Weighty Matters: Loose (on the lead) Ends

[TGJB]

1-- Horses that are loose on the lead usually save ground. If you are using figures that don\'t factor in ground loss, this will pump up their figures. To put it another way, since we factor in both ground loss and weight, the relationship between the figures of Love of Money and Tapit on TG will be much different than on Beyer-- which was part of the decision to use the former horse and not the latter.

2-- I think we have had this discussion here before, but there is a real question as to which is the cause and which is the effect. As CH has noted, sometimes there appear to be several speeds, but one clears. We would take the position that the reason a frontrunner makes a clear lead is that he is running a big one that day, and shows more speed in all parts of the race. We obviously also think getting clear and saving ground is an advantage. But again, I would like to see some examples in advance (and I heard CH and others say they don\'t think this will work out that well)-- I think that you will find that in cases where a lone speed is too slow (final figure) or has a negative pattern, they will not perform well on average.

3-- There is an Oscar Wilde story which ends with a woman saying, \"What do you think I am!\", and Oscar saying \"We\'ve already established that, we\'re just haggling over price\". Well, I think we would all agree that 100 pounds would make a hell of a difference-- the only question is how to deal with the smaller amounts involved here. And Mike Watchmaker\'s position, stated so many times in DRF (\"2 pounds to a horse is like a pack of cigarettes to me, you wouldn\'t even notice it\"), is ridiculous-- we\'re dealing with very small distances in racing when viewed in percentage terms, and whether you would notice something (and Bailey-- or the horse for that matter--might or might not be able to) is not the question. The question is whether it has an effect, whether you notice it or not.

I went into this at the expo, and it\'s on the DVD-- think about what 5 pounds means to a thousand pound horse in percentage terms (1/2%). Now think of a mile, and what 1/2% of that is-- about 26 feet. Or try it in time terms-- use 1:40 for a mile, and 1/2% is half a second. Think half a second matters in mile races? Whether anyone can FEEL the difference between 99 1/2 and 100% is not the question. And the correction which both TG and Ragozin use, because over a period of time working with figures it comes out about right, is actually less than a straight 5 pounds = 1/2%. TimeForm uses a different formula, which is one reason their figures are a pain in the butt to deal with (bad beaten length corrections is another, and that ain\'t all). And no universal correction is completely accurate, because they won\'t give us the weights of the individual horses, and 5 pounds is not the same to 900 pounds as to 1200.
 
But ours is close.

[Saddlecloth]

counterargument, how come the horses in the fall highweigh race at aquatduct generally dont run slower statisticaly if they cary 15-20 pounds more?

[TGJB]

First of all, they do run slower. If you mean on Andy\'s scale, I assume he adjusts the race to bring it into line.

You happened to pick the race that Friedman uses in all discussions to \"prove\" the weight correction they (and we) use is right, and he brought it up in Vegas in a broader context. His position is silly-- one race a year doesn\'t prove anything, especially when it always contains fully developed male horses, not 2yo fillies. But yes, the time is affected.

>We would take the position that the reason a frontrunner makes a clear lead is that he is running a big one that day, and shows more speed in all parts of the race. <

I agree that this is \"sometimes\" the reason  (and obviously the ground loss is always a factor).

I don\'t think there\'s a very good way to test any of this though. There are way too many complexities related to the interpretations of results.  

I could provide a list of horses that got loose in a moderate pace, ran faster than expected, and then dropped back to their normal range when subsequently under pressure again.

You could find a way to rationalize most of those performances that is consistent with your beliefs.

You could provide a list of horses that got loose that didn\'t improve or that subsequently ran right back to that figure under pressure.

I could find a way to rationalize most of those performances that is consistent with my views.

Really, I think there are no exact formulas for this. No two horses are exactly alike in terms of their early speed, acceleration, stamina, willingness to compete, etc... Therefore, the benefit (final time wise) of being loose on the lead in a moderate pace varies from horse to horse depending on his own ability to relax, his stamina, and just how slow the pace is.

For ex:

A \"very\" slow pace might help a loose horse win because the last quarter will be so fast some of the closers will be physically incapable of catching up from their position. However, the pace could be \"so slow\", it might hurt the final time even though it helped the frontrunner win.      

I like to use extremes to make a point, but then there is everything in between also.

One thing I am fairly certain about is that we are better off drawing any conclusions by studying the patterns of the most consistent horses (usually stakes horses).

I usually downgrade performances where a horse got loose in a moderate pace. That is especially true if there are other signs  that indicate a benefit.

>I think that you will find that in cases where a lone speed is too slow (final figure) or has a negative pattern, they will not perform well on average.<

I think there are several things at work.

1. He may not clear because he\'s out of the gate a little slow.

2. He may not clear because the jock is a dummy.

3. He may not clear because someone else shows more speed than expected.

4. Other

So right from the start you can\'t assume the lone speed will clear. You have to assign it a pecentage - \"this horse will clear about 40% (50%, 65% etc...) of the time\" depending on the circumstances.

Even when he clears, that may only be worth a couple of lengths benefit. Even worse, the odds board may overrate him because of the expected positive effect of being loose.



Post Edited (09-08-04 15:56)

[HP]

In my observation, some jockeys are better at \"nursing\" the speed than others. Loose on the lead in and of itself is not such a tremendous advantage (leaving out the ground saved for a moment). In my observation, some jockeys are better at \"nursing\" the speed than others.

It\'s really only GREAT if the horse can get loose on the lead AND slow the pace down. Assuming you are talking about a mile race, loose on the lead by five lengths running a .45 half is one thing, and loose on the lead by two lengths running a .47 half is something else. I have been following Arlington more than usual lately and I know there are a few jockeys there that will screw up almost every time (given a horse with SOME chance of winning) and others that will get the contender home.

A good jockey will work his pace advantage and a bad one will give it up. It\'s almost like the way good jockeys seem to save ground when they can and good jockeys give up ground for no apparent reason. Bad jockeys misjudge the pace and lose ground and pile error on top of error. Pace handicapping and knowing the better jockeys really go hand in hand. The bad ones blow it A LOT!  

This is all really more dramatic on grass than on dirt. I have noticed that the disparity between GOOD and BAD jockeys is greater on grass than on dirt, for whatever reason (I could speculate).  

In my opinion, a real slam dunk pace edge is almost as rare as that other often discussed phenemenon -- the track bias. For every \"lone speed\" that turns into a wire job there are at least two that choke in the last hundred yards and get shut out of the exacta... HP

[HP]

Also, on weight, I had this argument with Jerry, except I said a \"can of tuna\" instead of a \"pack of cigarettes.\"

Since then, having played many races, I think the best thing to do is to handicap this issue EXACTLY as directed by TG -- 1 point for every 5 pounds. Because it works.

HP

[magicnight]

This will not advance the discussion any, but  TGJB\'s point #3 reminded me of a Ted Williams story.

Williams had a scale to make certain that his bats were the correct weight. The other players thought this a bit excessive. They collected six bats, five of which were the exact same weight with the sixth one being a half-ounce lighter.

When they presented the six bats to him, Williams (without the benefit of the scale) was able to identify the bat that was a half-ounce lighter. Assuming that the other bats were roughly 33 ounces, this amounts to a difference of 1.5%, or, somewhat less than a 2 pound break at 120 pounds.

Frozen head or not, if it was enough of a difference to Ted, it makes a difference to me.

[TGJB]

Agree with a lot of the points from both CH and HP. Also agree with an earlier comment from CH that pace is to some degree built into the figure we assign-- this is clearly (and consciously) true in the example he uses of something else, the extremely slow pace races, almost all of which are on grass. We cut those races loose, which has the effect of disregarding final time (which is the only way to do Euro figures), and you would be shocked at how well the figure relationships within the race hold up anyway (although it clearly affects the RESULTS of the races, in large part because of ground loss faced by closers in bunched up fields).

 But there are countless degrees of pace between the obvious extremely slow paced races and normal or hot paced races, and all of these could affect final time to some degree that falls within what we consider a normal deviation for a race even if we think the track is basically staying the same speed-- so when we change the figure a little to make it fit tight that could as easily be because of pace as wind gusts, evaporation, track maintenance, etc.

[Saddlecloth]

FYI,

I am GMB on the other site you posted to today, just so you dont think anyone copied the thread over there.  I do that as I have some friend over there, like little andy.

>But there are countless degrees of pace between the obvious extremely slow paced races and normal or hot paced races, and all of these could affect final time to some degree that falls within what we consider a normal deviation for a race even if we think the track is basically staying the same speed-- so when we change the figure a little to make it fit tight that could as easily be because of pace as wind gusts, evaporation, track maintenance, etc.<

Thanks.

I think this a very major advantage of your figures as long as users are aware of it.  (especially on turf)

[holybull95]

Totally agree with TGJB on others on this thread re the influence of weight and ground loss.  The discussions are interesting but why argue with those who disagree as the proof will be in the ROI in the long run.

What are the prospects of raising the minimum jockey weights?

[TGJB]

Saddle-- You got me stumped on this one. I haven\'t seen anything on the Ragozin board as you describe, and haven\'t read or posted anywhere else. Which site do you mean?

[jbelfior]

TGJB--

Based on the different world of turf racing, (trips, late pace more important than early, closer finishes, etc) do you think that weight matters more on the grass??



Good Luck,
Joe B.

[TGJB]

In terms of points/weight ratio, no. But EVERYTHING matters more on the grass-- because the horses are so consistent, they classify themselves very narrowly, making those races very competitive, and the margins narrower. The figures the horses run are extremely predictable, but PP and trips (ground loss)are enormously important, and a proper understanding of weight is essential to beating those races.