes through the process of evaluating each horse in a race based on the \"pace\" factors, it is the ability to withstand the early pace and finish within a stamina context that exceeds the other contenders.
That may be the result of a loose on the lead horse, but many more of my \"pace\" plays (which I presented at Expo 2000 with Tom Brohamer and Brad Free in the audience) have been situations where the horse stalked well within his ability to sustain the early pace of the frontrunners and had the capacity to then finish faster than the others.
The cradle stakes appealed to pace players not because the winner would be on the lead, but because the favorite had come home so slowly in his maiden win that even with improvement leaving the gate, he figured to be slower than at least 2 others in the race - the ones who beat him!
-
\"different question than the fact that pace plays a role in final times and figures\"
Jimbo,
Aren\'t you splitting hairs a bit?
Here is how I view this question.
First, pace is important in diagnosing any race. We agree.
Second, horses that spend more energy early contesting a very fast pace have less energy for the stretch run. We agree. (as you know, books have been devoted to this type of study)
Third, a horse that chases a tepid pace and tires running up the track probably earns a final figure slower than his peak capability. Not sure you agree with that.
That \'slower\' figure is what you see on the TG\'s. The TG\'s are not hypothetical #\'s. They are as close as one can get to being \'scientific\'
If one feels a fast pace compromised an \"Effort\" and the race was actually better than than the TG \'figure\' represents, you, as a bettor and handicapper, have a big advantage. You can look at previous \"Efforts\" to determine what you feel this horse can run today and ignore the \'off\' race. (TG\'s give you a horses entire career so you see all the numbers)
For some sheet players, a horse with \'back\' numbers or one cycling back to a top effort are very key plays.
I should add that there are lots of reasons horses run sub-par figures. Some of it is age, infirmities, trip, surface, the horses actual weight (something I would like to see) and, unfortunately, drugs (try to quantify that one...lol).
Thus, although I agree pace itself is an important element in any race and that a pace # itself can be determined, I don\'t think you can precisely determine the effect on a \'final\' number. It is subjective imho.
There are many mysteries to this game. (Why do some horse thrive on soft turf and others firm? Why can\'t some horses handle the Churchill slop? etc etc.) Your question, as I percieve it, is just that.
Pace effect is something you develop a \'feel\' for with experience.
Regards,
Bob
-
>\"Loose on the lead\" is NOT pace handicapping. <
No, but it is a situation where horses tend to earn higher speed figures than if they were under pressure.
-
Are you talking about speed figures or pace figures? You cannot mix the two as they are very different, and pace handicapping - which is what I responded to in your post - ALWAYS uses the early pace figure and the final figure to determine the outcome.
A higher speed figure does not equate to a higher pace figure - as the pace figure has two parts to it - final par and early pace.
I think you are merely talking about a lone F situation vs. a contested speed duel. Obviously, in pace handicapping, if you can find either a lone F advantage, or a horse who can withstand and/or layoff the expected contested pace and still finish in par or above par time - you have a play. But those are part of the mathematical calculations you have to do...and determine which races are most representative and which figures a horse will run back to.
So, my friend, when you refer to pace handicapping, please remember that it is a lot more involved than just the question of lone or contested speed.