Hi Testa,

I enjoyed your post. As someone who have been through all there is about times and pace (and now after a few years of reasearch has settled on a winning approach, more to do with pace), i think I can add something to the discussion.

It sounds like the reading and method you are employing is based on American works more specifically Brohammer who talks about leaders, pressers, closers etc as well as energy distribution etc. Your percentages of 49.5, 50.5 etc are basic energy distribution patterns.

Take it from me when I say that these approaches are not valid or reliable in Australian conditions. There are a whole bunch of reasons ranging from the vastly different shapes and profiles of our tracks (they are all similar in the states, a basic oval shape), the fact they race on dirt and we race on turf, which goes along with the fact that the requirements for success are much different. Dirt racing is about sheer speed, hence the importance they place on early speed. Turf racing is about being able to go along at a moderate pace and produce a kick at the end. Even these authors openly admit that there methods are nowhere near as effective on Turf as dirt.

The other point is that you assertions about a 49.5% last section indicating the pace was fast is not quiet right as it doesn't take into account the standard for that track. Someone else raised the point about Mooney Valley and Canterbury, your figures will alway show above 50% early indicating the pace was fast but thats not the case, its simply to do with the track profile that means last sections will never be as quick as some of the others. MV for example only has a 187m straight so horses can't run as quick around a bend as they often become a little unbalanced. Along with that there is actually a 5m rise from the start to finsih of the straight hence horses are always running slightly up hill.

I also believe you are making an error in methodology by taking 400m sections and deriving them back to 600m times in the way you are. In more than 90% of races the last 200m of the race is always the slowest (excluding the first 200m where horses start from the barrier). It is actually a bit of an illusion that it looks like horses are gaining speed and storming home. What is actually happening is that all the horses are slowing, some are slowing much less than others which means they make alot of ground. The fastest section is most often from the 600m to the 200m mark, it is that part that makes a really quick last 600m. So you see the last (slowest) 200m is actually 50% of a 400m sectional and you are extracting that to 600m which makes it 50% of your final 600m time. This slowest section should only make up 33% of the final 600m the other 67% is the faster 600-200m time. That being the case your method will always severley underestimate the actual final 600m time.

If you want confirmation about my assertion of the slowest part being the last 200m etc. do some research with the individual sectional times Sportscolour provide on their site for free.

In principle what you are trying to do is fantastic and will prove a winning strategy if you can get it right, the trouble is that at this stage your methods are not correct. I am satisfied now that after working through this for five years or so and with the help of some sophisticated programming I have an approach that has delivered profit for the past 2 years. The only reason I say this is not to gloat but to highlight that pace is the most unexploited concept in all of race and if you can find out a way to firstly accurately measure it and then use it with other sensible form analysis techniques then you are well on your way to a winning advantage.

So my final advice would be to definitely stick with what you are trying to do in principle about understanding pace and the relative performance of horses given the pace, but ditch American based methods and complicated maths about energy patterns, %'s etc. Its really not as hard or as complicated as they make out.

Best of luck with your endeavours, I love to see other people interested in this topic.

I hope you have found my points useful.