I can easily work out the various in running positions for individual runners in a race but need help from there on. How do you work out the pace of the race and which horses wold be suited to this race pace and how many race paces are there? e.g. Slow, Average, Good, Fast ? American sites tend to use different terminology to us and their info is probably irrelevant to us. Are there any good books or websites which explain these things as I haven't come across any yet. I seem to be able to get the winner in the first three sometimes using my rudimentary knowledge and method. I have followed the comments by Crash on this topic and became interested in using pace after reading his comments but still need more info. Maybe Crash needs to write a book on this. Any help would be appreciated.

Hi Researcher,
The American guru on pace is probably Beyer, an east coast journo, who has written a number of racing books. You might get hold of his books thru a US second hand books site.
Beyer is interesting, if a little unsatisfying. He coined the phrase 'pace makes the race', but knowing this is not a magic bullet to picking winners. To me, it doesn't mean much more than when a fast pace is set in a race, closers come into their own.
A warning on US racing. Races on dirt follow a different pattern to turf races. On dirt, all horses go out hard, so that almost always the last 200m is the slowest of the race, as all horses tire. Beyer and others analyse sectionals, eg, in a 1200 race, they analyse the first, middle, and last 400m, the idea being to identify races which will suit particular horses' racing patterns. If there are not many speed horses in a race, they look for horses with 'fast early fractions'.
Australian speed maps are a good way to get a feel for pace. Analyse some races, and see what the speed maps tell you.
Hope that helps.
Jackact

Hi Researcher,


Have found a UK book by Jon Gibby called 'Betting on Flat Handicaps' that contains some useful ideas on pace and the shape of a race.

It is a short and seemingly well researched book - and obviously he has taken some American thinking and applied it to UK turf.

Alas nothing for Australia that I can find. That book can be purchased over the internet.

Not an easy subject and I certainly don't know enough to write a book on it.

Stats will show that most winners are on- pacers or leaders. What they don't show is that most races are not truly run, but are jog and sprints. You might only find 1 or 2 races on a Sat. metro that will run at genuine pace, so naturally most races are won by leaders and on-pacers with a few mid-pacers winning too. The big problem with these jog and sprint slow races is the amount of interference and trouble horses and jockies get into. Form as a good guide to selection often then goes out the window!

A truly run race is where any [decent] backmarker comes into its own and they win a lot of these genuine pace races. Form without all the interferance going on in the slow races, holds up far better too.

I won nicely on Trusting at Syd. last Sat. as the race had about 4 leaders in it that set up a fast pace for Trusting to come over the top of them from behind. Look for genuinely run races for backmarkers and ignore them in jog and sprints.

Another angle is looking for races with only one leader in it and no on-pacers. The first thing that Jock does on the leader is slow the pace to a jog and takes off after the bend. He also has the advantage of avoiding all the slow pace caused problems going on behind him!

Money can be made from concentrating on both these two different type of races [one true paced and the other slow paced] I've lightly touched on here.

Good luck.

OK, thanks guys for the advice. I'll keep looking into it.

It's a huge topic Researcher...I'd suggest checking out the US author Tom Brohamer's Modern Pace Handicapping if you haven't already read it. Just to get more ideas.

As jackact says the difference's between US racing and Aust racing [both in terms of tempo where we position up then generally sprint home compared to all out speed - and different surfaces] mean a lot of the concepts don't transform as easily as you'd hope. Still Brohamer is good reading and may give you ideas.

Do a Google on Australian websites using the term 'Daniel O'Sullivan pace' for further info and stuff more relevant to Australia.

I had an interest in pace/sectionals years ago but moved away from it...it was more speed mapping I guess based on identifying which horses were backmarkers, midfield, on pace, opportunist leaders, out out leaders. That helped me work out the tempo, but moreso just the speed maps.

As a rough measure I used to take the overall time divided by furlongs per race - then do the same for the last 600m and then compare the two to work out whether it was a negative split. eg 1200m run in 1.10 with the last 600m 34.00 worked out to 70 secs divided by 6 [furlongs] = 11.66 overall. 34.00 divided by 3 [furlongs] 11.33 sectional. 11.33 - 11.66 = -0.33

Of course that's a pretty dodgy way of trying to compare a 1200m to an 1800m because the last 600m for both distances takes into account a vastly different % of the overall race. Still, after doing it for a bit it - with a bit of practice you would get a gut feel for the tempo. Using that dodgy maths most races will end up with a negative split but when it came close to being line ball or positive split you knew it was a hectic tempo.

Not sure if any of that helps...should say I moved on from this stuff as well
:-)

A far easier way to work out the tempo of a race. Check out the course record for the distance run. Within 2 sec. [12 lengths] was a genuinely run race. Most races now are not genuinely run and for those races that had a blanket finish [heaps of them], you don't even have to check the times as it will have been slowly run for sure. Watch out for horses that had soft wins in slow races, they are nowhere near as good as they looked!

The problem IMO with any reference to track records is that a lot of records were set when tracks were prepared to a genuine firm where as now [in Vic at least] they are prepared with give...also surfaces have been relaid etc.

G'day.

I've noticed of late that a lot more jockeys are looking to race their horse to the lead and from a tactical point of view, this makes sense. Dictate some tempo, keep out of the way of any interference etc...but do they always run well? D. Peisley who generally rides out of the Gold Coast does this regularly with a some success. (He has one ride at Eagle Farm tomorrow).

Trying to determine pace from form guides though is difficult. The Sportsman's Zipform liftout section provides info as to the USUAL racing pattern of a horse but is it always reliable? When 4 likely leaders are nominated which one do we bet on? I've seen a race with 4 nominated leaders only then for a horse nominated to race "handy" run to the front and win. I've seen horses nominated as backmarkers up running second on the fence. Then again, I suppose we should use the information for what it is intended, a guide.

I have a mate who believed he could make money from betting on races up to 1400m at Moonee Valley where there was only 1 listed leader. His reasoning was that the short straight would be an advantage. You can guess what happened...

In trying to assess the pace of a race, I really think that you must consider primarily WHERE the race is being run. For example, is it down the Flemington straight or is it a Caulfield sprint where the rail is out 4 metres? Is it at Canterbury or Randwick? Eagle Farm or Doomben? Is an assessment of the pace a good indicator or is it merely track factors that condition our minds to pace being a key to punting profit? In this case, I really think that it is courses for horses rather than the reverse.

FWIW, I do not factor the pace of a race into any method that I apply to punting. I find that it is too unpredictable and steers the mind away from the issues that ARE predictable and recurring.

Cheers

Privateer

Hi Privateer,
If a race has four likely leaders, that would a good race to look for horses that sit back. A proviso would be that there is not (or not expected to be) a leaders bias.
I guess you know all this, but I thought I would throw it into the mix.
Jackact