|
|
| |
Speed Figures Gone Wild: Part 2
By John Lindley
Anyone, from the casual racing fan to the most hard-core racing fan, probably has an opinion on the use of speed figures. These opinions often pop up when a horse runs a big race and earns a spectacular figure. Suddenly some start touting the horse as the next coming of Secretariat based on that one race, or suggest future book bets on upcoming classic races. Maybe the horse does live up to expectations, but in most cases, the horse does not, leading to skepticism of the value of speed figures and their use.
Skepticism commonly occurs when a horse earns a big speed figure while loose on the lead throughout a race. Most will conclude that the horse's figure is inflated, as being loose on the lead usually results in a big figure. Another common reason for skepticism is when the horse earns a figure that isn't reliable for any number of reasons, for example if there was only one two-turn route that day and the resulting variant was more of a guess. Another is where the figure was "legit" but the horse is unlikely to repeat it. As with any big figure, especially one that is a significant improvement over the horse's previous figures, the ability of the horse to be able to repeat that figure should always be questioned. Along those lines, another reasonable conclusion is that the figure was legit but that the effort was so big, it may knock the horse out for a long time.
In fact, when traditional speed handicapping works, such as using patterns analysis as the sheet guys suggest or evaluating Beyer figures with other factors (trips, bias and pace as Beyer suggests), speed figure users look great. When speed figures don't work, many users will blame it on other things, such as bad rides or use of illicit drugs. When a big-figure favorite flops, casual speed figure users are scratching their heads. They don't realize the flaws in using speed figures.
As mentioned in the first article, each of the two main speed figures (the Beyers published in the DRF and Sheet figures) are inherently flawed, both in their calculation and use. You are probably very familiar with these flaws. Let's talk about the flaws in using those speed figures. I don't mean to ignore or shut out other types of speed figures, but there is a reason Beyer and Sheet figures still remain while other speed figures have come and gone.
When using Beyer figures, Beyer suggests you take each figure and evaluate it in the context of how that figure was earned. This includes keeping track of biases, trips, pace etc. Those figures are specifically calculated to not include those factors, so the handicapper can decide on the relevance of those factors -- clearly, any given bias, trip or pace scenario will either benefit or cost a horse in his or her performance in any given race. So obviously, the main flaw in using Beyer figures is that you will need to have access to those other factors to properly evaluate the speed figures of each horse and then use that information along with the likely scenario the horse faces today to predict who is going to win. Getting that information on those other factors isn't easy, especially if you are playing a track that you either don't watch or attend on a regular basis.
Sheet figures also have some flaws in their use. The sheet guys promote their figures by suggesting users become familiar with pattern analysis -- that is analyzing a horse's form cycle. The say several patterns become easily noticed with their figures and those patterns can range from simple to complex. Their contention is you will be able to select horses that are not obvious to the general public.
Over time, I have come to believe that sheet figures, especially Thoro-graph's, are more accurate than the Beyers in the DRF. I am not implying the Beyer figure makers don't or aren't trying to have the most accurate figure, but I feel pretty confident that Thoro-Graph is spending the time and looking at the right things in calculating their figures in trying to make them as accurate as possible. Not to say they are perfect and I have some serious reservations about including both weight and ground-loss in a figure. I also still question pattern analysis, which of course they promote in using their figures.
If you are not familiar with Sheet figures, you are probably very familiar with one of the most simple patterns they recognize, that is the "bounce." The bounce is where a horse (that usually comes off an improved or big effort) isn't likely to repeat that effort in his/her next race - he/she "bounces" off that figure and likely will run a much slower figure in that next race. This is one of many patterns the sheet guys evaluate.
When I first came across the sheet guys, I definitely found value in their general pattern analysis. I was familiar with the bounce, but other patterns also hold a lot of truth to them and are very worthwhile to know. For example, the concept of "too fast, too soon," I have found to be very valuable. It would most likely apply to a 2-year-old that ran huge either in its debut or early in its career. Sheet users would sometimes view this type of horse negatively for both the horse's short- and long-term future. A similar concept would apply to older horses, horses that have put together several (two, three or more) big races. Sheet users would become skeptical of this type of horse, saying that historically a horse that puts together too many big races, even with a good amount of rest between starts, was very susceptible to falling apart. I would find that more often than not, sheet users were right about these types of horses. Prior to learning about patterns, these were horses I previously viewed as dominant or almost unbeatable, and in the past I would not hesitate to bet these horses. Now, before a big race I would read (on Thoro-graph's bulletin board) something like "this horse has run too fast for its own good, proceed with caution," (this wasn't bouncing, but an alternate concept), and I would be cautious about playing these horses and other, similar horses.
However, I do have some serious reservations of what is included in a sheet figures. As mentioned, they are adjusted for weight and ground loss. The problem I have with that is sometimes weight is important and other times it isn't. The same with ground loss -- sometimes it matters and sometimes it doesn't.
The last area I would like to discuss regarding sheet figures is pattern analysis. As I already mentioned, one of the things that attracted me to sheet figures was their theories and use of pattern (form cycle) analysis and I have definitely learned from the sheet guys about the physical affects of racing on a horse's future performance, especially after big efforts. I recognize that pattern analysis is sometimes useful in handicapping, but just as with weight/ground-loss, I am not totally convinced. I have included form-cycle patterns in my handicapping but still somewhat skeptical as what others see as patterns, I don't. In other words, obvious, simple patterns such as the bounce are pretty easy to read and or predict. Other patterns, such as pair ups, 0-2-X, circling, etc., may or may not really exist.
Again, I question pattern analysis and it is why I don't try to go too deep with pattern analysis, I think the simple patterns are easy; other, more complex pattern analysis isn't for me -- I think sheet users may be reading too much into a horse's pattern that just isn't there.
For example, sheet users prior to a big race may look at a favorite and say they don't like the horse's pattern. However, if the horse runs poorly, for example on a wet track, they will ignore the possibility the horse didn't handle the surface and say "see, his pattern was bad, thus a throw out." Alternately, if the horse won the race, they would say "yes, he won but he was overbet and they were smart to go against him even though he won as his pattern was negative." Pattern analysis can be somewhat self-fulfilling. You could have the same arguments if a favorite lost because of a pace scenario, or bias, or other factor. (A quick note: Sheet users really don't believe in biases, notably a speed bias. They say bias is a result of ground-loss -- speed horses are able to save ground, closers in most cases are forced wide, thus closers are at a disadvantage just because of the ground loss and the reason speed horses may be winning on any given day is a result of this ground loss incurred by closers. Also, sheet user don't believe a fast pace will affect the figures other the other horses in a race, but they do believe a slow pace will affect the figure earned by other horses -- fast pace means strung-out field, slow pace, a bunched field, thus closers go wide and lose ground, which affects their figure).
Other times, maybe they were right about a favorite running poorly, but they didn't come up with the winner anyway. Does it count if your pattern analysis leads you to throw out a favorite (that runs badly) but also throw out the winner? Another problem with pattern analysis, other than the simple patterns such as the bounce, is that two experts in pattern analysis can easily conclude different things about the same horse. That is to be expected, but it is not uncommon after a big day such as Derby day or Breeders' Cup day for there to be postings, one saying "thanks Thoro-graph, I killed the races" and another saying "went broke using your figures, will hope tomorrow is better."
The point of all this is, even though I am a bit skeptical of applying general pattern analysis to each horse as promoted by the sheet figure makers -- horses, people, any performances are affected by cycles. Maybe it is a football team, soccer team, tennis player, chess player, but most importantly, it clearly affects most everything. Whether or not complex pattern analysis is the answer when looking at horse racing, I don't know, but I do know that in certain situations it is important. Sometimes pattern analysis/form cycles is a reason that Horse A lost to Horse B when under similar circumstances Horse A had just beaten Horse B. Other times, other factors were more significant.
This article started out talking about the effect of speed figures, not only on handicappers, but the racing industry as a whole. However, when it comes to determining which horse has run the fastest in previous races, I think having speed figures, both the Beyers and or Sheet figures are valuable (taking into account all the flaws mentioned and realizing there are times where a certain speed figure can be clearly questionable, both in its calculation and whether or not a horse will be able to repeat it). When it comes to predicting performances, I also think they are valuable, but obviously many other factors must be considered in tandem with speed figures.
|
|
