Pace lines

[Bill V.]

A Key factor

[For The Lead]

Bill,
Thanks for starting the thread on the captioned. As you stated, pace line selection IS "the heart and soul" of the methodology, however, in my opinion, the MOST ABUSED. As you can see, there have been no responses to this post and I wonder "why" since having read many of the posts on this site regarding line selection, people are all over the place. Quite naturally, you and Ted present the most logical approach. Now Richie, I want to tell you something. You have put up some posts that I think are just outstanding and I mean that sincerely, but in this case I'd like to speak directly to Bill and Ted.
You set forth the "guidelines" for pace line selection, but I think there is more to it than those guidelines and I don't think the topic gets its' just attention.
It is my intention to start an ongoing dialogue with you covering one point at a time, rather than bombard you with many scenarios all at once.

My first point has to do with “old” lines. These old lines do not necessarily mean they are at the bottom of the horses PP’s. Before I go any further, for many years I have been downloading every track, every day from the same service you use for RDSS. The exceptions would be tracks like, Prescott Downs, Blue Bonnet, Will Rodgers and others such as those. I keep all of that information, plus the information I create from that downloaded information in data base files. What I can tell you is this. I just decided to look at this past year.
Of all the horses whose last race was more than 90 days ago, only 4% won. Of all the horses whose last race was more than 60 days ago, only 8% won. (that includes the group previously mentioned)
Of all the horses whose last race was more than 45 days ago, only 13% won. (again, this includes the two groups previously mentioned)
So, if you are looking for horses to enter and the horse you are currently looking at doesn’t have a race in the past 45 days, is it wise to enter them off of any line, whether it is the last line, second line back or third line back, or even further back as I have seen in some cases?

[RichieP]

Of all the horses whose last race was more than 45 days ago, only 13% won.

Morning "FTL"
Just a note that a friend who keeps copious records and database tells me the figure for horses winning off more than 45 days back is actually 18%. 45 days and sooner the number is 82%.

Class "A" and "B" tracks covered.

[Charlie D]

The pace lines to select are those that best represent the horses ability against todays Projected Pace.

You can the narrow these down by distance, surface suitability, current form or whatever variable you think important

Match Up these horses so you are left with the:

Best Early
Best Sustained
Best Late

You then can either let the computer Match Up tell you who is ranked 1,2, 3 and make you betting decisions from these readouts or make a call on how you think the race may be won.

Using a creative approach or your intuition of what may be about to happen will probably help in finding those nicer priced horses.

I prefer Jim Bradshaw' s Match Up concepts

[gl45]

The last 3 pacelines might tell you the horse Current Form, but not is Pace-Class abilities, for that you must go further down in the horse chart

[Buzz]

Morning,

This is a subject that always interests me and I will glad to add my 2 cents to the discussion.

I am not sure what the focus and purpose of the thread is; however, I would like to suggest that you include price as a factor and break out wins by odds ranges as a criterion when appropriate.

If there is an agenda here please let me know so I don't contribute to thread drift.


Buzz

[barb craven]

FTL
Would you consider an older line for a horse that hadn't raced for more than 45 days if it had been working out regularly in the meantime?

[gl45]

I have been learning Access, and trying to create a more efficient DB.
Here are the winner results at MNR for 5.5f with DSLR (Days since last Race).
Is a small sample, but it does indicate that horse coming off a layoff less that 46 days do have an edge. The winner price is also include.

[gl45]

oopsy forgot the file

[gl45]

Msr. Barbara,
ther are few workout patterns that trainers use to their advantage.

1) Last wk was 8 days from today's race. Better if was given 6 days from today's race

2) Wk between last race and 2rb, or between last race and today's race must meet SPF (seconds per furlong):
3f/4f=0:12 spf
5f=0:12.2
6f=0:12.33
7f=0:12.57
8f=0:12.75

3) 3 Wks back within 20 days form today's race. Better if 17 days from today's race.

4) From 4 works back the space between subsequent adjacent pairs of wks is about 8 days

5) in the last 75 days the horse must show 3 wks with an improvement is SPF (second per feet), from the 3rd. wks to the last.

6) last wk was at 6f, within 6 days from today's race

7) Last wk was at 3f within 4 days from today's race, or last wk was at 4f within 5 days from today's race

These are the essentials, there are more workouts patterns, but the algos are a bit complicate to put them to words.

Enjoy and use them at your discretion.

[shoeless]

When picking pacelines Im trying to get the most recent race at today's distance and surface.But the first thing I will look at is the conditions of today's race which I feel most people will completely ignore.

[Bill Lyster]

Richie:

If you know or have access to the information, how many days do you have to account for from a last race in order to get 90% of all winners and 95% of all winners? Or put another way 90% of all winners have had a race within ___ days?; 95% of all winners have had a race within __ days?

Thanks,


Bill

[matthewsiv]

Please excuse my ignorance but I am a newbie.

I am completely new to the site and the method,but I believe that this must be the most difficult decision to be made.

Personally I believe that the line you use must be at the least on the same surface and distance and preferably on the same track.

Would you rather use a paceline of 12 months or older to achieve the above or would you just use present form off of the horses last 3 races.

I do not believe that you can turn a 6 furlong horse into a 8f horse,but I do believe that you can stretch out to 7f and 8f horse can win a 7f race if the pace is strong and the track has a long straight.

Please do not bite my head off,this is just a personal view.
Any advice would be greatly received.

[For The Lead]

Morning "FTL"
Just a note that a friend who keeps copious records and database tells me the figure for horses winning off more than 45 days back is actually 18%. 45 days and sooner the number is 82%.

Class "A" and "B" tracks covered.

Ritchie,

Thanks for that note. I’m quite sure that the information provided to you by your friend is accurate, in his data bases.
Let me take a minute to elaborate on my original post, since I thought providing the past years worth of statistics would be sufficient to make a point and evidently it was not. I am now in my 13th year of compiling data. You’ll recall that I download all the tracks I want, every day they run, 365 days a year. Although each year is not identical to any other year with regard to the number of races and horses in that year, each year does average approximately 350,000 horses. Doing the math you will see that I have well over 4,000,000 (four million) horses in my data bases. Now THAT is a copious amount of data! From these 4,000,000+ horses covering 12+ years, I can tell you with some degree of accuracy that the percentage of winners whose last race was more than 45 days ago falls between 12% and 13%.
With that much data, I’m just going to have to believe it.

[For The Lead]

FTL
Would you consider an older line for a horse that hadn't raced for more than 45 days if it had been working out regularly in the meantime?

Barb,

I am not a fan of workouts. Years ago there was one pattern I use to look for with either first time starters or horses that have been OFF. That pattern was 3 workouts, 4 days apart, with the most recent workout being 4 days prior to the race. As you might well imagine, results are hit and miss.

To answer your question, "no", if you read my post to Ritchie you will see that with all the data I have, last race more than 45 days ago puts you pretty much between a rock and a hard place before you begin. I am sure that many of these horses were working out, but the data is the data. It's not my opinion, it's a matter of relience on years of data.

[For The Lead]

Morning,

This is a subject that always interests me and I will glad to add my 2 cents to the discussion.

I am not sure what the focus and purpose of the thread is; however, I would like to suggest that you include price as a factor and break out wins by odds ranges as a criterion when appropriate.

If there is an agenda here please let me know so I don't contribute to thread drift.


Buzz

Buzz,

The focus here is as indicated by Bill V., "Pace Line Selection". Bill set forth the methodology guidelines in this respect as "best of last three". I am just trying to stimulate a discusion on this topic, so anything you have to add is important to same.

[For The Lead]

The last 3 pacelines might tell you the horse Current Form, but not is Pace-Class abilities, for that you must go further down in the horse chart

In some cases 'yes' and in other cases 'no'. So let's take the scenario where the answer is 'yes'. What good is a line from 6, 9 or 12 months ago if the horse is not in condition to run back to that line?

Would you not be better served by using a more current line that reflects the horses current abilities?

[For The Lead]

When picking pacelines Im trying to get the most recent race at today's distance and surface.But the first thing I will look at is the conditions of today's race which I feel most people will completely ignore.

Shoeless,

A VERY GOOD point.

What many younger people are not aware of is, 40 years ago this information was not even in the "MORNING TELEGRAPH", which was the east coast past performances. In those days there was no RACING FORM on the east coast. An 'oldtimer' back then told me to save my Morning Telegraphs so I could look at the conditions. He told me it was those conditions that were the key to the race.
In those days not only weren't the race restrictions in the form for claimers or allowance races, but there was no 3YO and up designations, no state breed designations, no Beyers numbers and on and on.

[For The Lead]

Using a creative approach or your intuition of what may be about to happen will probably help in finding those nicer priced horses.

I prefer Jim Bradshaw' s Match Up concepts

Charlie,

Meaning no disrespect to Jim Bradshaw in any way, shape or form, which would be silly to do since he contributed so much, but I don't think he invented the match-up process, rather, I think he popularized it and added to what already existed. He also had the benefit of computers.
40 years ago a good friend of mine and I would go to the track armed with our Morning Telegraphs (see my post to Shoeless) and a pencil or pen. No computers then. Nevertheless, we would compare times for horses at each call and attempt to figure out if the horse we thought would have the lead could win or if another horse would close to beat it. I'm sure we were not the only ones employing this approach.
My favorite quote from Jim Bradshaw and I will paraphrase," Horse racing is an easy game. One horse gets the lead and if no other horse can pass it, it wins".
If you still have your form from last nights' races at Penn National, take a look at the 7th race. No computer, just look at the horses. I believe if Jim Bradshaw was looking at this race he would have gone to the window and bet the winner with both hands. There is only one early horse. The winner @ $27.
Sometimes those "nicer priced horses" you mentioned are right there in front of you, sticking out like a sore thumb!

[For The Lead]

The pace lines to select are those that best represent the horses ability against todays Projected Pace.



Charlie,

Ah, but which lines are they? The methodology guideline is "best of last three".
Are we trying to "manufacture" a winner by looking for the best race he ever ran regardless of how old it is, or looking for the best horse "today" based on current form and condition?

[Tim Y]

Conditions are for the trainers. Horses run, they don't know the conditions. Do yourself a favor and remember that and you will be miles ahead of this game.

[tom]

The years of the Golden Notebook!
Man, if you did the work, you were rewarded.
I miss the opportunities.

Remember when the Form didn't even post the fractions, just final times?

Now look at us......everything we want to know at the click of a mouse!

[alydar_ David]

Buzz,

The focus here is as indicated by Bill V., "Pace Line Selection". Bill set forth the methodology guidelines in this respect as "best of last three". I am just trying to stimulate a discusion on this topic, so anything you have to add is important to same.

For The Lead, thank you for sharing your database findings. They're quite interesting, to say the least.

Bill V., over the years I've saved posts on paceline selection that have been posted here and on other sites as well. I'm wondering how appropriate it would be to post some of them?

The pro would be showing different ways of selecting a paceline. The con would be confusing newcomers with arrows pointing in different directions.

I suppose I could post one a time and you could delete the ones you didn't think would be helpful. What do you think?

In the interim I'll post a quick one on recency.

[alydar_ David]

(posted by me, here, Monday, May 08, 2006)

There are four days a year I assume every horse entered is well meant -- the trainer intends to win. No horse is a throw out based on recency.

Those are the three Triple Crown days and The Breeder's Cup.

[Vinnie]

Barb,

I am not a fan of workouts. Years ago there was one pattern I use to look for with either first time starters or horses that have been OFF. That pattern was 3 workouts, 4 days apart, with the most recent workout being 4 days prior to the race. As you might well imagine, results are hit and miss.

To answer your question, "no", if you read my post to Ritchie you will see that with all the data I have, last race more than 45 days ago puts you pretty much between a rock and a hard place before you begin. I am sure that many of these horses were working out, but the data is the data. It's not my opinion, it's a matter of relience on years of data.

For the Lead:

Unbelievable and Astounding finding through the incredible amount of Data Mining that you have done through all of those years For the Lead. What a remarkable statistic. Over 45 days and averaging only 12 to 13% wins? I can tell you it will become a very strong variable for me in my capping from this day forward. Thank you very much for sharing.

All the BEST!

Vinnie :)

[Tim Y]

Pick pacelines whre the animal was really TESTED by a strong early pace and avoid those slow early as inaccurate.

[Ted Craven]

For The Lead,

I will accept your stats about the co-relation of winners to recency (or maybe Richie's friend is correct, but let's accept that a recent race impacts strongly on likelihood to win today). I'm sure that the smaller percentage of winners from over 45 days away includes such situations as

- start of a meet, where NO horses have raced within 45 days, e.g. Woodbine, Fort Erie in my neck of the woods, after winter holiday (which then strengthens your < 45 days stat)

- at least some instances of: a rested horse, regular works, previously much stronger metrics than all the other 'neverwozzers' today

Including the above, I also think Buzz's observation is quite important: that probably the horses winning from layoffs > 45 days would generally show a higher median odds than < 45 days, since it is natural for both educated and uneducated bettors to associate readiness to win with recent performance. Perhaps you have some stats on that. To me, this means that while I should probably have a yellow post-it reminding me of recency and its impact on winners, I should never fail to also analyse whether a well prepped layoff horse of superior prior ratings might be one of those 18% winners (or whatever %) today, yet pay possibly much more than its fair share - a share my bankroll and hit rate needs a regular if only occasional dose of.

Further, a caveat to recency (which I think is not contradicted by your stats on winners, as presented), is that for many of us, we're seeking contenders for ALL pools, thus while a certain share of winners pay uninteresting mutuels (which differs by track), knowing the place horse or legitimate other in-the-money horses gives also the opportunity to participate in place and vertical exotic pools. Laid-off horses working their way back to form will place and show along their route to the winner's circle, so I want to include them in my analysis today, then vet them as appropriate for the win wagers.


Under the Topic theme of Pacelines, and related to the notion of 'best-of-last-3 comparable', I think it very important to define the distinction between the ideas:

a) recency as highly predictive of win contention (per your stats), and

b) which line(s) to use to represent a horse in our analysis (computerized or otherwise) - independent of how long the layoff was

I like the stats on winners and layoffs, including Buzz' possible caveat, above. But that's not the same thing as saying that we'd be advised to select a line for the horse within 45 days - that's not what I read your stats to report. I'll betcha that only doing that gets you more lower mutuels than one's edge on the game can afford, and is what Doc preached for decades about a more creative paceline selection technique, which perhaps came to be known as 'best-of-the last-three-comparable'.

I try to remember one axiom: a horse does not always run as fast as it can - it runs as fast as it needs to. It might not run as fast as it has the ability to in any given race (i.e. its intrinsic powerplant), given fitness, because

a) it got its preferred running position and exerted its energy typically, in slower time and could win or finish as best it could without running as fast as it previously showed it could, or

b) it was forced by the matchup of running styles to run too fast too early (if Early), or perhaps ran Late against a slow pace where the energy conserving winner had enough left over to minimize its Late deceleration and thus persist - all the while our horse ended up running slower final times or 2nd call times than it showed the (perhaps consistent) previous ability to do.

So, in the case of the foregoing scenarios, why penalize a horse (if it shows signs of fitness, or an excuse) by using the last line or only lines within 45 days or so, if there's every possibility that the horse will be able to revert to its previous demonstrated ability against today's matchup? Hence, the argument for identifying the horse's best ability (e.g. Total Energy, Factor Line Score, 2nd call performance, etc), on a similar surface, similar distance structure, similar/same track within a reasonably recent portion of its history (aka best of the last 3 similar). The more you have to excuse recent poorer (or apparently poorer) lines, the better mutuel prices will likely be. And, the better odds compensate for the misses which inevitably occur in reaching back for a paceline, e.g. sometimes there will be no excuse for recent blah performance, but other times there will be.

So, for me, that's a rationale for combining both recency (per your stats) and a forgiving approach to choosing a paceline or lines. For me, a horse has a kind of form-defect if it has not raced within 28 days (but I'll find lots of mitigating excuses to forgive this if I can). Some caveats to 'best of the last 3 similar', for me, would be:

- if a horse returns from a long layoff, there's nothing particularly sacred about the last 3 races compared, say, to the last 5 races

- Turf: I've seen enough personal experience (and respect the writings and observations of others) to feel comfortable using a line from the entire PP, if the horse shows evidence of fitness today or has won off a layoff before (i.e. can approach that prior and perhaps intrinsic ability)


I also think this is a crucial topic for focused debate, and within a context of stats where they exist. I want to win, and learn more than I yet understand or apply - that's why I'm here. Actually, just so we're on the same page, were you arguing against, for a horse running within 45 days, using a paceline from 60 or 80 days ago. My understanding of the proposition Bill V started the Topic with, was classical guidelines on what line(s) to use, not necessarily recency (though your data appears to speak for itself and thanks for the spark to the discussion!)

:)

Ted

[Ted Craven]

My favorite quote from Jim Bradshaw and I will paraphrase,"Horse racing is an easy game. One horse gets the lead and if no other horse can pass it, it wins".

If you still have your form from last nights' races at Penn National, take a look at the 7th race. No computer, just look at the horses. I believe if Jim Bradshaw was looking at this race he would have gone to the window and bet the winner with both hands. There is only one early horse. The winner @ $27.
Sometimes those "nicer priced horses" you mentioned are right there in front of you, sticking out like a sore thumb!

Not to drift the Paceline Topic too much, but nice race, and good point made!

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?p=53979

OK, I used a computer - I didn't have a racing form ;)

Ted

[gl45]

What is the criteria used for selecting the best of last 3.

[azbacks]

For The Lead....

Thank you for sharing your observations on pace line selection. I find I do o.k., but I don't mind having some guidelines based on good data such as yours.

Agreeing with several of Ted's points, I would like to add that with 4+ yrs old horses (John Henry, etc.) who race after layoffs seem to run close to their norm. Having recent workouts, of course.

Pete

[Ted Craven]

What is the criteria used for selecting the best of last 3.

Pino,

Well, bingo! I think that was the original point of this Topic, so thanks for re-focusing us! I'm sure 80% of it can be stated rather succinctly - it's the other 20% (as always) i.e. the exceptions, the notwithstandings, which burn the words. I hope we can restate it, when all is said and done.


Best of the Last 3 comparable (proposed):

1. try to use the same distance structure, same surface, same track when you can

2. except for Turf and returning from long layoff (could be debated) review the past 3 lines as stated in #1; skip intervening opposite surfaces, skip intervening opposite distance structures; if you can't skip them, use them (gingerly) or trust whatever DTV and ITV adjustments you have available (i.e. adjust the POR figures as little as possible, but do so when you must); if there's clear trouble recently (clipped heals, bumped, etc) go back further - but not too far back

3. Using metrics like Adjusted Sartin Speed Rating, or Total Energy, or Line Score (e.g. Perceptor in RDSS), look for the best numbers in the above range of pacelines; beware of best ever numbers, excepting perhaps improving young horses (that's what they do...); try to find mutliple examples of the line stengths you propose to use (e.g. from further back in its record); if you have access to E/L or ESP energy disbursement figures, try to makes sure the candidate line is typical of how the horse commonly (or recently) disburses its energy; make sure the horse 'participated' in the race, i.e. that the Total Energy or E/L distribution was not just of the POR and our horse was merely sucked around the track behind the real contenders

4. Do a line for every horse: their energy disbursement style or Total Energy could be masked behind a blah performance, but they may finish ITM against today's matchup

5. More...



FWIW, there's enough regularity to at least the above 'rules' that 'Best of Last 3 comparable' can be programmed fairly rigourously (and has been, certainly). As well, of course, as other paceline selection schemes, alternate to or variations on the above.

Ted

[shoeless]

At a cheaper track especially I prefer the horse to have run within 21 days but I will take note of specific trainers on the circuit who have done well with layoff horses.Here in Maryland back in the 1970's Steve Davidowitz had a daily racing show where he would go over good bets on the days card.King T Leatherbury had a horse entered that he had claimed and not run for a year with slow workouts.Davidowitz liked the horse and pointed out that Leatherbury has done well with these type of horses.He popped at 10-1 and KT did this with numerous others.Ever since then it taught me to be on the lookout for these type of manuevers.

[For The Lead]

Conditions are for the trainers. Horses run, they don't know the conditions. Do yourself a favor and remember that and you will be miles ahead of this game.

Tim,

In general, I do not agree with you, however, in some cases I do.

Let's take a field of ALW NW1X. If I find a field that is made up primarily of "ALW" horses that are "1 for's" and one or two "cheap" claimers with multiple wins, my focus will be on the cheap claimers with multiple wins. This is not because the cheap claimers can't read or understand the condition even if you told it to them, but because they have demonstrated they can win races against horses that are other than maidens. The "1 for's" haven't shown that ability. Too many times owners do not want to drop their horses into a race where the horse has a chance to win for fear that their horse might be claimed. They treat their horses like pets rather than a business tool. Consequently, their horse keeps running and even it if keeps running 2nd or 3rd it is not winning. It just keeps burning up the public's money who continue to make those kinds of horses the favorite. And I thank them very much!

[For The Lead]

Pino,

Well, bingo! I think that was the original point of this Topic, so thanks for re-focusing us! I'm sure 80% of it can be stated rather succinctly - it's the other 20% (as always) i.e. the exceptions, the notwithstandings, which burn the words. I hope we can restate it, when all is said and done.


Best of the Last 3 comparable (proposed):

1. try to use the same distance structure, same surface, same track when you can

2. except for Turf and returning from long layoff (could be debated) review the past 3 lines as stated in #1; skip intervening opposite surfaces, skip intervening opposite distance structures; if you can't skip them, use them (gingerly) or trust whatever DTV and ITV adjustments you have available (i.e. adjust the POR figures as little as possible, but do so when you must); if there's clear trouble recently (clipped heals, bumped, etc) go back further - but not too far back

3. Using metrics like Adjusted Sartin Speed Rating, or Total Energy, or Line Score (e.g. Perceptor in RDSS), look for the best numbers in the above range of pacelines; beware of best ever numbers, excepting perhaps improving young horses (that's what they do...); try to find mutliple examples of the line stengths you propose to use (e.g. from further back in its record); if you have access to E/L or ESP energy disbursement figures, try to makes sure the candidate line is typical of how the horse commonly (or recently) disburses its energy; make sure the horse 'participated' in the race, i.e. that the Total Energy or E/L distribution was not just of the POR and our horse was merely sucked around the track behind the real contenders

4. Do a line for every horse: their energy disbursement style or Total Energy could be masked behind a blah performance, but they may finish ITM against today's matchup

5. More...



FWIW, there's enough regularity to at least the above 'rules' that 'Best of Last 3 comparable' can be programmed fairly rigourously (and has been, certainly). As well, of course, as other paceline selection schemes, alternate to or variations on the above.

Ted

I agree and I'm sorry. I didn't realize the over or under 45 day issue would promote so much attention. I was simply wondering if the over 45 days since last race horses were worthwhile using or not. I should say that my focus is always on "the win" aspect of the race.
It seems to me that entering horses who are really not players in the race can only "muddy up the water". This applies to other situations as well. To me, using lines from 6,7,8,or 9 races ago just distort the picture. I have noticed that most of the lines used are from races that basically represent the horses "best ever" or something close to that, no matter how far back one has to go in order to find it. Of what value is entering a horse off a line that it can't possibly run back to based on it's current form and condition?

Let me entertain a best of last 3 scenario.

Today's race is a 10k nw3l at 6f on the dirt(or poly, whichever you choose)
last race - 10K nw3l - same distance, surface, no sign of life, no toruble
2nd back - 10k nw3l - same distance, surface, no sign of life, no trouble
3rd back - 10k nw2l - won

In today's race, is it prudent to use the best of last 3? (3rd line back) And for the sake of agrument, let's say the use of the 3rd line back would propel the horse into a primary contender in the race. How much of your hard earned cash do you want to wager on that 3rd line back after 2 very subpar performances?

At what point do you just plain "throw out" a horse?

[For The Lead]

Richie:

If you know or have access to the information, how many days do you have to account for from a last race in order to get 90% of all winners and 95% of all winners? Or put another way 90% of all winners have had a race within ___ days?; 95% of all winners have had a race within __ days?

Thanks,


Bill

Bill,

If you don't mind an answer from me, in my first post to Bill V. in this thread, I mentioned that horses whose last race was more than 90 days ago won at a rate of 4%. Horses whose last race was more than 60 days ago won at a rate of 8%. Therefore the opposite of those numbers would be <61 days since last race=92% and <91 days since last race=96%.

[For The Lead]

For The Lead,

Including the above, I also think Buzz's observation is quite important: that probably the horses winning from layoffs > 45 days would generally show a higher median odds than < 45 days, since it is natural for both educated and uneducated bettors to associate readiness to win with recent performance. Perhaps you have some stats on that. To me, this means that while I should probably have a yellow post-it reminding me of recency and its impact on winners, I should never fail to also analyse whether a well prepped layoff horse of superior prior ratings might be one of those 18% winners (or whatever %) today, yet pay possibly much more than its fair share - a share my bankroll and hit rate needs a regular if only occasional dose of.

Ted

Ted,

I have rounded the following figures to the nearest twenty cents.

Average win price <46 days since last race = $12.20
Average win price >45 days since last race = $13.60

I have averaged the following figures to the nearest ten cents

Average odds of all horses <46 days since last race = 15.20
Average odds of all horses >45 days since last race = 18.00

[For The Lead]

For The Lead,


Further, a caveat to recency (which I think is not contradicted by your stats on winners, as presented), is that for many of us, we're seeking contenders for ALL pools, thus while a certain share of winners pay uninteresting mutuels (which differs by track), knowing the place horse or legitimate other in-the-money horses gives also the opportunity to participate in place and vertical exotic pools. Laid-off horses working their way back to form will place and show along their route to the winner's circle, so I want to include them in my analysis today, then vet them as appropriate for the win wagers.


Ted

Ted,

You'll have to excuse me, although I have tried to stay "up to speed" in today's computer world, when it comes to horse racing I am still pretty "old school". :) When I first started going to the track, there was a daily double on the first two races. After that, it was win, place and show....ONLY!
But you are correct. Although the "take" can be a pretty big bite out of the various exotic pools, there are still opportunities. In my opinion, especially in the "pick 3's". When you consider that a pick 3 is a 3 horse parlay, some of the payoffs are astounding! It's all in the combinations. If you happen to be on a combination that just hasn't got a lot of action, you are in for a nice payoff.

P.S. you'll notice the focus is still "on the win!" :)

[For The Lead]

For The Lead....

Thank you for sharing your observations on pace line selection. I find I do o.k., but I don't mind having some guidelines based on good data such as yours.

Agreeing with several of Ted's points, I would like to add that with 4+ yrs old horses (John Henry, etc.) who race after layoffs seem to run close to their norm. Having recent workouts, of course.

Pete

Pete,

You are correct. Horses the calibur of a John Henry can come off a layoff simply with "works" and race in peak form. They can also retain that form for an extended period of time. That is the reason they are of that calibur, unlike their counterparts that race at the bottom of the horse racing hierarchy. Those at the bottom also generally suffer from many ailments that keep them where they are.

[For The Lead]

For The Lead,

I like the stats on winners and layoffs, including Buzz' possible caveat, above. But that's not the same thing as saying that we'd be advised to select a line for the horse within 45 days - that's not what I read your stats to report. I'll betcha that only doing that gets you more lower mutuels than one's edge on the game can afford, and is what Doc preached for decades about a more creative paceline selection technique, which perhaps came to be known as 'best-of-the last-three-comparable'.


Ted

Ted,

You are correct. I was not suggesting that pace lines should ONLY be selected from those in the past 45 days. Actually, my original post was showing the low win percentages for horses whose last race was between 46-60 days, 61-90 days and 91 days+ and questioning the inclusion of those horses in the race analysis because of that low win rate.

[For The Lead]

For The Lead,

I also think this is a crucial topic for focused debate, and within a context of stats where they exist. I want to win, and learn more than I yet understand or apply - that's why I'm here. Actually, just so we're on the same page, were you arguing against, for a horse running within 45 days, using a paceline from 60 or 80 days ago. My understanding of the proposition Bill V started the Topic with, was classical guidelines on what line(s) to use, not necessarily recency (though your data appears to speak for itself and thanks for the spark to the discussion!)

Ted

Ted,

For me, handicapping horse races has been a life long lesson and there is always something else to learn.
Now, I'm not sure if I'm reading your reply correctly or not. It seems you are asking me if I was arguing "against" using a horse running in the last 45 days in favor of using a paceline from 60 or 80 days ago. If that was your question to me, the answer is 'NO". Quite the opposite! (lol) I am "on the soapbox" for recent races, recent form and recent pacelines.

[Charlie D]

Charlie,

Ah, but which lines are they? The methodology guideline is "best of last three".
Are we trying to "manufacture" a winner by looking for the best race he ever ran regardless of how old it is, or looking for the best horse "today" based on current form and condition?


FTL

This tutorial explains better than i ever could.

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5623


The True contenders in todays race is what we are looking for i think and the variables you use to find these is entirely down to personal choice as some will give more weight to one particular variable than another as you can see from Jeff and Tims posts on race conditions.

[gl45]

FTL,
Different scenario from your quote:

Today's race is a 10k nw3l at 6f on the dirt DSLR 17

last race - 10K nw3l - same distance, surface, wired the field DSLR 15
2nd back - 10k nw3l - same distance, surface, 2nd by a nose DSLR 17
3rd back - 10k nw2l - stunk DSLR 397
9th back - 13k open - same distance, surface, 2nd. by a length.

I'm not debating the validity for selecting the best of last 3 pace lines, what I'm debating is "what effect the last 2 or 3 races had on the horse". Will the horse retain is current form going in today's race?
In the above scenario we would select line 1 or line 2 due to the horse current performance. Imo the last 2 or 3 races only show the horse current form or condition. What about the horse Pace and Class abilities. In this case line 9 would be the line.
Imo, a second rating that would quantify the Pace-Class abilities of the horse should be used to complement the validity of the best of the last 3 line.

[Charlie D]

Not to drift the Paceline Topic too much, but nice race, and good point made!

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?p=53979

OK, I used a computer - I didn't have a racing form ;)

Ted


Another demonstration of what "The Hat" was trying to get across to people imho

[alydar_ David]

(private message sent by me on April 01, 2002)

John,

I listened to the Sartin tape again yesterday on paceline selection. I thought you'd be interested in what Tom Brohamer said.

First, contenders:
* APV on every horse and throw out the obvious

* RECENCY - no hardfast rules, but use some common sense. If a claimer just won and sits in the barn for five weeks, it's a throwout unless you know the trainer pulls that move successfully.

Basically, he wants to see some kind of activity within three to five weeks, either a race or a workout.

Second, Paceline:
* Try to use the last race if at all possible.

Some reasons to not use the last race:
1) Offtrack
2) Obviously bad class level
3) Extreme outside post in a route
4) Make sure paceline is typical of running style (for example, a front-runner who has a bad start -- use another paceline).

He may then step back for a paceline, but really try to not do that. Occasionally, he'll go back to the third race, but almost never.

What I found interesting is that he does not make allowances for different tracks, distances or dirt/turf. He'd rather adjust the race than use another paceline. That's interesting. I've not done that too much.

Hope this helps.

~David

[alydar_ David]

Some years ago I was at Bridgeport Jai-Alai with Cary Fotias. We were playing the simulcast races. He was using his Atane program (this was prior to his Blinkers Off and Equiform).

I was using The Sheets and the newly released Thoromation with four points of call.

Cary asked how Thoromation worked and I explained that you had to select one paceline to represent how the horse would run today.

He said, "One paceline? How do I know which one? What do I look like, f___ing Houdini?"

LOL!

[Ted Craven]

Related to our current topic, here is a thread on PaceAdvantage about recency, but especially, a link to a HTR newsletter with a pretty detailed, recent analysis which I think everyone should digest and think about.

I include the link here because it was already published in that PA topic, and thanks to Ken Massa and the HTR folks for the research (article beginning Page 8):

http://www.homebased2.com/km/pdf/HTRReport-MayJun07.pdf

Ted

[For The Lead]

Is it really necessary to choose a paceline for an early type (need to lead) where the horse finished 1st or within 1 length of the winner in order to evaluate its' total energy potential?

Is it not more important to evaluate the horses' early fraction potential?

It has been my experience, that an early horse does not necessarily go slower on the lead just because it is unchallenged on the lead. Many times an early horse goes quite fast even though unchallenged.

An early horse unchallenged on the lead will provide all the total energy you need. The trick is to be able to identify whether or not an early horse will be alone on the lead.

[Bill V.]

The other bet

Last night at MNR in race 5 I bet the 1 and the 6
The one horse won and paid $11.40 :)

I used the last two races. I was looking for the best of the last 3 adjusted speed ratings at a comperable distance surface and competition level

I entered both lines for horse 1 and the program showed me line 2 was the best It was higher rated on the Primarly line score

My other bet was the 6 horse It ran poorly finishing at the bottom I made this screen shot to show you and myself the error I made and how entering
bad lines will mess you up This is my look at picking lines
and the importance proper line selection is when using the Sartin Methodology

My thoughts are in the notepad insert
The best to you
Bill V.

[alydar_ David]

(posted here, by me on June 29, 2007)

Chris,

Thanks for your erudite post. You have some creative ideas and have generously shared them.

Which paceline to use? Aye, there's the rub.

I think I first asked that question in 1969 and have never found a satisfactory answer. I think I've had this converstation thousands of times and have written about it more times than I care to remember. However, your post has inspired me. Here goes.

I've used almost every program on the market (well, not as many as Jim G ;>) and have employed automatic paceline tools, creating several of them myself with purchased software as well as code I've personally written. All of them have left me wanting.

I recall Michael Nunamaker doing a study. It may have been in Modern Impact Values, I'm not entirely sure. I don't have those stats handy, but I remember the gist of what he discerened. He discovered that using the horse's second best speed figure was more predictive than anything else. Unfortunately, it produced a negative return on investment.

After reading that I scampered around like a busy little beaver and created a program using Phase III type readouts with variant energy. That program selected the second best paceline from the horse's last ten pacelines (assuming all ten races were run on today's track, surface and at today's distance, otherwise there were exceptions and rules made which I won't bother going into here). The results? Disheartening, to say the least.

I've also worked with artifical intelligence programs which select pacelines. They are, as Dick Mitchell said, the wrong technology for horse racing. "A broken clock is better. At least that's right twice a day."

This is not to say one can't successfully implement rules and/or guidelines. Look at Binder. He is like an unwavering pit bull with this "best of last three comparable" paceline guidelines. Granted, Bill deviates from this at times, but he can tell you exactly why and under what conditions he'll go back to a fourth paceline. For example, high class & APV, the last three were sprints and today is a route, etcetera. Bill has had undeniable success with his approach.

Do you remeber Dick Quigley (sp)? He had a set of guidelines where he used different colors which allowed you to go to different paceline zones based on certain criteria. For example, a horse was in the green zone if such and such, and you could only pick a paceline from the red zone under specific conditions. I used this for a while with success. It worked well in the old days when horses didn't run all year long. Frequent layoffs and "freshenings" have rendered his method obsolete.

I've been involved with a couple of statisticians and an actuary on a paceline selection project. We came up with very different paceline selection methods based on the race at hand. For example, at one particular track, for one particular sex and age group, we found that for maiden claimers the best paceline in the entire past performances of the horse was the best to use. In other cases it would behoove (pun intended :>) the bettor to use the best of the last two pacelines.

We spent a lot of time and money on this research and the result was...well, there was no result to speak of; all our findings were statistically insignificant. Time and money down the drain, along with all our high hopes and expectations. Sigh. Those guys threw up their hands and gave up. They left horse racing.

That's not to say it can't be done. Maybe it can. We were not able to do it though.

Personally, I don't know if pacelines "loom off the page" at me, but I sort of do it half by zen now. I don't give it a great deal of thought and allow it to happen.

I'd prefer to know exactly which paceline to use at all times, but that may be something best left to Walter Mitty.

[gl45]

Bill,
would you mind posting the Primary Line Score for #1 at MNR race 5.
You had the win I had the Ex
Txs

[Bill V.]

Bill,
would you mind posting the Primary Line Score for #1 at MNR race 5.
You had the win I had the Ex
Txs


Here you go Pino
I was thinking of putting in a exacta with the 3
Good call Fast Sprinter that does not fade going long
here is the Primary screen

GS
Bill

[For The Lead]

FTL,

Imo, a second rating that would quantify the Pace-Class abilities of the horse should be used to complement the validity of the best of the last 3 line.

Looking at an older line to "confirm" the more recent line is a good idea where possible.

Question: if the older line DOES confirm the more recent line, should not the more recent line be used?

[gl45]

FTL,
Imo, current form and pace-class abilities are two different attributes. In same cases the pace-class abilities can be measured in the last 2 or 3 races, if the horse doesn't show anything deeper in his chart, but in most case the horse has a line deep in his chart that will show his true pace class abilities. I capped the same race that Bill V. posted. MNR race #5

Horse #1 is a P/S
Line 1 is the line that show current form, faster time, great move positionally and lengths wise to the stretch.
Line 2 and 3 show different running style in a very slow races. I think the horse won race 2 by default.
What pace line (Pace-Class abilities) in my handicapping would complement his current form?
I chose line 10, shaved 6 second from the final time.

Race final times: 24.3 48.3 1.14.1 1.41.3 (today's race)
Horse last race: 48.0 1.14.0 1.41.3 ( current form)
Horse 10th. race: 48.2 1.13.3 1.40.3 (Pace-Class)

Horse positions: 5 3 1 1 (today's race)
Last race: 6 5 3 3
Line 10: 6 4 2 2

I don't believe in data manipulation, I like to stay with the basic raw POR.
No other horse can run the above lines, #6 maybe, we cam make a case for the sprinters #3 and #4.

[alydar_ David]

(posted on HSH forum by Dave Schwartz on June 22, 2002)

1. Prefer the tighest finish at a similar distance and surface as today. If there is a race within 1 length, use it, no matter how old it may be.

2. If there is not a race that fits #1, then take the best 2 races and average them.

Theory: I want to know how good the horse is when he is fully extended at the wire. If he was beaten 1/2 length he was probably all out. If he was any better he'd have won.

Note that this does not address form. It must be addressed elsewhere.

In other words:

1. Search for all races within 1 length at finish.

2. elim races at wrong surface or distance

3. Use most recent race.

If no such paceline exists, I then broaden search to use finishes within 8 lengths and select the two closest pacelines.

[For The Lead]

FTL,
Imo, current form and pace-class abilities are two different attributes. In same cases the pace-class abilities can be measured in the last 2 or 3 races, if the horse doesn't show anything deeper in his chart, but in most case the horse has a line deep in his chart that will show his true pace class abilities. I capped the same race that Bill V. posted. MNR race #5

Horse #1 is a P/S
Line 1 is the line that show current form, faster time, great move positionally and lengths wise to the stretch.
Line 2 and 3 show different running style in a very slow races. I think the horse won race 2 by default.
What pace line (Pace-Class abilities) in my handicapping would complement his current form?
I chose line 10, shaved 6 second from the final time.

Race final times: 24.3 48.3 1.14.1 1.41.3 (today's race)
Horse last race: 48.0 1.14.0 1.41.3 ( current form)
Horse 10th. race: 48.2 1.13.3 1.40.3 (Pace-Class)

Horse positions: 5 3 1 1 (today's race)
Last race: 6 5 3 3
Line 10: 6 4 2 2

I don't believe in data manipulation, I like to stay with the basic raw POR.
No other horse can run the above lines, #6 maybe, we cam make a case for the sprinters #3 and #4.

lbj,

Thank you for that explanation.

[alydar_ David]

(posted here by Baffalator on October 21, 2007)

Line Selection Rules or Guidelines

In an effort to further the discussion, I advance the following theory. The track morning line has gone a long way towards ranking the contenders for you. If you break this down into three categories:

A) Less than 6-1
B) 6-1 to 11-1
C) 12-1 or greater

Then take the "best of the last three comparable" which includes the following three criteria:

X) Recency i.e 70 days (I say three months, doesn't have to be exactly 90 days)
Y) Distance ( exact or +/- .5 furlongs)
Z) Track ( Same track or Same curcuit)

Now (C) would require X,Y,and Z.
Now (B) would require any two of X,Y,Z
Now (A) would require one of X or Y

If you can't select a line for three or more horses you strike out and simply PASS the race.

[Tim Y]

HINT: use as many pacelines as you can to find the most varied pressures that a horse was able to fend off. PERIOD.

[For The Lead]

(posted here by Baffalator on October 21, 2007)

Line Selection Rules or Guidelines

In an effort to further the discussion, I advance the following theory. The track morning line has gone a long way towards ranking the contenders for you. If you break this down into three categories:

A) Less than 6-1
B) 6-1 to 11-1
C) 12-1 or greater

Then take the "best of the last three comparable" which includes the following three criteria:

X) Recency i.e 70 days (I say three months, doesn't have to be exactly 90 days)
Y) Distance ( exact or +/- .5 furlongs)
Z) Track ( Same track or Same curcuit)

Now (C) would require X,Y,and Z.
Now (B) would require any two of X,Y,Z
Now (A) would require one of X or Y

If you can't select a line for three or more horses you strike out and simply PASS the race.

These guidelines seem VERY REASONABLE to me.
I would take caution with horses who have a morning line of 15-1, 20-1 and greater than 20-1.
In the last 3 years, from more than 120,000 races, the following are the win percentages for these moring lines.

15-1 = 2.6%
20-1 = 1.65%
>20-1 = .15%

It is amazing how many very large prices can be had with morning lines 10-1 or 12-1 and they win at much better rates.

[For The Lead]

HINT: use as many pacelines as you can to find the most varied pressures that a horse was able to fend off. PERIOD.

Your use of the word “PERIOD” suggests that your “hint” is the definitive, absolute and end all without further discussion on the topic. We all know this is not the case. It’s nice that you are offering an “opinion” and I’m sure we are all appreciative. It is a well thought out opinion and may have much merit, but without large numbers to support it, it remains what it is, an opinion.

I’m sure we can all imagine the huge undertaking it would be to analyze every pace line selection method that could be imagined and compare one against the other over a VERY LARGE number of races in order to reach a conclusion as to which is the best.

The post by “alydar DAVID”, who was kind enough to share the original post by “Bafalator”, was a well thought out approach to pace line selection. It is not an “action” set of guidelines. That is to say, he attempts to use horses with a recent race, a line selection from a race that is close to today’s distance/surface, from the same track or circuit and all while being the “the best of last three”, as the methodology guidelines suggest. If this cannot be found for at least three horses, then pass the race. With all the tracks we have to play, be it via the internet or at your favorite track or other betting outlet, there are many opportunities without “forcing” a race.

[Judicious Player]

I do not blindly look for a horse's best race when choosing a pace line.

Before I pick a pace line, I try to determine today's pace, based on the horses entered in the race. Then, I pick a paceline that is as close as possible to TODAY's projected pace, which, may or may not be, the horses's best race.

In other words, how will the horse fare against today's projected pace?

[Tim Y]

I do not blindly look for a horse's best race when choosing a pace line.

Before I pick a pace line, I try to determine today's pace, based on the horses entered in the race. Then, I pick a paceline that is as close as possible to TODAY's projected pace, which, may or may not be, the horses's best race.

In other words, how will the horse fare against today's projected pace?

EXACTLY projection is the key

[tizlinda]

FTL

This tutorial explains better than i ever could.

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5623


The True contenders in todays race is what we are looking for i think and the variables you use to find these is entirely down to personal choice as some will give more weight to one particular variable than another as you can see from Jeff and Tims posts on race conditions.

This tutorial seems to suggest picking todays pace based on the fastest last pace at todays distance from a horse that contended. This disregards the LB of the contending horse which means that it would in no way predict todays pace (or explain to me how it would if I'm missing something).

I have been trying to actually predict the pace based on how many early horses there are and what they are capable of. With no early horses why wouldn't you factor in BL and adust the paceline accordingly? How is choosing a paceline that a horse not in contention today created predicting todays race fractions?

[SilentRun]

For The Lead,

Further, a caveat to recency (which I think is not contradicted by your stats on winners, as presented), is that for many of us, we're seeking contenders for ALL pools, thus while a certain share of winners pay uninteresting mutuels (which differs by track), knowing the place horse or legitimate other in-the-money horses gives also the opportunity to participate in place and vertical exotic pools. Laid-off horses working their way back to form will place and show along their route to the winner's circle, so I want to include them in my analysis today, then vet them as appropriate for the win wagers.

Ted

Re: The above post particularly the last sentence. I like to use William Scotts study on The "Fabulous " Five Furlong Workout, cited in his book "HWYHRT".
For those who have the book pages 42-51. He throws out statistical data from his own studies to support the effectiveness of the five furlong workout
in order to qualify a laid off horse.

His main point is, the horse can be considereded to be a contender for workouts of five furlongs or longer that occur within the past 14 days,
no matter what the time may be and no matter how long the horse may have been away from the race.

I have been using this in my handicapping effectively and I can post many races in my archives to demonstarte this. In fact this is the only effective tool that I know of that can qualify laid off horses. Below is an example of a horse that won and paid $16. Notice that there were 2 five furlong workous within 14 days. Many of these laid-off horses place and show hence I always check out these type of horses as part of my handicapping process.


Ernie

[admin]

Re: The above post particularly the last sentence. I like to use William Scotts study on The "Fabulous " Five Furlong Workout, cited in his book "HWYHRT".
For those who have the book pages 42-51. He throws out statistical data from his own studies to support the effectiveness of the five furlong workout
in order to qualify a laid off horse.

His main point is, the horse can be considereded to be a contender for workouts of five furlongs or longer that occur within the past 14 days,
no matter what the time may be and no matter how long the horse may have been away from the race.

I have been using this in my handicapping effectively and I can post many races in my archives to demonstrate this. In fact this is the only effective tool that I know of that can qualify laid off horses. Below is an example of a horse that won and paid $16. Notice that there were 2 five furlong workouts within 14 days. Many of these laid-off horses place and show hence I always check out these type of ehorses as part of my handicapping process.


Ernie
Thanks for the feedback regarding 5f works to qualify layoff guys Ernie. I am definitely going to check this out man cause I have no fear betting layoff guys but know that most flame out.

I will definitely see whats what with this "angle"! :)

Again many thanks for sharing!
RichieP

[Bill V.]

Ernie
Good points about the 5f workouts Your $16 winner is a good example
Also in the book HWYHRT on page 51 Wm Scott talks about the 5F
when looking at Young lightly raced horses and how horses with slow 5F
works are not showing any life and can be tossed from win contention

things to watch
1. the 5 furlong must be within 7 days = check
2. must be a bullet work this won is not a bullet because it was 10th out of 34
but the time was under 1.00 so that qaulifice as FAST = Check
3. The workout 13 days ago was 3/10 and less than 14 days = check

[SilentRun]

Ernie
Good points about the 5f workouts Your $16 winner is a good example
Also in the book HWYHRT on page 51 Wm Scott talks about the 5F
when looking at Young lightly raced horses and how horses with slow 5F
works are not showing any life and can be tossed from win contention

things to watch
1. the 5 furlong must be within 7 days = check
2. must be a bullet work this won is not a bullet because it was 10th out of 34
but the time was under 1.00 so that qaulifice as FAST = Check
3. The workout 13 days ago was 3/10 and less than 14 days = check

Thanks for the feedback..Scott makes great points. I feel it is worth the
effort to consider this situation and other situations that he presents in the
book such as the "Big Win" meaning 3 lengths or more.

With reference to point 1 above the 5 furlong workout must be within 14 days.
Refer to page 51 for the summary. You may be referring to the "The Potency of
the Seven-Day Horse".

Ernie