Pace lines

[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]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

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]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

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]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

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