POSTED Jul 11, 2013
By
Derek Simon
 |
| Andrew Beyer |
One thing my 20+ years of racetrack experience has taught me
is that good handicappers adapt to changes in the game.
Initially, upon having read Steve Davidowitz’s book
“Betting Thoroughbreds,” I cared only about my winning percentage. Davidowitz
often talked about his 50 percent success rate in his book and I wanted to join
that exclusive club.
Of course, I eventually realized that doing so meant
sacrificing price, which became untenable when casual bettors (like grandma and
her winner-picking hatpin) were displaced by more experienced
players — players who, just like me, had read Davidowitz’s book… and Andrew
Beyer’s books… and Jim Quinn’s books…
It was at this point that I began experimenting with
angles.
Armed with literature from American Turf Monthly’s former editor Ward Clever, a.k.a. Ray
Taulbot, I started insisting that the horses I bet meet certain criteria that I
determined — via a sample size of 20 — to be relevant.
A few of those angles were good; most were not. Worse, I
discovered that angles, especially those that sought “price horses” were
maddeningly inconsistent — I wanted steady profits, not the occasional windfall
score.
Mr. Simon meet Mr. Scott.
It seemed like a match made in heaven. When my step-dad
bought me “Investing at the Racetrack” by William L. Scott one Christmas, it
renewed my belief in Santa Claus. Here it was, I thought: the Arc of the
Covenant, Fountain of Youth and Philosopher’s Stone all rolled into one, neat 287-page
package.
In his book, Scott detailed his unique way of assessing equine
talent via “Ability Ratings,” which were comprised from fractional times and
various modifiers.
I was hooked. Not so much by Scott’s overall method — that
didn’t work for me (nor, I suspect, did it work for Scott very long, judging by
his subsequent books) — but by the concept. In fact, I credit Scott for putting
me on the path that led to the development of my own pace figures.
And it was my pace figures that literally changed my
approach to the game. I soon realized that the numbers were so powerful that
they could crystallize and, better still, quantify what before had been only nebulous
theories and ideas.
Take, for example, a recent study I did on speed figures.
Now, I don’t think I’m going to shock anybody when I say
that the effectiveness of speed figures as a predictive/profitable betting tool
varies based on the type of race one is analyzing. For many years I have heard
handicappers grouse about speed figures in grass races or races run over the various
synthetic surfaces we lovingly — or not so lovingly — call “all-weather.”
In fact, realizing there was a problem with his numbers
on these man-made surfaces, Andrew Beyer and associates altered their approach
to synthetic tracks in 2009.
“… When we finally had a great deal of data about figures
on synthetic tracks, we found a subtle flaw in our calculations that we never
could have anticipated,” Beyer
told Ray Paulick of the Paulick
Report in November of 2010. “The top-class races at a track were producing
figures lower than they had on dirt; at the same time, the bottom classes (such
as maiden-claiming fillies) were producing higher figures. This was not logical, and the same phenomenon
was happening at every track.”
What changes Beyer and his team made one can only guess, but Beyer hit at the
heart of the problem later in his discussion with Paulick.
“… Synthetic tracks pose other problems that we rarely
encounter on the dirt. The early pace on synthetics is sometimes so slow that
the horses can’t accelerate fast enough at the end to run the fastest final
time of which they are capable. If a
horse is capable of running a mile in 1:36, but the first six furlongs of a
race have been run in 1:14, he won’t get to the wire in 1:36.”
And therein lies the problem: Often, races on turf or all-weather surfaces come
down to a single burst of acceleration — usually in the stretch — rather than sustained
speed throughout the course of the race. Beyer and crew likely “fixed” this
problem by assigning greater values to each fifth of a second and adjusting for
abnormally slow paces — but it didn’t work.
The fact is pace, at least as I define it via my early
speed rations (ESRs), which measure early energy disbursement, still has a huge
effect on the viability of speed figures.
To prove this, let’s look at some data.
We’ll start by examining the stats of horses that earned
the best last-race Brisnet speed figure (ties included):
Number: 13,815
Winners: 3,890
Win Rate: 28.2%
Return: $22,835.40
ROI: -17.35%
About what one would expect. But, now, let’s add in the
pace component, beginning with slow-paced races (events that have an average
ESR of +5 or greater on my Pace
Profile Report):
Number: 218
Winners: 49
Win Rate: 22.5%
Return: $332.50
ROI: -23.74%
As you can see, the
numbers are substantially worse than those obtained above, validating (if one
can trust such a small sample, which is open to debate) the notion that speed
figures are less predictive/profitable in slow-paced races.
However, to fully endorse
the theory that pace makes the case (sorry, I couldn’t resist) for or against
speed-figure handicapping, we’ll have to see the opposite phenomenon in
faster-paced races.
We do.
In races with an average
ESR of -10 or less, we get the following:
Number: 468
Winners: 158
Win Rate: 33.8%
Return: $917.30
ROI: -2.00%
Surprised? If you’re like
me, the answer is both “yes” and “no.” I am startled that the statistics on fast-paced
races are so kind to a speed-oriented
approach, but I am not surprised that such an approach is ineffective in
slow-paced affairs.
The lesson here for speed handicappers
is to be less dogmatic in races that figure to feature a slow pace. Change your
approach, adapt to the conditions… your wallet will thank you.
FREE Weekend Plays
Click HERE for daily free plays this weekend.
