% Early - Run-Up Query

[DaveEdwards]

This week I've been reading Tom Brohamer's MPH and have a query relating to the % Early calculation.

The formula is:

% Early Expended = Second Call / Total Energy

So if we take a recent race as an example: Parx April 23rd Race 4 won by Peace Cat. I've chosen this specifically as it was a wire job to keep the maths simple.

Early Pace (EP) = 2640 ft. / 45.79 seconds = 57.65 fps.

Last Fraction (LF) = 1320 ft. / 25.15 seconds = 52.49 fps.

Total Energy (TTL) = EP + LP = 57.65 + 52.49 = 110.14.

Percent Early (%E) = EP / TTL = 57.65 / 110.14 = 52.35%.


OK, all well and good so far, but on the results chart it says that there is a 40 foot run-up. Now I presume that this means that there is 40 foot from the stalls to where the timer starts. My question is, are the times included in the Equibase results charts already adjusted for the run-up?

If not, what is the adjustment that I would need to make in order to correctly account for the run up?

Also, Ted (hopefully you read this post), do the adjusted fps calculations that appear on the POH/POR screens account for the run up or is this something that I need to account for additionally when considering a horses PPs when looking at %E?

As I'm typing it has just occurred to me that the run-up may be in excess of the official 6F distance and so no adjustment would be required at all.

Hopefully this makes sense, if not please let me know & I'll rephase. I'd be most grateful for some help with this.

Thanks.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by DaveEdwards

This week I've been reading Tom Brohamer's MPH and have a query relating to the % Early calculation.

The formula is:

% Early Expended = Second Call / Total Energy

So if we take a recent race as an example: Parx April 23rd Race 4 won by Peace Cat. I've chosen this specifically as it was a wire job to keep the maths simple.

Early Pace (EP) = 2640 ft. / 45.79 seconds = 57.65 fps.

Last Fraction (LF) = 1320 ft. / 25.15 seconds = 52.49 fps.

Total Energy (TTL) = EP + LP = 57.65 + 52.49 = 110.14.

Percent Early (%E) = EP / TTL = 57.65 / 110.14 = 52.35%.


OK, all well and good so far, but on the results chart it says that there is a 40 foot run-up. Now I presume that this means that there is 40 foot from the stalls to where the timer starts. My question is, are the times included in the Equibase results charts already adjusted for the run-up?

If not, what is the adjustment that I would need to make in order to correctly account for the run up?

Also, Ted (hopefully you read this post), do the adjusted fps calculations that appear on the POH/POR screens account for the run up or is this something that I need to account for additionally when considering a horses PPs when looking at %E?

As I'm typing it has just occurred to me that the run-up may be in excess of the official 6F distance and so no adjustment would be required at all.

Hopefully this makes sense, if not please let me know & I'll rephase. I'd be most grateful for some help with this.

Thanks.

I pay little attention to "run up" distances and any bearing they may have on the calculations............EXCEPT ONE.

When I first got involved with the Sartin Methodology, and being an east coast guy, it didn't take long for me to notice that something seemed amiss at PIMLICO. Horses that went wire to wire and then shipped to another track NEVER showed as an early horse. In fact, they always showed as a sustained closer. Naturally this gave me cause for concern.

Some of you who are new to the game might think that "run up" distances have always been with us......THEY HAVEN'T!

At any rate, I did some investigating. What I learned was this. At most tracks the timer was "tripped" after the horses were already out of the gate and were somewhat in stride.
At Pimlico the horses tripped the timer as soon as they left the gate.
As a result of this I knew I had to make an adjustment.

Below is the chart of a recent 6 furlong race at Pimlico. Take note of the "run up" distance.....5ft. My guess it was 5ft all those many years ago as well, but after all, does it really make a difference....5ft or exactly as they leave the gate? Not really.

Hope this helps.

[DaveEdwards]

Thanks FTL,

Sorry, but just to get this straight in my head then:

Pimlico trips at 5 ft and Parx at 40 ft for the same 6f distance.

Are the stalls exactly 4F from the 2nd call and so the distance being timed is 35 ft longer for the Pimlico races or is the situation that point of the timer tripping is the start of the actual 6F distance and that the Pimlico shippers appeared to be S/P because the shorter run up had left the horses no opportunity to reach full speed before the trip?

[DaveEdwards]

FTL,

Moving on now from the above, but still concerning the impact of %E.

In a posting you made a while back concerning the Match-Up you made reference to the dangers of throwing out three (or more) matching Earlies as there was the potential that one of them was indeed superior to the others and could still get the lead leaving the others to an OTE role with a good chance then of taking the race.

My query here relates to the above scenario and the prevalent %E track requirements. When you have noticed situations where one of the Early horses was able to dominate, even though it appeared that it would not, were the track conditions favouring Early runners? & obviously vice-versa were the times that the three horses couldn't hold out on conditions when the track was favouring sustained types?

No worries if you've not collected this sort of data as I'll be watching for it from now on, just wondered if you'd made any observations on the above.

Thanks.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by DaveEdwards

FTL,

Moving on now from the above, but still concerning the impact of %E.

In a posting you made a while back concerning the Match-Up you made reference to the dangers of throwing out three (or more) matching Earlies as there was the potential that one of them was indeed superior to the others and could still get the lead leaving the others to an OTE role with a good chance then of taking the race.

My query here relates to the above scenario and the prevalent %E track requirements. When you have noticed situations where one of the Early horses was able to dominate, even though it appeared that it would not, were the track conditions favouring Early runners? & obviously vice-versa were the times that the three horses couldn't hold out on conditions when the track was favouring sustained types?

No worries if you've not collected this sort of data as I'll be watching for it from now on, just wondered if you'd made any observations on the above.

Thanks.

Let me start by saying, if I said that where there are multiple early horses in a race that get dominated by one of the "early" types and that the other early types are then relegated to "ote" status from which they can win, then I apologize, that is not what I meant.

Where there are multiple early types in a race that get dominated by one of the early horses, the other early horses are relegated to "ote" status from which they will not win. In most cases where there are 3,4 or more true early types, if there is one that dominates the rest, the rest have no choice but to become "ote", a position that is out of their normal running style, so they do the best they can early and then back up. So this presents the question of "how do you determine an early horse"? I'm sure that question would get numerous answers. Here is mine.

An early horse is one that demonstrates it wants the lead in every race it runs, at the first call. The usage of the word "wants" is to say it "tries" for the lead whether it gets the lead or not. Perhaps there was a faster horse in the race so it could do no better than 2nd at the first call. If a horse cannot demonstrate this in multiple races then it is not an early type. As you can see, this is all done on a "visual" inspection. Consider this.

In the "match up", where there is not an early horse, you are suppose to take a presser that runs close up and use that horse as your early horse. If this is true and that presser makes the lead, is it then an early type? NO! It is a presser that got the lead by default because there was no early horse in the race. When you see this race in the PP's, you cannot count this horse as an early type based on that race. All the other races where this horse did not make the lead, or try for the lead, is evidence that it is not an early type. Here is how I DO NOT classify an early type.

I DO NOT classify horses early based solely on Energy Distribution.

Just a quick note.
Not every race has has a true early type in it.
Not every race has multiple early types in it.
Before you can go any further, you must first have a consistent way of classifying running styles so you can identify the true early types and etc.

You mentioned "prevalent %E track requirements".
Here are my questions to you.
Do you mean based on "winners" %E?
Do you mean %E based on the running line you have selected?

[DaveEdwards]

I've just read my post back and realised how it came across. What I actually meant was the horse that had relegated the others to an ote role being the only one of the early group with a good chance of winning the race. I just typed it as I'd say it, sorry for that.

So going back to my initial query I'm concerned then whether the prevailing conditions have an impact on the early runners. Even when matched on paper it's highly unlikely that they would finish in the three way dead heat and so clearly one will figure to be superior of the group on the day.

This horse then has the opportunity to set up a win as a lone early or caves in as the race progresses.

So I'm thinking that the prevalent track conditions would indeed have an impact on it's ability to hold on. As Tom Brohamer states on the Brohamer Lecture Tapes, that a lone early can still dominate and win a race even if the track is favouring sustained runners.

A race made up of more than one early though would potentially be a different situation for the dominant of those earlies. The fact that it may face more early pressure due to the race make up would then impact on it's ability to hold on to win on a sustained favouring track as opposed to an early horse that could set a completely uncontested early lead.

Clearly then we are looking at the amount of early pressure the dominant horse is able to withstand and also the %E figure. I guess it's then a balancing act between the two and perhaps using historic data if available to look at the impact on a horse that has been challenged for the lead previously when the track did favour sustained runners.

Maybe I'm answering my own query here, I'm not sure.

In answer to the questions at the end of your last post:
Yes, the %E would be based on the current winners %E.
Yes to the second part. I would be looking at the %E of the lines selected for the runners to see how that fitted the current track requirements.

[For The Lead]

See below.

Originally Posted by DaveEdwards

I've just read my post back and realised how it came across. What I actually meant was the horse that had relegated the others to an ote role being the only one of the early group with a good chance of winning the race. I just typed it as I'd say it, sorry for that.

So going back to my initial query I'm concerned then whether the prevailing conditions have an impact on the early runners. Even when matched on paper it's highly unlikely that they would finish in the three way dead heat and so clearly one will figure to be superior of the group on the day.
NEVER consider that three or more "true" early types will finish in a dead heat for the win. They won't.
In a race with multiple early types only one of them has to be dominant (establish a clear lead) for the first quarter to three eigths of a mile to be dominant. If the other early types have not been able to overtake the leader by that point they will more than likely begin to fade and will play not part in the outcome of the race. The dominant early may or may not go on to win the race.
This horse then has the opportunity to set up a win as a lone early or caves in as the race progresses.

So I'm thinking that the prevalent track conditions would indeed have an impact on it's ability to hold on. As Tom Brohamer states on the Brohamer Lecture Tapes, that a lone early can still dominate and win a race even if the track is favouring sustained runners.
This is very true.

A race made up of more than one early though would potentially be a different situation for the dominant of those earlies. The fact that it may face more early pressure due to the race make up would then impact on it's ability to hold on to win on a sustained favouring track as opposed to an early horse that could set a completely uncontested early lead.
In general this is true, however, as I mentioned in my prior post, one must be able to establish which horses are "true" early types. Once that is decided, then one has to be able to establish that these two early types are of equal ability early in the race. If the are not, then one of them may dominate the early pace and the race turns out to be the same as if there were only one early type in the race. Just because one sees two horses that have gone wire to wire in their PP's does not mean there is two true early types in the race. Moreover, it does not necessarily mean there will be a speed duel that will set the race up for a closer.

Clearly then we are looking at the amount of early pressure the dominant horse is able to withstand and also the %E figure. I guess it's then a balancing act between the two and perhaps using historic data if available to look at the impact on a horse that has been challenged for the lead previously when the track did favour sustained runners.
There is no question that there are some tracks that are early speed favoring and others that are not. It is up to the handicapper to do the work required to establish how a certain track is playing and act accordingly.

Maybe I'm answering my own query here, I'm not sure.

In answer to the questions at the end of your last post:
Yes, the %E would be based on the current winners %E.
Yes to the second part. I would be looking at the %E of the lines selected for the runners to see how that fitted the current track requirements.

Up to this point I have purposely avoided answering any of your questions with regard to %E. Now I will.
Here's where you are making a mistake.

Keeping a record of the way winners have run is a "track profile", which tells you how a certain track is playing. This is a great way to gain this type of information. However, it should not be used in conjunction with picking running lines for today's races. Or, should I say, potential horses for betting today. That is what a track "model" is for. Consider this.
Using the %E from the winner's race is using a %E from the horses best race or if not the horses best race, then certainly one of its' best races. Therefore, what you will be looking for "today" is, horses that show one of their best races. In other words, lines from today's horses where they either won the race or finished a very close 2nd or 3rd. How else can a horse, today, match the %E requirements of winning horses from previous races? Certainly, an early horse that fades coming down the stretch to finish out of the money will never fall in the %E guidelines you have from your "track profile" of winning races. Certainly, you will miss a lot of winners that go wire to wire off of a %E you deem as too high. Now consider this.

Building a "model" of winning horses using lines as suggested in other threads in this section, will give you a "range" of %E. This is more reliable than a track profile for the purpose of handicapping today's race.Your line selection will be more diverse and therefore your %E model will be more diverse. After a while, you will find you have a range of %E that includes not just the horses taken from lines where they ran 1st, 2nd or 3rd, but also where they ran early and faded down the stretch to finish out of the money (a high %E) You will then find a range where horses that win have a %E from "here to there". You are no longer "forcing" a horse to have a %E equal or close to the equal of the winning horses from previous races. At some point you will be able to look at your model and see that horses with a %E higher than "x" never win. Likewise, you will see that horses with a %E lower than "x" never win. It's much better than using the %E from previous winners. Not only that, but you corollaries will be easier to read. They will show you how often an early horse wins or a sustained horse wins or a presser wins. Not to digress, but if your line selection is bad, it will give you bad information. I would always suggest reading the "picking lines and contenders" thread in this section. When you get done picking lines, you should look at the "original" screen. If your lines don't look like the lines below, you should go back and check them. With lines like the ones below, you get an immediately clear picture of your contenders in today's race and how they run.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

I really believe the run-up does affect early % for sure. Look at my sample database (minimum 50 race sample for each distance) of comparing the winning horse's performance at six furlongs at these different racetracks:

Keeneland (synthetic) Run-Up = 34 feet
1FR__2FR__3FR__EP__AP___SP___E%
57.38 56.68 54.41 57.01 56.16 55.71 51.17%

Golden Gate (synthetic) Run-Up = 50 feet
1FR__2FR__3FR__EP__AP___SP___E%
57.28 56.74 53.39 57.00 55.80 55.19 51.65

Hollywood Park (synthetic) Run-Up = 60 feet
1FR__2FR__3FR__EP__AP___SP___E%
57.33 56.74 53.18 57.03 55.75 55.11 51.75

Santa Anita (dirt) Run-Up = 85 feet
1FR__2FR__3FR__EP__AP___SP___E%
60.21 57.98 53.19 59.06 57.13 56.13 52.62


It seems to me the longer the run-up, the higher the E% goes. I wish I had more tracks to do some analyzing (thanks for giving me a new project ), but this topic definitely does raise an intriguing point.

[DaveEdwards]

FTL,

I guess the inevitable answer of the impact of %E on the three matching earlies (or any other match-up variation for that matter) could only be really gathered through my own record keeping by track of such events.

I've been reading MPH recently and my aim is to order my work/analysis along the lines as advised by Tom B. I know you already know that what you've typed regarding the ranges of %E ties in with MPH. Thanks for confirming everything. I read the Paceline manual again earlier today & shall revisit the Pacelines thread.

Psychotic Parakeet,

I think those figures make very interesting reading and show a clear correlation between run-up distance and %E. I guess run-up won't be the only factor affecting the figures as I'm sure each track's own configuration will contribute too, both before and after the run-up distance.

There is certainly plenty of food for thought there.

[Bill V.]

Originally Posted by Psychotic Parakeet

I really believe the run-up does affect early % for sure. Look at my sample database (minimum 50 race sample for each distance) of comparing the winning horse's performance at six furlongs at these different racetracks:

Keeneland (synthetic) Run-Up = 34 feet
1FR__2FR__3FR__EP__AP___SP___E%
57.38 56.68 54.41 57.01 56.16 55.71 51.17%

Golden Gate (synthetic) Run-Up = 50 feet
1FR__2FR__3FR__EP__AP___SP___E%
57.28 56.74 53.39 57.00 55.80 55.19 51.65

Hollywood Park (synthetic) Run-Up = 60 feet
1FR__2FR__3FR__EP__AP___SP___E%
57.33 56.74 53.18 57.03 55.75 55.11 51.75

Santa Anita (dirt) Run-Up = 85 feet
1FR__2FR__3FR__EP__AP___SP___E%
60.21 57.98 53.19 59.06 57.13 56.13 52.62


It seems to me the longer the run-up, the higher the E% goes. I wish I had more tracks to do some analyzing (thanks for giving me a new project ), but this topic definitely does raise an intriguing point.

Hello Sir

I need more information on these figures ...
are these sprint races ? Routes. Turf, Turf sprints down hills?
do these figures include $8000 3 year old filly maiden claimers
from GG and $500000 MS specials from Keeneland

What about the track speed ?
Each of your 4 tracks has different 3 year best times at each distance
There is a reason for different track speeds is
Class of horse- Class of track
Your also mixing poly and dirt tracks. That means its very common for
turf horses to run on the poly and vise versa

Here is another track Parx The 3 year best time for 6 furlongs
is 107.2 The average %E of my last 50 6 furlong non maiden
races is 51.95 The run up at Parx is 40 feet
The 3 year best time at GG for 6 furlongs is 108.3
Don't you think the %Early is a product of track surface track class
and track speed ?

Bill