Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
The Match Up is fundamentally about Energy Distribution and Horse Behavior. The first is about the inherent speed of the animal and the latter is about their own individual psychological needs for early position in the pack.Jim Bradshaw found that the most reliable way to predict the outcome of a horse race, a moving pack, given the Daily RacingForm information provided was to establish his best estimate of the early pace and then determine where the individual runners would be positioned at the first call.
Given today's Match Up of runners and the resulting projected pace who is able to achieve their desired positon at the first call? Who has shown in their past performances thatthey can set or overcome this projected early pace? However, the race is not over at the 1st call and we have to determine again from the past performances how the animals will respond to the 2nd and 3rd fractions.How do they distribute their energy?
We are taught that most horse's have distinct Running Styles. If they can't obtain the position at the 1st call, given today's projected pace, they will not produce their best efforts. However, isn't this the chicken or egg scenario? Given today's projected early pace a slow horse that wants the lead and only runs well when they have a clear open lead as demonstrated in previous past performances is not going to successfully compete today. If he has not shown the ability to run off the pace and close, he may initially attempt to get the lead and cause greater early contention but that effort will cost him many lengths by the finish. So Running Style and early speed potential go hand in hand.
In the example race there were 3 or 4 horses that had demonstrated the ability to run close or take the lead at the 1st call. In my estimation there was only one true E horse who had consistently held the lead at the 1st call. We then have to ask, "Which of these horses has competed successfully against the fastest pace of race 2nd fractions. There were only two horses that had competed successfully against a 23 second 2nd fraction. One of these had run a career best 3 races back was claimed out of the race and jumped up and
class. The horse was overmatched in a Allowance sprint two back and run back in a Starter Allowance turf sprint in its last race and now is dropped all the way back down to its claiming tag albeit one condition higher than its claimed race. This horse was able to wire the field in its career best and run a huge new top. The horse had never run a similar race. The other horse was a Presser who competed well against a 23 second fraction in both its 2nd and 4th line back. This is a fairly consistent animal and given his freshening
prior to his last race now back on a normal schedule it is reasonable to think he is fresh and fit today.
Mr. Bradshaw in his 5 step approach states clearly that you have to match horses "fraction by fraction". So beyond 1st call position, given today's pace of race, relative speed and
horse behavior have to be considered in tandem. The E horse had at best 2nd fractions in the 23.5 second range and most of the other horses lost ground in races with anything close to 23 flat. The E horse in the 2nd back had shown it could take the lead from its 2nd position at the 1sr call and fight at the 2nd call and win at 5f. But generally speaking the horse an open lead.
So you have two horses that have demonstrated that they could be on or near the lead at today's projected early pace and run faster than anyone else in the second fraction. This is where another of "The Hat's" guidelines comes full force. We have to rely on a "Preponderance of Evidence". The #6 off his 3rd race back is a stand out. The #2 horse off of his 2nd and 4th race back has shown the ablity to gain lengths against a 23 second flat second fraction and is a relatively consistent animal. Those are your choices. Everyone else in the race is running for minor awards.
In Mr. Bradshaw's early writings on the Match Up there was greater emphasis on fractional speed. However, this evolved over the years to position. I believe this resulted from the difficultly in determining the correct values for lengths gained in the latter race segments. A horse that gains a large number of lengths in the final fraction is often overvalued in FPS calculations. A horse that makes a POWER MOVE, passing at least 3 horses is important but it is the speed of the fraction that is significant. Gaining 4 lengths and 3 positions
against a 24 second fraction will not occur if today the leaders are going 23. So in evaluating a this type of move you always have to consider today's pace of race. This horse is demonstrating to you that psychologically he has no problems going by horses and that is very important in Sustained runners, but unless he can do it against today's projected pace it is meaningless except in picking up minor shares of the purse.
I hope this post is not thought to be presumptious. This is a teaching thread and while I have been at this game for over 40 years I am still learning the Match Up. There are no black and white rules and all we have is the past performances available to us in the Racing Form. Your ability to interpret raw data in a game that is Adjustment crazy employing the teachings of Jim Bradshaw and presented so clearly by Richie P will put you way ahead of the crowd.
|
Hi Mark, I wanted to follow up about your post, which I really enjoyed and benefited from.
I was not able to succeed with the Match-Up until I employed the Early / OTE concept (differentiating them and then matching from the projected "winning group").
Prior to that I was not able to succeed matching fraction by fraction as in the Hat's books. In analyzing why, I think I struggled to effectively match the fractions of the P and S horses to the E horses and determine when a P or S horse will overtake the E. For some reason, my mind just could not see those relationships consistently. That's why I'm so thankful for the Early/OTE concept. Maybe the Hat came up with that for people like me who couldn't get it the other way
I am better with matching the E horses fraction by fraction as you did for the example race. If you could ever give some examples including the P and S horses matching the E's in the 2nd and 3rd fraction, that would be awesome for me, and I'm sure others could benefit too.
I think the fraction by fraction match-up is the core of the whole thing, and intellectually it is so appealing to me, I just have never been able to get my head around how to implement it effectively.
Thanks again!
Pete