We've all heard the expression, "Pace makes the race," and how important fractional times are. If I had the opportunity to have just one piece of information off the program, and I had to make a choice, I would want the fractional times - not the final time, not the finish, not the final quarters or anything else. Plain and simple. Actually, I would want a video tape of each horse's last race, but you can't have that, unless you are at the Meadowlands where you can call up and have them replay any race you want.

In an earlier edition, I started to talk about bias, and in particular, the overall or general bias of a particular track. Additionally, in my introduction to the website, I told you guys that I ain't interested in the usual, just the unusual. The same goes for how I view fractional times in a race. So go my introductory remarks on fractional analysis - another topic that I could literally type about for days on end.

So what fractions are most important and why? My answer is: it depends. A lot of people look at quarters, because that's what the program gives you. I think that's dangerous. Why? Because a quarter is a relatively short distance, and a quarter can look fast or slow merely because there was one small part of it, say 1/16 that was fast or slow.

Let's say for example, they leave the gate like a bat out of hell and an early exchange of leads takes place around the quarter pole. They're still rolling at the quarter, but a short time thereafter, the last horse to the top gets there, and starts to back it down. Say he back's it down some, but not to a crawl. When we look at the second quarter split, it may look a bit fast - because they were still moving at the end of the first quarter, even though most of the second quarter was moderately paced. Say in the same example, the leader is successful in slowing it to a crawl. The second quarter may look moderate, when in fact, most of it was paced very slowly. Short bursts can abnormally skew the time for a quarter. Another reason why quarters are not so reliable at a 5/8 track like Pocono Downs is that no two quarters are the same in terms of the track layout. On a half-mile oval, every quarter has the same amount of turn and the same amount of straight. Not so on the 5/8 --- all four are different, making comparisons quarter-by-quarter difficult.

This is why I tend to focus on halves, not quarters. In order for a half to be registered as fast, they pretty much have to be rolling for a good part of it. One little 1/16 of a mile quick or slow will not make the whole half look very fast or very slow. I think it's a much better indicator, particularly when judging a move that a horse may have made. If they prolong that move during an entire half which is fast, it ranks much higher in my book, then just one quarter.

Here's a question for you....how many halves are there to look at in a race? If you say "2, the first half and the second half," your missing something very important. There's actually 3 halves: a first half, a middle half, and a last half. You can tell anything you need about the quarters from these. Lets say there's a fast first half and a slow middle half. The first half has quarters 1 and 2, the middle half has quarters 2 and 3. They share in common, quarter 2. Therefore, quarter 3 was probably very slow. You don't even need the quarter times to sense this. What's more, the predominant racing style at a particular track can be identified by the relationships between the halves. And this is where the track's general bias comes into play with the fractions.

Here's the average relationship at Pocono Downs. The first halves are on average, about 1 3/8 faster than the last halves (that's 6.5 lengths folks). The middles halves are the slowest, being 1 3/4 seconds slower than the openers (almost 9 lengths) and about 3/8 of a second slower than the last halves (3.5 lengths). Since the first halves are very fast, the slowness of the middle halves is due to the slowness of the third quarters, in particular. This differs, by the way, from The Meadows where the third quarters are, relatively speaking, much faster - a reason why horses who can win on the front end at Poke can't hold on out in Pittsburgh...they actually have to move their legs in the third quarter, and they aren't used to it. It's kind of strange that the third quarters would be so slow, especially since the third panel at Pocono is essentially a straightaway. The slow quarter you would expect would be the second quarter, which comprises the bulk of the clubhouse turn. Furthermore, a reason why Pocono horses don't compete well when shipping into the Meadowlands is because the horses at Pocono are conditioned to expect that slow third panel. But at the Meadowlands, the pace often quickens with 3/8 of a mile remaining and they don't get that extra breather that they need to compete, even if they are racing horses of their own caliber and are in shape. When they get midway through the stretch, they usually disappear like a fart in a breeze! Similarly, Meadowlands shippers into Pocono seem to do better when they can get out and just blow them away from the half. Those $75,000 claimers who ship in and get beat by the rats at Pocono usually do so by getting involved in some insane early speed duel.

How do you use this kind of knowledge in handicapping and observing? At Pocono Downs, I pay particular attention to those few races where the middle halves are fast, and where the third quarter is fast. Any horses who expend energy in making a meaningful move during this part of the race are almost always in shape, even if they fade somewhat in the final stages. So if we took 2 hypothetical horses as follows: (@ means parked out):

Which of these horses would be considered in better shape, off this race alone? My answer would be HORSE B, no questions asked. Why? Both of these horses did their most effective racing during the middle half of the race, having left the rail first over someplace after the quarter, and putting in a full challenge until after the 3/4 pole, both fading in the stretch. In the case of HORSE A, the middle half of the race was in 1:00.4. In the case of HORSE B, the middle half was in :58.1. And if this were Pocono Downs, where middle halves are notoriously slow, HORSE B would get a HUGE nod over HORSE A. Once the horse is used in a particularly fast half, one which goes against the overall bias of the track, the fact that he faded when the final quarter was only :31 is totally irrelevant. And in this particular case, it would matter who passed him, which can only come from the charts. If he only was passed by the pocket horse, and the second-over horse, then HORSE B's effort would be an extremely impressive one, even in the stretch!

Now if you were to take the exact same program lines above, and I were to add one piece of information to it, namely, that in each case, another horse was first over for most of the third quarter; that is, they were each second over at the half, and only lost their cover approaching the 3/4 (again, you can glean this from the charts, not the program), my answer would be completely different. I would then give the nod to HORSE A. Why? Because nether of them would really have made any move in that middle half (following live cover ain't a move, folks). This being the case, HORSE B's inability to keep up in the :31 second quarter would constitute poor shape, whereas HORSE A's inability to keep up could be excusable in the face of a :29.1 final quarter after the leisurely middle half of 1:00.4.

Now let's turn to a similar example, this time focusing on the first half. Remember, first halves are routinely quick at Pocono Downs.

Now at first glance, you might naturally accord HORSE A a definite advantage, since he left and was parked in a 27.1 quarter to wrestle the lead, and continued to the half in :56 flat, taking the field home in a last half of 1:01.2. HORSE B on the other hand, left and either yielded well before the quarter or ducked into the two hole, then in the second quarter when the paced slowed a bit to 28.4, retook and went on with it in a similar manner to HORSE A. Now remember, this is Pocono Downs.... my answer would be that I would not give HORSE A any advantage in this case, and in fact, would be hesitant to upgrade my shape rating on HORSE B either. Why? Because all this action took place in a portion of the race where this action typically happens at this track. It's very easy at a place like Pocono to see this and go "wow, he got burned up going that first half in :56!" It is not unusual for horses to kick ass and 2-move it to the half and let the equine asthmatics try to chase them. On a normal late spring - early autumn night, these are the type of horses who win. If this were at the Meadowlands, I'd bet the ranch that there was a cavalry charge to the wire and a closer won the race, but at Pocono, the front runners typically win races like this. The exception would be if on that particular night, speed was not holding up. And I will address the whole topic of nightly bias at another time. But for now, let's just assume that the normal track bias is in effect. In addition, you could not make any meaningful statements about the closers since, with a last half in 1:01.2, you would expect horses who were not used early to have something left.

So there are a few key races that open my eyes, and when I see them, I'm ready to pounce. I'm looking for horses who work well not only in the fast portions of a given race, but when that portion happens to run against the general grain of racing at that particular track, and as we'll see another time, even more powerfully, when it also goes against the grain of how the races were running that particular night. Little can be told from races that go as they should. And you need to know your track and know what that should is - then you know when you're really seeing something special.