Myth-busting: 'Such-and-such position is suited by the pace bias today'

At the outset, it is crucial to note that there is a difference between pace - the speed at which a horse is travelling compared to its ability and the conditions under which it is running - and position. The two may be related, but they should not be confused. 

Unfortunately, they often are, and the muddled thinking which causes that to happen often gives rise to a more costly misunderstanding of the fundamentals of performance.  

The consequence of going too fast, or too slow, is an overall time that is slower than it could have been. Physical laws tell us this must be so, and an appreciation of this fact underpins all proper sectional analysis. A horse can go faster than optimum despite being in rear and slower than optimum despite being in front. 

Pace is a relative concept, in other words: it only has meaning in relation to whether that pace is too fast, too slow, or somewhere in between. Crucially, a horse's pace can - indeed, usually will - vary on a by-race basis, which is precisely why pace should be analysed on a by-race basis also. 

Position can be modified by-race, too, but position in isolation is merely descriptive and does not tell you much. In particular, it does not tell you whether that position was an advantage, a disadvantage, or somewhere in between. 

Only one pace bias matters, and that is the pace at which a horse travels compared to optimum, viewed in the wider context of other horses doing the same in the same race. 

To imply that something which is specific to an individual horse, and played out in the context of an individual race, has a bearing on other horses in other races on the same day is nonsense. And yet you will often hear remarks like "front-runners are suited by the pace bias today" when there is no logic behind that assertion whatsoever.

There you have it: the confusing of one measure, position, with a more meaningful one, pace. For as long as "front-runners" can go too fast, or too slow - forever, in other words - such thinking will be wrong.  

Now, that is not to say that position counts for nothing. Certain circumstances may mean that a front-runner tends to be more or less difficult to pass than in others. In particular, this has to do with things like the conformation of the track, the distance of the race and meteorological considerations. But that still remains distinct from a consideration of pace.

For instance, front-runners have a better record on Kempton's inner track (on which 5f and 10f races are run) than on the outer track, as the above table shows. The inner track is sharper, with a shorter straight, and horses coming from behind have to go wider or challenge later to get past. 

But that is a positional factor, resulting from a clear physical cause, which does not miraculously appear or disappear for the duration of a given day for no good reason. A general positional advantage, if it exists at all, will still be subject to a specific - and potentially more influential - pace bias

A general positional advantage, if it exists at all, still does not preclude the possibility that a front-runner will go too fast and get overhauled as a result. Indeed, this happens more than occasionally. We need to deal in specifics - such as provided by pace - and not just in generalities. 

My advice is to ignore the platitudes of those who imply that a succession of races won in a given style will inevitably give rise to more of the same. Perhaps even better, consider doing the opposite in betting terms to what is being implied. 

There is often value to be had in going against the prevailing orthodoxy, especially when that orthodoxy is flawed. 

Get open access to Timeform data for just £2.50 a day with Timeform Race Passes. It's like a Form Book, Black Book & Race Card all in one! Find Out More!