Pace, Final Time, Kings Bishop

[fasteddie]

Maybe he\'s an old-timer like me who grew up
with Ainslie \"Class prevails\" mentality, yet
my favorite races to handicap are stake sprints
(where pace-is-the-race) and turf routes (class rules) IMHO.

I am not 100% sure that Pretty Wild\'s performance was totally the result of pace either, but I\'m pretty sure it contributed something to the fall off in his speed figures because those fractions were fast relative to the final time.  

I thought Tafaseel was also a good value in there. Pretty Wild was my main \"bet against\". I liked During a little better than Tafaseel because I thought he was tad better and it was more hidden.

I definitely agree that if you have two negatives (pace and bounce candidate as in your example) that is a great \"bet against\".

I consider myself primarily a class handicapper that uses speed figures to help explain outcomes rather than measure horses performances in an exact way.

In other words if I rate Horses A and B as approximately equal based on recent finishes against other horses (looking at speed figures too) and A beats B by 3 lengths, the speed figure earned in that race will help me determine in A moved forward, B moved backwards or both.  However, I believe there are so many inaccuracies in figure making that I wouldn\'t take the exact number as gospel.  I would view the performance from multiple perspectives - each either conflicting or reinforcing the others.

>Maybe he\'s an old-timer like me who grew up
with Ainslie \"Class prevails\" mentality, yet
my favorite races to handicap are stake sprints (where pace-is-the-race) and turf routes (class rules) IMHO.<

Yep. I\'m more speed figure oriented than Tom was because the figures are so much better these days, but I am not a slave to them because I know that even the best figure makers (like Brown) run into difficulties, complexities etc...

[TGJB]

Since we were just talking about this-- from Sat DRF, emphasis added by me:

\"Man, there was a headwind\", exercise rider Bobin Smullen said. \"I had to get a little lower to see if I could get out of it. AROUND THE TURN I FELT NOTHING; TURNING DOWN THE LANE I ALMOST GOT BLOWN OFF THE HORSE.\"

So either the wind picked up dramatically during the work (read race), or, more likely, the grandstand was blocking it at some parts of the track. Either way it goes to show that wind readings, even taken by live obvservers looking at flags, ripples on infield lakes, etc., before and after races, can be greatly innacurate (that was an extreme wind Robin was talking about, one that could easily have a 2-3 point effect on time). Wind readings from airports, which another service used proudly for decades and may still use, are taken periodically (hourly), several miles from the track, and are worthless.

Ultimately wind observations, like ground and track maintenance, are info bits you use. But you make your figures using the figure histories of the horses, and the more you do it the tighter your data base gets, making the figures you then make using it even more accurate with time.

I read that article also and immediately  thought about this conversation. Good post.

[texasturfmaster]

When speaking of the effect of wind, I\'m thinking that the more accurate word to use was exponentially rather than geometrically.  Only someone very special could nail the Derby Trifecta, the Belmont Exacta, kill Saratoga, and make Pythagorus roll over in his grave all in the same year.

[TGJB]

The Derby score was last year, and the one who got killed at Saratoga this year was me. Is Pythagorus the same guy as Pythagoras? If not, he\'s probably the one who killed Sar.

Okay, exponential.

[beyerguy]

classhandicapper...

I like to consider myself somewhat of an expert on the Beyer\'s.  I check all the Beyer\'s in each edition of Simulcast Weekly.  I see the \"adjusted\" Beyers you speak of all the time.  It isn\'t always a split variant either.  It is sometimes just one race in the middle of a group of others, not at the beginning or end of the card.  I agree the figure should be left as is, ala During should have gotten a 92.  Although the figures might represent a more accurate picture of the horses who were up close to the pace, they greatly distort the closers numbers.  

Example, horse A runs :43 1:10 while hanging on to win by a nostril.  Horse B comes from the clouds to just miss.  Applying the same variant that other races were assigned would give Horse A a figure of 90.  The problem is, Horse A always runs in the low 100s.  So the Beyer guys will arbitrarily bump the race to 100 or so.  Probably a true reflection of Horse As ability on a Beyer scale.  The problem is Horse B, who should have gotten a 90 Beyer as well, is now showing a 100 also.  

For the record, they do the same thing in reverse as well.  A filly named Mossflower was given a 101 for an allowance score at Belmont a few years ago when the variant given to all the other races would have given her a 114 or so.  She was entered in a G1 Stakes race next out, and paid $11 due to that 101 Beyer in the PPs.

I don\'t mind these things, and actually track them and have been known to make a nice score from them.

I guess the point of all this is it really helps to understand the process of how the figures you use are made.  Not just the overall process, but each figure on its own merits.

Thank you for that thoughtful post about pace, speed figures, separate track variants etc... I am happy someone understands and commented on the issues I am bringing up.

It\'s quite a problem unless you pay close attention because you want to make sure you don\'t double count certain aspects of trip that the figure maker might have included in his variant.

I have often seen situations where a figure maker made a separate variant for a race because they thought the track was slower for that race, when in fact the race was slower because of the pace and not the track speed.  

They stumble into the right figure for the wrong reason for some horses and a totally wrong figure for other horses in the same race by adjusting it. (just as in your example)

Personally, I think ALL aspects of trip should be left out of the figure and variant process. That includes the impact of extreme paces and paths.

It doesn\'t matter what you think about bias or the impact of being wide etc.... I would prefer to simply have that information separately and quantify the impact separately based on my own study of those issues.

The obvious case is when a horse is 3-4 wide on both turns and another on the rail all the way and they finish close.  On a neutral track that means one thing. On a dead rail that means something else. On a golden rail that means something else. Bias is super tough to determine, but it is simply obvious that some tracks do not play the same every day. It\'s easy to observe the extremes even if it\'s difficult to take it to the level suggested by some authors and players. So I defintely pay attention to the extremes. Otherwise the figures are completely worthless for those days. Without that knowledge you\'ll wind up making up all sorts of dumb reasons for the variance of some horses\' form.  

Another less obvious example is WHEN a horse is wide and how hard he is being used at that time.

It is pretty clear to me that if you are a closer that is 3-4 wide first turn in the middle/back of the pack and the pace is moderate, that is having MUCH LESS of a negative impact than a front runner that is 3-4 wide first turn into a hot pace. The latter is dead meat and the former is not doing much that will take any starch out of his kick later.  

I could go on, but at least we are on the same wavelength.