Showing posts with label speed figures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label speed figures. Show all posts
  • When Speed Figures Matter... And When They Don't

    POSTED Jul 11, 2013

    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.
  • Is Pace Overrated?

    POSTED Apr 12, 2013
    Leave it to my colleague Ed DeRosa to make me question one of my deepest-held handicapping beliefs — the notion that pace makes the race. Never shy with his opinion (at least on topics of an equine nature), I received the following missive from Ed prior to this week’s TwinSpires podcast:
     
    “I'm sick of people overvaluing pace on the final figure. Fast horses go fast,” Ed opined in an e-mail to me. “The Derby, especially, doesn't help those with a turf dynamic. I don't want to hear how the speed number is low because the pace was slow. You have to go fast in the Derby to keep up.”
     
    Ed concluded by asking me for my thoughts, which, I must admit, were somewhat mixed… at least at first. While I definitely saw the merit in what he was saying — I’ve continually stressed that pace figures (even my own, which I love more than Joanie loves Chachi) are inferior to speed figures as predictive tools — I still fervently believed that the early fractions of a race can greatly influence its final time. Hence, I have always looked for Kentucky Derby contenders that appeared capable of comfortably coping with the -10 early speed ration (ESR) they were likely to encounter in Louisville (since 1990, the Derby pacesetter has averaged a -9.8 ESR). 
     
    (Click on image to enlarge)

    In fact, this was one of the big reasons I downgraded the chances of I’ll Have Another in last year’s Run for the Roses. In the “Cons” section of the 2012 Kentucky Derby Guide I produced for Brisnet.com (this year’s edition will be available starting next week) I wrote the following:

    “Doug O’Neill trainee has never won from further back than second at the first call, yet he’s recorded a -1 ESR in each his last two starts. Sorry, but that ain’t happening in Louisville. He’s either going to have to expend more energy early or come from further off the pace, neither of which he’s proven he can do.” 
    Of course, I was right about the scenario that I’ll Have Another would face on the first Saturday in May of 2012 — not only was the son of Flower Alley seventh, back eight lengths, at the first call in the Derby that day, but he recorded a -6 ESR to boot. However, I was wrong about the ultimate impact of that scenario. As it turned out, I’ll Have Another had no trouble rallying from off the pace to capture the 138th running of America’s most famous horse race.

    And that got me to thinking: Was Ed right? Is pace overrated when it comes to deciding who can and who cannot win the Kentucky Derby? 

    To answer that question I first needed to determine what effect the pace of a race had on its final speed figure. So I decided to find out by using my database of thousands of races from tracks across the country. I conducted my survey as follows:

    1) I recorded the Brisnet speed figure (BSF) of random race winners and noted the general distance (route/sprint) and surface (dirt/turf/synthetic) at/over which those numbers were earned.

    2) I subtracted the associated race pars from the speed figures obtained above, which allowed me to compare races from across the class spectrum. For example, if a particular race featured a par of 103 and the winner earned a 97 BSF, I would record its final speed rating as a -6 (97 – 103 = -6).

    3) Lastly, I determined the average adjusted speed rating for a given range of ESRs earned by the first-call leader(s) of the races in question.

    The results were startling: 

    (Click on image to enlarge)
    As you can see, the ideal pace in terms of producing the best, or fastest, speed rating on dirt is a moderate to brisk one (-5 to -9 ESR). This is true in both sprints and routes (ignoring samples of fewer than 10 horses). On synthetic and turf surfaces, the best Brisnet speed figures in relation to par come in races featuring soft to moderate ESRs.
     
    (Click on image to enlarge)
     
    However, the real stunner — at least to me — is that slower relative paces (higher ESRs) don’t appear to alter the winner’s speed figure that much and fast paces (lower ESRs), which many, myself included, have always assumed acted as springboards to higher figs, in fact, did just the opposite — stifling the final speed rating across all categories, save turf sprints.

    Interestingly, this jibes with an observation made by Andrew Beyer nearly 40 years ago. In the original Picking Winners, published in 1975, Beyer had this to say about pace:

    “A horse’s fractional times do not affect his final time. Horses are never ‘burned up’ by fast fractions. There is no such thing as a ‘killing pace.’”
    Ironically, this passage was subsequently removed from later editions of Beyer’s seminal work, as the author claimed to have seen the light — due primarily to the 1981 Kentucky Derby.
     
    "If I wanted to test the influence of pace, I might have designed an experiment like this: Have the early leaders in the Kentucky Derby run the fastest first quarter-mile in the history of the race and judge its effect,” Beyer wrote in The Winning Horseplayer, which was first published in 1994.

    " … The Derby field was filled with brilliant speed horses, notably Proud Appeal and Cure the Blues. They all went charging for the lead, and a bullet named Top Avenger got it, running the quarter in 21-4/5 seconds — the fastest fraction at Churchill Downs in 107 years — and the half-mile in a swift :45-1/5. Every horse who was near this breathtaking pace collapsed. The horses who were running 1-2-3-4-5 after three-quarters of a mile finished 19-10-18-16-17. As they backed up, all the stretch runners and plodders passed them. The first five finishers at the end of the Derby were horses who had been running 15-19-10-17-20 after three-quarters.

    "The winner, Pleasant Colony, was a genuinely good horse, but nondescript plodders like Woodchopper and Television Studio had rallied to finish ahead of superior horses like Cure the Blues and Proud Appeal by margins of 20 or 30 lengths,” Beyer pointed out. “The outcome of the Derby seemed to have relatively little to do with the ability of the horses; it was much more the result of pace."

    Notice, however (and I think this is a key point), that Beyer’s “epiphany” does not actually relate to the final running time of the race (Ed’s point); it only pertains to individual contenders. And guess what? That blistering :45-1/5 opening half-mile in 1981 led to a very commonplace 2:02 final clocking — tied with six other editions as the 27th fastest Derby ever… hardly the stuff of legends.

    Ed DeRosa 1, pace handicappers 0.
  • Speed figures discussion

    POSTED Oct 24, 2011
    As an unabashed speed handicapper, I am very excited to be participating in this evening's Night School class using speed figures to handicap horse races.

    I'm excited not only to exchange ideas with some of the top minds in figuremaking but also to share my enthusiasm with other handicappers.

    Representatives of the top publicly available figures will be in on the discussion, and my sense from the preliminary instructions regarding the chat is that the tenor of the class is more about the strength of figures in general than which figure is strongest.

    The main idea I bring to handicapping with speed figures is not to look for who will win but who can win. Horseplayers place far too much emphasis on picking winners rather than handicapping a race. There certainly is something satisfying about tabbing the winner, and sometimes zeroing in on one horse is the correct play, but few is the race that features a horse who "can't lose", and those horses are usually overbet, anyway.

    Even if you're not into handicapping using speed figures, they're an important tool to understand because so much of your competition (including me!) does use them. Getting a feel for not only the race but also how people will be the race is an important part of the handicapping process.
    Not all figures are created equally, but I do think they apply equally to all types of races. Many argue that figures don't translate well on turf, and it is because of that misconception that I actually prefer using figures for turf routes than any other configuration of race.

    The Queen Elizabeth II Challenge Stakes on October 15 at Keeneland is a perfect example considering Winter Memories--who was one of the SLOWEST fillies in the race--went off as an overwhelming favorite in the win pool and finished a distant, nonthreatening fourth. Anyone who handicapped that race using BRISnet Speed Figures wouldn't have so much as bet Winter Memories to show, let alone win the race.

    And that's the beauty of handicapping--even with something as ubiquitous as speed figures. There is still a lot of room for interpretation and different ways to think about the same information.

    Enroll in tonight's class and join in the discussion!