- This topic has 10 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Interesting debate on twitter earlier about whether sectionals are worth the effort for punters.
On the one hand people can generally see some advantages over having the extra info but many don’t think the extra ‘edge’ (if indeed there is any) is worth the (currently) considerable effort required to compile meaningful data.
So… are sectionals an essential tool which provide crucial insights which can give the thinking punter a decisive edge over the market?
or… are sectionals a time-consuming route to more data, more fog which further cloud the issue without providing a clear punting advantage?
I’m always interesting in data that no one else (or very few) has. Bull and Whitford made money by gathering/compiling/analysing data which no one else had. Bird, the same. No point in looking at the same stuff (collateral form, for example) that everyone else has and upon which the markets are (largely) compiled. Sectionals fall very much into the category of data that is not in public domain to any extent and therefore deserving of very close attention.
But one fellow did point out a chilling warning – ‘I’ve never seen a rich sectionals man’!
Sectionals (or pace) gives any punter an advantage. Identifying horses who’ve done better than their finishing position suggests means they’re often under-estimated in the betting next time out. ie One that’s done by far the best of those coming from the back in a slowly run race – is likely to show improvement when getting a race run to suit. Converely, if the early pace is overly strong, the winner who’s been dropped out the back, and wins with a supposed sharp "turn of foot" (nothing of the sort), may well be flattered by the result and not be able to defy its new mark.
Frankel’s 2000 Guineas performance (by going so fast in the first 6 furlongs) indicated his ability/superiority was much more than the 6 lengths he won by. So could be expected to show even better form. St James’s Palace again run far too quickly early on (even discounting the pacemaker) Queally increasing an already strong pace, having nothing left in the final furlong. Last two early were eventual second Zoffany and fourth Neebras both flattered. Frankel in particular and third Excelebration and to a certain extent Dubawi Gold (who were the first to go after Frankel) better than their positions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwKNwdkhH7Q
Sectionals provide clues where it is not quite so obvious as the above.
Knowing where a pace slows or increases can give pointers to excuses for defeats etc. Race reading is all about sectionals, whether actual definite times or just splitting races in to where the pace is very slow, slow, medium, fast or overly fast.
When a punter is looking at who to back it is also advantageous to look at how the pace (sectionals) is likely to go, who it will suit. Often the value bet is the one likely to be suited by the way a race will be run. ie A race with only one prominent runner may well favour that horse, with an easy lead. If (that is) the prominent runner does not need a thorough test at the trip, getting an easy lead in a slower run race. So won’t favour other hold up horses who want a stamina test either. If however, there’s a horse with plenty of speed at lesser trips and settles well (not free), he/she may also be suited by a slowly run affair.
However, I hope sectionals don’t become so well known because the fewer punters taking advantage of sectionals, the bigger the edge.
Value Is EverythingSectionals (or pace) gives any punter an advantage…/…However, I hope sectionals don’t become so well known because the fewer punters taking advantage of sectionals, the bigger the edge.
That’s the point I would have thought. Any advantage would almost instantly be ‘covered’ by the market, thus negating it.
I would say the vast majority of punters who think they need sectionals probably view them as the latest ‘key’ to profitable betting. I struggle to see they would provide anything more than a talking point in this country of left-hand, right-handed, switchback, up-hill-and-down-dale courses.
Then there’ll be something else ‘vital’ for punters needs.
Mike
Largely I agree with Ginger there. Just like to add:
Fractionals are a useful and relevant tool for handicapping races. It is not that complicated to understand. Just as all understand standard times and speed figures now.
More than the money making side or things, fractionals can give others a understanding of how races are run. Weather it is timed and published or not , pace is the biggest single factor in a race.
Frankel the champ. There is the posibilty that breeders from out side the UK and Ireland, may question, "just how fast is he?" , and have every right to ask when they have the minimum amount of data to go on. Ok this is extreme , but I use it to illustrate a point. With out fractionals from the 2000 G, it is very difficult to compare his exact pace ability. (We all know it is off the scale. ) But a breeder has the right to question with out this evidence.
Even dog racing uses fractionals. I also think time-form should be leading the charge on this.
Sectionals (or pace) gives any punter an advantage…/…However, I hope sectionals don’t become so well known because the fewer punters taking advantage of sectionals, the bigger the edge.
That’s the point I would have thought. Any advantage would almost instantly be ‘covered’ by the market, thus negating it.
I would say the vast majority of punters who think they need sectionals probably view them as the latest ‘key’ to profitable betting. I struggle to see they would provide anything more than a talking point in this country of left-hand, right-handed, switchback, up-hill-and-down-dale courses.
Then there’ll be something else ‘vital’ for punters needs.
Mike
yes I agree there is no punting edge here as the market will quickly adapt. Fractionals however shouldn’t even be a talking point , they should be here . We are behind.
Sectionals (or pace) gives any punter an advantage…/…However, I hope sectionals don’t become so well known because the fewer punters taking advantage of sectionals, the bigger the edge.
That’s the point I would have thought. Any advantage would almost instantly be ‘covered’ by the market, thus negating it.
I would say the vast majority of punters who think they need sectionals probably view them as the latest ‘key’ to profitable betting. I struggle to see they would provide anything more than a talking point in this country of left-hand, right-handed, switchback, up-hill-and-down-dale courses.
Then there’ll be something else ‘vital’ for punters needs.
Mike
There are certainly many "vital" things for punters to allow for when assessing a race.
It’s such a vital thing imo. Punters probably need a good form book to make good use of the sectionals/pace angle, most won’t realise its importance/potential. So it’ll be a long time before sectionals/pace will be "covered by the market" Mike.
Everyone knows going and distance are so important, they are (in the vast number of occasions) allowed for in the betting, so sectionals/pace is perhaps the biggest influence in my betting. Sectionals/pace, improvers and trainers in form are the three things that usually give me an edge (in conjunction with value of course)
. Sadly, even if the market does eventually take account of sectionals, it’ll still need to be allowed for in analysis. Otherwise any punter who doesn’t will be backing horses always unsuited by the likely pace/sectionals. For me it’d be ackin to not troubling what the going is.
Value Is EverythingSectionals or ‘split times’ or ‘fractions’ have, I believe, been available to all in some less archaic racing jurisdictions, as has public knowledge of the horses’ raceday live-weight. Both are easily implemented and provide more strings to the punters’ bow
Being in the public domain will inevitably mean that the market will factor them in and adjust to an extent; but as the majority of punters are lazy, they would quite likely result in a honing of the edge available to the grafting punter
The value of sectionals in my view is that they can be used to quantify and in the majority of cases correct the notoriously misleading interpretation the eye – or rather the brain via input from the eye – assumes about pace, velocity and acceleration. To judge the velocity, acceleration and deceleration of an individual horse the eye requires a frame-of-reference for comparison. In a race any and all the other horses are that frame-of-reference and all are moving: with constant velocity, acceleration or deceleration. Therefore the eye will place a different interpretation on the scrutinised horse’s movement when referenced against three horses displaying one of the above attributes.
Racing and human nature being what it is, we tend to use – initially during the race itself anyway – the horse in front as the frame-of-reference. If the scrutinised horse behind is travelling with constant velocity it will appear to be ‘staying on at one pace’ behind the leader also travelling at constant velocity; ‘going backwards’ if if travelling at constant velocity behind a leader accelerating; displaying a ‘turn of foot’ and ‘finishing like a rocket’ if travelling at constant velocity behind a leader decelerating
Mix, match and confuse yourselves with other combinations of the v a and d words
So the eye’s interpretation of the scrutinised horse can lead to three very different interpretations even in the rather simplistic example above
No, to accurately judge the movement of a horse during a race we need a motionless frame-of-reference, viz the furlong poles and the time elapsed between successive ones i.e Sectional Timing
So, sectionals provide objective information as to how a horse ran it race as opposed to the (very) subjective information the eye gleans. Very useful ammo to have in the never-ending debates and received wisdom of the sectionless: ‘did it stay’ ‘needs further/shorter’ ‘didn’t act on the track’ ‘didn’t act on the going’ ‘didn’t get a clear run’ ‘forced to take a pull’ ‘ran away with the jockey’ blah blah
So the effort (considerable I imagine) of those individuals prepared to time the splits of a race’s runners themselves is probably worth the effort; though like the eldoradic buzzword of 20 years ago – speedfigures, reliance on sectionals alone is most unlikely to return gold galore
+1 Drone.
Would add only that in HK sectionals are a major part of the racecard, and are essential to selling horse racing as more open to analysis, prediction and profit than, not only the roulette wheels in Macau, but also the HKJC’s own competing lottery and UK / European football offerings.
In HK the effort required of the horse punter is not in tracking sectionals, just in taking the time to read them.
But then the HKJC does have this notion that when punters are as well-served as possible with all kinds of information at no charge, they are inclined to take interest in it and to bet.
GB has a more fragmented set-up of course, not only as regards no unitary betting operator/ track owner / racing organiser, but also as regards having tens of idiosyncratic tracks.
Most practical candidates for sectionals in GB to be the AWTs in winter?
surely any punter should at least have some fundamental knowledge of times. I tend to rely more on my instinct than anything else but surely its worth checking the speed figures.
after all if a horse looks impressive on the video or in the flesh but the time is slow then you surely can’t ignore that fact.
to give an obvious example, I remember ibn khaldun winning the racing post trophy easily a few years back. he became pretty short of the guineas after that, and a friend of mine really fancied him.
If you were going purely on visual impact then he had a great chance in the guineas. However I explained to my mate how i’d roughly hand-timed his final furlong in that race and I wasn’t impressed, that his speed figures didn’t match up to henrythenavigator or new approach, and that there didn’t seem any obvious reason why he could run any faster in the guineas given the racing post trophy wasn’t particularly quickly run.
another example was the aforementioned frankel in his second ever run in a conditions race also at doncaster. He was just as visually impressive as ibn khaldun but in this case the times backed him up. his sectional times in that race seemed very impressive to me and contrasted very favourably with saamid for example, who won the champagne stakes the next day (on similar going.) although whether this has actually helped from a betting point of view is somewhat debatable, given he’s started odds-on for every race since!
The big question is are punters who bet in countries more successful overall than punters in other countries?
Too many people over complicate the game and end of with a sore head and still lose there wad.
I have always believed and always will that your own eyes and instinct combined with a good knowledge of how each individual trainer thinks.
I know some mathematical geniuses claim to have cracked racing using sums for the want of a better word. There are more than a few pro gambler who claim to have a system but the truth is they are well connected or what is known in the industry as a face. They write books, make videos sell tips and you to buy them
Sectionals have limited use IMO. I might use it for something like timing how long it took Rock on Ruby to travel from the 3rd last to the winning post in the Champion Hurdle compared to Hurricane Fly the year before if they both ran on similar ground but that’s about it.
I’d rather just compare each horses times on the day they ran against the other times on that day which is usually a good indication of which horse is the better but that isn’t fool proof either.
Truth is nothing is or we’d all be as rich as David Cormack
HKJC website has a Q and A section, including:
================================================
Why are late finishers suitable for fast run races?There are limitations to the speed and stamina of racehorses. Thoroughbreds can maintain their highest speed for no more than 400 metres. Those that run too fast in the early stages of a race will burn themselves out. Conversely, those that run slow early on have enough energy to quicken up in the latter part of the race.
The 1600-metre Sha Tin Trophy (Group 3) held on 21 October 2001 was a good example of how late finishers are suited to fast run races. The time taken to finish the first 1200 metres was 1.10.2 minutes which was 2.3 seconds faster than that of the 1600-metre Yan Chai Trophy (Class 2) just 30 minutes earlier.
However, the time taken to finish the last 400 metres of the Group 3 was 24 seconds whereas that of the Class 2 was only 22.7 seconds.
As the pace of the Group 3 was fast early on, those racing prominently such as Man Of Honor, Citizen Kane, Red Pepper and Oriental Express became exhausted after entering the straight, and it was the horses that settled off the early speed that had the greater finishing kick and filled the first three places.
==============================
Why are front-runners suitable for slow run races?
Front-runners that can maintain their leading positions in slow pace throughout the race are able to save their energy for a late burst. However, runners that lag behind early have to run even faster than those in front if they want to catch up from the back. It is difficult for late finishers to catch the front-runners if the latter can maintain a high speed in the final stages.
For instance, front-runners that finish the final 400 metres in 23.5 seconds can only be caught if late finishers, which are behind by five lengths in the last 400 metres, can finish in 22.5 seconds or less. If the late finishers cannot reach that speed, usually they cannot win.
The Kagoshima Handicap, a 1800-metre Class 2 race, held at Sha Tin on 13 October 2001 best illustrates that front-runners are suitable for slow run races.
In this race, Turbojet led and covered the first 1400 metres in a slow 1.26.3 minutes. However, he finished the final 400 metres in just 22.7 seconds. Luckswell, another usual front-runner, had also taken advantage of the slow pace of the race and took second place.
Very few horses can finish the last 400 metres of a 1800-metre race in less than 22.5 seconds. Therefore Equikit, which caught up from the back, performed brilliantly in that race and took third place, losing by just a head.
===============================================
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.