Randy Moss on pace figures
If you are a pace handicapper, whether you utilize Moss Pace Figures or another method entirely, I think you'll find yesterday's post by Randy to be extremely interesting and thought provoking. If you're not a pace handicapper, it's still an interesting read.
over 1 year ago
Matt Gardner
8 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Interesting to be sure
But way more in depth than I usually get handicapping. You could get even more so if you wanted to compare gate position and if a horse ran the rail or went 3 wide around the turn (you’d think the horse that went wide should get a better figure).
I think pace figures are cool to look at, but I rarely base my bets on them.
I Consider Myself A Pace Handicapper, First....
…and I use BRIS figures, exclusively. But I also feel that pace is only part of the equation. I have seen too many times a horse with exceptional closing numbers, say, in a very-fast pace race, entering a non-graded stakes out of a low-level allowance, get beaten by a horse with no significant pace numbers who is dropping from, say, a G2. The mysteries of class….
Then there is trainer-intention, which has become more and more important to me over the years.
Randy’s effort is noble, but I think ultimately the exactitude he seeks is probably mythical. Personally, I think his effort to establish “pars” across distances isn’t very worthwhile, as I trust the averages of each horse in a race (in its last three races, in the best two of its last three races, and in its last two or three races at the distance) more than I would any individual performance versus a universal “par.” Each race poses its own set of questions, and there were always be some that provide answers which defy explanation.
Now is the time boys to make a big noise.
No matter what the people say,
For there is naught to fear, the gang's all here,
So hail West Virginia, hail.
I'm more of a...
….guy who goes by trainer/pedigree/past performanc/gut instinct guy. Especially important to me when I’m actually AT the track is the “eye test” — as I size them up in the paddock and try to decipher who wants to run.
Gives me decent enough results. I rarely leave the track losing more than a few dollars and sometimes come out quite a bit ahead. Except for the Breeders Cup last November, where I didn’t pick one winner the whole damn day! LOL
I wonder about the exactitude, as well.
It’s something I always struggle with with figures, be it pace, speed, or whatever; there’s an element of randomness (I can’t think of a better word right now) that is always present in horse races.
I find Randy’s discussion interesting (as I do Crist or Beyer when they talk speed figures), but I still feel there is as much “art” to the process as there is “science”.
What’s really stumped me in terms of figures making (and I dabbled with it for a few years in the past), is that you never really have a robust sample size to make your “par” determinations, and I think that’s a big issue. There maybe hundreds of $10k claimers at your local track, but they are split up into so many sub-classes (N2L, N3L, N$Y, open, 2yo, 3yo, colts, fillies, etc) and distances that even if you look at 10 years of data you still might not have a great base of numbers and you end up “making things fit”.
For me it’s a question of “how precise can we be in a game with so many variables”?
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Jul 1, 2010 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly...
A horse might have out-of-this-world numbers and just not be feeling up to winning a race on a given day. There is truth in the numbers, no doub, but it is usually a nugget of truth that might point the way to a winner. I calculate a late pace figure for every race, and in route races with a fast shape, the winner appears in the top three of that column nearly 60 percent of the time. It is a great help to know that my math points me toward three horses that may be likely winners…but 40 percent of the time, it still points me toward a loser! That is why so many other factors have to come into play – what is the trainer doing with the horse, how classy is the horse, how does he like this track, distance, surface, etc.
In a way, this illustrates why I love horse racing. They are really fun puzzles to be solved…
Now is the time boys to make a big noise.
No matter what the people say,
For there is naught to fear, the gang's all here,
So hail West Virginia, hail.
Turf races...
How much emphasis do you place on late pace in turf vs. dirt racing? For me it’s usually a significant factor in my handicapping, more so than in dirt races. Do you find that to be the same or do you make different distinctions for the turf?
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
Late Pace On Turf...
…is of vital importance to me, especially at a mile or longer. In fact, if there is one style of running I favor, regardless of pace scenario or surface, it is late-running horses who top that column, or at least figure in it. Another thing I favor strongly in turf races in the BRIS class rating.
Now is the time boys to make a big noise.
No matter what the people say,
For there is naught to fear, the gang's all here,
So hail West Virginia, hail.
I hear you on class...
Those are probably my two biggest factors in all turf races I handicap: how fast do they come home and where do they fit on class.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Jul 2, 2010 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
