A Look @ Derby Using some Matching Principles
 

I am putting this in the matching section because the idea came from Jim Bradshaws ideas of positions and lengths gained. Use it any way you want. I hope it sparks ideas that we can build on.

I reviewed all contenders races and noted in each race if the horse gained or lost position between the four calls. The point values were one point for each point of call where the horse gained a position or minus one if it lost position. The most points a horse could get would be three (3) if it gained position in each successive call.

Next I looked at the positional change of each horse at each of the calls. I recorded the net improvement or loss of position from first call to finish.

Then I recorded the number of net lengths gained or lost.

I summed each column of information and took the average. I also ran the info for all races AFTER a horse broke its maiden.

I noted and took the average of the 2nd call positions and the average number of lengths gained or lost for each horse. So, for example, Dialed In's average position at the 2nd call in races after its maiden races was 5.7 and the horse made up an average of 6.53 lengths from that position. Animal Kingdom had an average position of 3.5 (closer to the lead than Dialed In by more than 2 positions; he makes up 4.60 lengths from that position.

I was predisposed to believe that this race was OTE and so the numbers that I calculated are probably skewed to that type of race. There is no time recording done as part of this exercise. So I guess if the race looked to run Early you would have to look at or develope different analysis factors.

When I sorted by the sum of Call moves and Position moves the top three were Dialed In, Animal Kingdom and Nehro, 8th, 1st, 2nd respectively. the other two sorts had the winner no worse than third.

Need comments and hope for some original thoughts out of any of you.


Regards,

Bill

Bill
 

You offer a lot of things to look at. Do you use this method on all races & at all distances? If so what kind of prices & percentages of winners & exactas do you get? The idea intrigues me.
Thanks,
rmath

Right now its just an idea employed in a look back on one race. run with it if you choose.

One reason this idea came forward was that in my view the E/L methodology developed by Dave Schwartz concentrated extensively on quantifying the horses most likely to lead or press the pace of a race. The horses that were not considered Dave's Early were automatically considered as Dave's Late. (I am making this distinction because in Sartin the terms "Early" and "Late" have different meanings vs. the meanings developed by Dave Schwartz. For a better understanding see Dave's website referenced in the E/L threads.)

There really was not, in my understanding, any quantification or measurement of late ability in anywhere near the same manner as the thought process used in developing what the E/L 2.0. My idea began with the hope that there was a way to quantify closing ability.

One of the things you can do with the spreadsheet is to sort the data by second call position and then see which horses make up the most ground from the 2nd call. Understand that the table is composed of averages so if a horse lost ground or position that is reflected in the average number.

Another thing is that just like where there are horses that expend energy too early, there are horses and races where the late exertion comes too late to win. It is always good to understand when a great late run is just too little too late. These horses become SLOW in the context of such races.

Play with the data and then see if you can add to the discussion..



Bill

Let me make it clear from the outset, I did not bet the derby, neither did I handicap the derby, so this is not a red board attempt. I am simply adding to your post derby analysis.

First I took a look at the horses that might be expected to be "up close" based on position at the FIRST call. Those horses would be:

Decisive 1.8
Comma 1.9
Pants 2.1
Soldat 2.5
Midnight 2.7
Mucho 3.1
Shackleford 3.2

Then I looked for the horses that would be the furthest behind at the FIRST call.

Master 5.7
Nehro 6.1
Derby 6.3
Dialed 8.6
Brilliant 8.9

The rest of the field would fall somewhere in between these two groups.

Now, I then took a look at each horses first call ability based on times, which were adjusted for track to track, distance to distance, class to class and variant. The top five horses in that category were:
Comma
Decisive
Animal
Archarch
Twinspired

This puts the eventual winner in the group of horses that would be expected to be "not to far back" and have good early speed potential, somewhere between 8th and 14th. (It was 12th at the first call) I know those two things do not seem to go together, but what it shows is that the eventual winner can run against a fast early pace.

Naturally, all of the above are based on my own formulas and not on any single race.

Why did I look at the top five first fraction horses based on times? Simple.
75% of ALL WINNERS, not just derby winners, come from that group.

If you were to pre-determine that the race would run "ote", you would obviously dismiss Comma and Decisive out of hand. That would leave you with Animal, Archarch and Twinspired from which to choose.

I should point out that I was trying to narrow down the "win" position and not the exacta, trifecta or superfecta.

I read somewhere that the final half mile of this race (47.2) was the fastest since SECRETARIAT's last half mile in his derby. Is that correct? I don't know. I didn't research it.

FTL:

Thanks for the continuing thoughts. Here are two more races done in this manner, the 9F turf race just before the derby and Friday's Oaks (I've only done three so far). The turf race went wire to wire as did the Oaks, or virtually so, and in both cases the winners PPs showed very near early lead with the ability to pass horses and/or gain lengths to a significant degree.

Take a look at these two races and see what conclusions or observations fit these situations.

Happy studies,

Bill

I chose to do the turf race just because it was on a different surface. Here are my conclusions.

POSITION (Top 5)

GET 2.2
SMART 4.2
MORYB 4.5
TEAKS 4.8
AL KHA 5.2
As you can see, there is a significant break between GET and SMART

POSITION (Bottom 5)

DOUBLE 6.3
STATEl 6.6
COURT 7.5
MEMOR 7.6
PRINCE 7.8
Everything else is between these two groups

TOP 5 based on speed at FIRST call
Get
SMART
MORYB
COURT

NOTE: The scratches eliminated 4 of the top 5 horses from this group, leaving GET as the sole survivor from the original group. This widens the gap between GET and SMART than the simple “rankings” would indicate. As I noted in my post on the Derby, the winner of ALL RACES come from the top 5 in this category. Because the 5th horse was so far removed from the top horse, I only listed the top 4 horses.

I think it is clear that given the big gap in first call position and the big gap in first call overall times, “GET” is by far the early horse that will go unchallenged.

As noted in my prior post, this analysis is in an effort to narrow the field to the winner and not the exacta, trifecta or superfecta.

Peter Pan
 

Just wondering lead if your choice in the peter pan was the # 6 Alternation? Seemed like he had all your parameters. Seemed like the race set up for him

Bob

As was the case with the Derby and the turf race I posted about, I did not bet nor handicap the Peter Pan. I only posted about those two races to provide another point of view in the matching of those fields. Therefore, in answer to your question, no, the winner was not “my choice” as I did not even look at the race. Here is the way I would have looked at the race. Since there are just 10 horses, I will list the top 4 and bottom 4.

Top 4 by position at first call (in order):
Bold
Adios
Joe
Prime

BOTTOM 4 by position at first call (in order):
Monz
Alter
News
Beer
The remaining horses are in between these two groups.

Now the TOP 5 based on first fraction times (in order): (this is the group from which 75% of all winners are found)
Joe
Prime
Alter
Bold
Adios

As you can see, the TOP 5 first fraction horses based on times are the same as the TOP 4 first call position horses, with the exception of ALTER, who ranks 3rd in this category. This shows that although ALTER ranks in the BOTTOM 4 based on first call position, the horse is capable of running against the fastest first call fractions put up by the horses in this field, with the benefit of being able to close on those fractions. This makes ALTER a very solid contender in a very poor field for a Grade II race.

Lines
 

Thanks Lead , how many lines do u use for your figures?

Bob