PDA

View Full Version : The anatomy of a key race.


Stillriledup
03-12-2013, 08:22 PM
I was listening to The Herd a few days ago and Colin had Greg Cosell from NFL films on to talk about the draft.

Colin asked Greg what he saw on film regarding college prospect Matt Barkley (USC QB) and then specifically asked when he watches college QBs on film, does he take into consideration how good the O line is and how good the receivers are (Barkley has great receivers) and his answer was interesting. He said that he doesnt care how good a prospect's teammates are, all he's interested in how that player looks as an individual.

So, that got me thinking about "key races" at the track. People seem to be really interested in the idea that if a horse is coming out of a race where others have come back to win, that they give that horse extra credit in their handicapping.

You also hear a lot of handicappers say "that horse beat nothing" which is also a form of a rating a horse according to his or her competition.

If a really good horse beats a really bad field, should we hold it against that horse because the horse who finished 2nd isnt that good, or, should we rate that winning horse as an individual and not really look at who he or she beat as a main yardstick?

I know personally when i watch replays, the situations that i will hold against horses is when the horse i'm watching gets a nice trip and seems to be ridden aggressively to beat a horse who i feel isnt all that great...than, i might say "this horse worked hard and had things his own way to beat so and so by a long neck and i know so and so isnt very good". On the flip side, if a horse seems to be moving powerfully, wins by a good margin and looks like he or she has upside, i won't be so quick to hold weak competition against a runner, im rating that horse as an individual.

One last thing i like to look for in 'common races' is this. I'll use a particular race as an example.

Dec 13, 2012 at Aqueduct. Race 4. The winner was Clawback and the runner up was Omega Star. The final fraction on the board was 22 and change and while i'm sure it was probably pace and wind aided, the top 2 finishers, visually, looked super. I said to myself "these are 2 monsters".

Clawback came back to win a race at a very short price while being visually impressive and then lost the Cappy Cap stakes recently at a short price with really no excuse. The runner up Omega Star shipped to Santa Anita and broke his maiden like a beast striding thru the wire like a graded horse and then came back to finish 2nd while moving too soon on a tiring sloppy track at SA and then raced the other day in a derby prep but in that race he appeared thin and frail in the post parade so to me, his health was in question.

Now, both horses who were sharp in December went on to do some good things before fading a bit in their most recent starts....but to me, i know that at the time, those horses were really in top form and what we have seen recently is that they both just gone south a bit and their most recent efforts arent representative of how good they can be (or were) at full power.

When i look back at that race from December now, i'm not going to say "maybe it wasnt a key race after all because the winner and the runner up havent been such monsters in recent times" but instead i'll say "i know that race was very strong at the time and i know the context of the top 2 finishers careers since then, but i still think that in December this was a key race even though 3 months removed, its not appearing to be as good of a race as i thought at the time."

Anyone have any thoughts on 'key races' and how you use them in your handicapping?

johnhannibalsmith
03-12-2013, 08:37 PM
...
You also hear a lot of handicappers say "that horse beat nothing" which is also a form of a rating a horse according to his or her competition.

If a really good horse beats a really bad field, should we hold it against that horse because the horse who finished 2nd isnt that good, or, should we rate that winning horse as an individual and not really look at who he or she beat as a main yardstick?

...

You omitted the answer that I would give as an option. Pretty basic, if you are going to rate a performance based upon the competition - you need to form an opinion of the ease or difficulty with which the winner handled the "inferior" competition to gauge whether or not the performance can be defined in some way by the competition. A horse that beats some known POS by thirteen lengths in a jog can't be categorized the same way that a horse that beats the same known POS in an all-out drive and needed to call upon every ounce of his "superiority" to get the job done can be categorized. I might hold it against the latter, but probably not the former. At least not as a primary consideration in today's context.

lamboguy
03-12-2013, 08:39 PM
i go 1 step further than a key race, i like to find out who horses work with in the morning.

it seems like its easy to get hung up with speed when one handicaps races. speed is important, but the way i look at racing its sort of like a boxing match. the horse that are tough enough to take the punches during the race have the best chances of winning. don't get me wrong, speed is a great tool to have in a horses arsenal, but its not the most important thing.

good trainers and riders figure out how to get a horse to feel more comfortable during a race so that they can perform at their top levels. that is something you can predict from pace figures.

Maximillion
03-12-2013, 09:13 PM
An "easy" winner is much more appealing to me if I have a body of work for the horse that Im able to evaluate....I would just skip the "easy" win and try to look at the other races and the direction the horse seems to be going in.

Much more difficult for me is the easy-winning lightly raced horse, or the mdn winners.....these can be any kind,a POS beating bigger POS...a one race wonder...or a potential very good horse.

Stillriledup
03-12-2013, 09:32 PM
You omitted the answer that I would give as an option. Pretty basic, if you are going to rate a performance based upon the competition - you need to form an opinion of the ease or difficulty with which the winner handled the "inferior" competition to gauge whether or not the performance can be defined in some way by the competition. A horse that beats some known POS by thirteen lengths in a jog can't be categorized the same way that a horse that beats the same known POS in an all-out drive and needed to call upon every ounce of his "superiority" to get the job done can be categorized. I might hold it against the latter, but probably not the former. At least not as a primary consideration in today's context.

I think this is what can get some handicappers in trouble, just looking at 'who they beat' without thinking about the context of the situation. I like your response.

Stillriledup
03-12-2013, 09:33 PM
i go 1 step further than a key race, i like to find out who horses work with in the morning.

it seems like its easy to get hung up with speed when one handicaps races. speed is important, but the way i look at racing its sort of like a boxing match. the horse that are tough enough to take the punches during the race have the best chances of winning. don't get me wrong, speed is a great tool to have in a horses arsenal, but its not the most important thing.

good trainers and riders figure out how to get a horse to feel more comfortable during a race so that they can perform at their top levels. that is something you can predict from pace figures.


For the 'outsider' its hard to get that type of workout info, who worked with who, etc. But, i agree, thats invaluable info if you can get it.

Stillriledup
03-12-2013, 09:36 PM
An "easy" winner is much more appealing to me if I have a body of work for the horse that Im able to evaluate....I would just skip the "easy" win and try to look at the other races and the direction the horse seems to be going in.

Much more difficult for me is the easy-winning lightly raced horse, or the mdn winners.....these can be any kind,a POS beating bigger POS...a one race wonder...or a potential very good horse.

For me, i love the 'any kind' of horse, i love seeing a young horse who is up and coming, i love studying his video tape inside and out and seeing if i can 'see' something that might indicate this horse is really powerful and has more in the tank. My favorite kind of race is those starter allowance races where almost all the participants are coming off their maiden win or have recently broke their maiden....everyone looks 'good on paper' so its a race that paper handicappers might struggle with since everyone is coming off a win or a recent good race.

GaryG
03-12-2013, 10:02 PM
If you closely follow a circuit you will have a good handle on the pecking order in each class level. Of course, this must viewed in light of each one's current form. If a horse has been beating better than he faces today you won't need figures to tell you.

Maximillion
03-12-2013, 10:20 PM
For me, i love the 'any kind' of horse, i love seeing a young horse who is up and coming, i love studying his video tape inside and out and seeing if i can 'see' something that might indicate this horse is really powerful and has more in the tank. My favorite kind of race is those starter allowance races where almost all the participants are coming off their maiden win or have recently broke their maiden....everyone looks 'good on paper' so its a race that paper handicappers might struggle with since everyone is coming off a win or a recent good race.

The race your describing would probably be a nightmare for me....more power to you if you do well in these types of races.Maybe one will come up on the weekend or whatnot and it could make for a good discussion.

Regarding "key" races.....one of the guys who taught me to play used to call these "success" races...and suggested to me I would wind up in a garbage can if I tried to to handicap using that type of info.

Lol...dont know about that,but its an interesting idea for a thread about an old-school handicapping technique...whether it still has merit in todays game.

Stillriledup
03-13-2013, 12:14 AM
The race your describing would probably be a nightmare for me....more power to you if you do well in these types of races.Maybe one will come up on the weekend or whatnot and it could make for a good discussion.

Regarding "key" races.....one of the guys who taught me to play used to call these "success" races...and suggested to me I would wind up in a garbage can if I tried to to handicap using that type of info.

Lol...dont know about that,but its an interesting idea for a thread about an old-school handicapping technique...whether it still has merit in todays game.

i dont know if i actually do well in these races as a whole, but i know that in specific instances if i come up with a longshot that has won a slow(ish) race (and will be a longshot because of the slow Beyer/fig) and i think the horse has a 'look' i feel like this situation will provide some kind of edge.

Next time i see a race like this and have an opinion on some horse that's not one of the ML favorites, i'll post it here and discuss my thinking.

johnhannibalsmith
03-13-2013, 12:22 AM
...

Next time i see a race like this and have an opinion on some horse that's not one of the ML favorites, i'll post it here and discuss my thinking.

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=SA&race=6&date=2013-03-15

lamboguy
03-13-2013, 12:32 AM
the best example i have ever known was a maiden race in Churchill Downs that had Tuffelsberg in it that ran somewhere in the back of the pack. the horse showed up for his next race in a power packed race in Saratoga and won and paid something like $40. i was at the track that day with a friend of mine that always followed key races. he went to the window and showed me his tickets before the race, he went all in on Tuffelsberg. i said to him you have to be sick in the head betting on the worst trainer i have ever seen in my life, Jamie Sanders. the race in Churchill already had something like 4 next out winners.

from that day on, i never looked at the running line of the horse or trainer, i just bet. the trick to playing the key races is being able to rate the race before the race produces the next winner. Tuffelsberg was an unusual case where the horse paid so much, the reason why it paid was because the betting public has a problem taking the money out of their pockets on trainers like Jaimie running against the superstar's of the game. i admit, i was a stubborn bastard too!

thaskalos
03-13-2013, 12:40 AM
For me, i love the 'any kind' of horse, i love seeing a young horse who is up and coming, i love studying his video tape inside and out and seeing if i can 'see' something that might indicate this horse is really powerful and has more in the tank. My favorite kind of race is those starter allowance races where almost all the participants are coming off their maiden win or have recently broke their maiden....everyone looks 'good on paper' so its a race that paper handicappers might struggle with since everyone is coming off a win or a recent good race.

My favorite kinds of races are those cheap claimers for older horses, who have seen their better days. The full past performances talk to me, and a level of confidence builds up inside me sometimes...the kind that I can't find even on marquee days like Derby Day, or the Breeders Cup.

I am trying to improve my observational skills -- since I readily acknowledge the importance of physicality handicapping and trip notes -- but I still can't distinguish a Secretariat from a group of $10,000 claimers in the paddock...nor can I reliably predict if my runaway winner has kept more in the tank for his next start. More often than not...the runaway winner -- who won without drawing a deep breath -- will disappoint me in his next race...by running a much worse race than his prior start would indicate.

As a "figure" handicapper, I struggle with the concept of the "key race"...because it does not quite coincide with my handicapping philosophy. I hear people whom I respect talk about the presence of a "key race", and I can sense the excitement that this creates in their opinion of the horses involved...but I cannot work up much enthusiasm for a horse who finished fifth in his last race -- and whose only attribute today is the fact that three of the four horses who finished ahead of him last time happened to come back and win their next start.

I might be wrong...but this doesn't quite seem "right" to me...

Stillriledup
03-13-2013, 06:06 AM
http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=SA&race=6&date=2013-03-15

doesnt open on my computer for some reason, what is it?

Stillriledup
03-13-2013, 06:28 AM
My favorite kinds of races are those cheap claimers for older horses, who have seen their better days. The full past performances talk to me, and a level of confidence builds up inside me sometimes...the kind that I can't find even on marquee days like Derby Day, or the Breeders Cup.

I am trying to improve my observational skills -- since I readily acknowledge the importance of physicality handicapping and trip notes -- but I still can't distinguish a Secretariat from a group of $10,000 claimers in the paddock...nor can I reliably predict if my runaway winner has kept more in the tank for his next start. More often than not...the runaway winner -- who won without drawing a deep breath -- will disappoint me in his next race...by running a much worse race than his prior start would indicate.

As a "figure" handicapper, I struggle with the concept of the "key race"...because it does not quite coincide with my handicapping philosophy. I hear people whom I respect talk about the presence of a "key race", and I can sense the excitement that this creates in their opinion of the horses involved...but I cannot work up much enthusiasm for a horse who finished fifth in his last race -- and whose only attribute today is the fact that three of the four horses who finished ahead of him last time happened to come back and win their next start.

I might be wrong...but this doesn't quite seem "right" to me...


I get a little leery of horses who win by large margins, especially the lightly raced kind because i feel that certain horses can 'swell up' when not challenged. I think that horse off the large margin win will inevitably face tougher competition in its next start and more often than not, someone will run with that horse all the way and things usually turn out different.

Also, when a horse wins big, i think to myself that there's a good chance the horse had everything its own way....what are the odds, i ask myself, that a horse could have had something go against it (bias, pace, tough trip, boxed in, etc) and still win by a large margin? Most times that large margin winner is a horse to got the lead, scooted along without losing ground on the turns, without having to deal with kickback and without having to deal with the pressure of another runner on what was probably a fair to speed biased track.

This happened at Aqu the other day with speedball supreme NF Destiny. He got into a race where someone actually dared run with him early and he got passed in the lane by hardened gamesters who had 'fight' in their bellies. (for a change)

When i'm sifting thru videotape looking for the next nice priced winner, i'm concentrating on the back of the pack. I dont care if its a 'key race' or not, all i'm looking for is some situation where i feel a horse is in the wrong spot in the wrong race in the wrong situation and has 'run' thru the line, looks like he has a 'talented' stride for lack of a better word because i know that horses who run off the board that are much better than shown is where you get your value.

Some handicappers think that if a horse runs in a certain race and the winner of that race comes back to win another race, that somehow that winner is able to sprinkle some magic fairy dust on all the runners in the race and magically, it makes anyone coming out of that original race better.

That 5th place finisher is what he or she is, no more and no less and if that horse gets into a favorable situation in his or her next start, a winner can be born regardless of how that runner's competition fared in THEIR next start.

cj
03-13-2013, 07:34 AM
Which horse ran with N F's Destiny early?

johnhannibalsmith
03-13-2013, 10:57 AM
doesnt open on my computer for some reason, what is it?

Brisnet PPs from Trks2Day for the sixth on Friday at SA - basically your non-two starter with a hodgepodge of last out maiden winners and recent graduates with a few that have run just once or twice and have earned big numbers without having yet faced winners.

Not sure why it wouldn't open for you if you can view PDFs.

Aner
03-13-2013, 01:55 PM
This is not really a key race idea, but it is similar.

I have had some success with playing horses who ran in the same last race as the favorite as long as they finished within 4 lengths. Frequently a horse that ran close up to the race favorite last time is ignored in the betting. It is not uncommon to get double digit odds on such a horse.

For example, in last Saturday's SA race 8 (China Doll Stakes) the favorite was Sarach at 5/2. The winner, Birdlover, paid $22.80 and in their common race on Feb 1st. was 2nd beaten 1 1/2 lengths by Sarach.

Show Me the Wire
03-13-2013, 02:34 PM
Brisnet PPs from Trks2Day for the sixth on Friday at SA - basically your non-two starter with a hodgepodge of last out maiden winners and recent graduates with a few that have run just once or twice and have earned big numbers without having yet faced winners.

Not sure why it wouldn't open for you if you can view PDFs.

Trough today there have been 16 races with the Starter Allowance 40k condition, of those 16 races, 3 year olds were eligible for 7 races. From those 7 races, 3 races were restricted to 3 year old fillies. Friday's 6th race will be the fourth time for this specific condition.

This condition is a limited opportunity under the Starter Allow 40k condition. It is a very challenging race as many of the maiden breakers were involved in "key races" prior to their maiden breaking race.

also there are the elements pace, high speed figures and running style involved the maiden breaking wins. Don't have the ML, but I guess Spring Gal would be the ML choice. It is indeed a challenging race.

Stillriledup
03-13-2013, 06:31 PM
Brisnet PPs from Trks2Day for the sixth on Friday at SA - basically your non-two starter with a hodgepodge of last out maiden winners and recent graduates with a few that have run just once or twice and have earned big numbers without having yet faced winners.

Not sure why it wouldn't open for you if you can view PDFs.

macbook doesnt seem to open certain files for some reason.

I'll take a look at that race and make some sort of writeup.

Stillriledup
03-13-2013, 06:32 PM
Which horse ran with N F's Destiny early?

Some 20-1 shot from Philly was pressing NF thru the first quarter. (and then stopped)

cj
03-13-2013, 06:45 PM
Some 20-1 shot from Philly was pressing NF thru the first quarter. (and then stopped)

I wouldn't call that pressing, but hey, that's handicapping I guess. He broke from the rail and cleared without any real urging in my opinion.

Stillriledup
03-13-2013, 06:55 PM
I wouldn't call that pressing, but hey, that's handicapping I guess. He broke from the rail and cleared without any real urging in my opinion.

That's a tough place to wire the field, NF got really loose in his previous starts and had no horse near him at all....this time, he had to work hard in the first quarter and that was what hurt him. Speed wasnt great and there was a big wind in the face of the horses down the backstretch. It wasnt a 'conventional' speed duel, but that bomb made NF work just hard enough for it to matter.

Or, it didnt matter at all and NF just thru in a clunker. You make an interesting observation, its possible he was just no good the other day and the token press from the bomb wasnt at all a factor. I'll think about that next time NF runs.

mountainman
03-13-2013, 10:08 PM
Anyone have any thoughts on 'key races' and how you use them in your handicapping?

Following up on how runners exiting an event perform may be an imperfect means of assessing field strength-but it's the only ongoing, after-the-fact feedback we have.

And i do think beating a subsequently- productive field trumps, in most cases, a wide-margin, perhaps visually impressive score over suspect opposition. For one reason, even bad horses can look great versus weak fields. For another, i don't believe in "easy" wins. The margin of victory can be large, and the winner seeming merely to canter, but horses rarely run as fast as when rolling inferior company and doing it under wraps. Those horses are usually overbet when ascending the ladder, or even a condition rung. Two notable exceptions would be an inexperienced winner with upside, or a veteran horse with established chops.

Also, there is a certain mystique to the key race theory not found in some other handicapping factors. Beyond quick times, an obviously strong field or the competitive presence of supertrainers, some races, for reasons not always clear, seem to propel participants to good, subsequent form,while other events seem to sap and have a deleterious effect on the entrants.

Such "negative" key races become just as distinguishable as positive keys.
Find a horse, for instance, with numerous failed tries in N2L races and pull up the chart from its mdn win. In most cases you'll find that none of the beaten field went on to impress, either.

BombsAway Bob
03-13-2013, 11:19 PM
Following up on how runners exiting an event perform may be an imperfect means of assessing field strength-but it's the only ongoing, after-the-fact feedback we have.

And i do think beating a subsequently- productive field trumps, in most cases, a wide-margin, perhaps visually impressive score over suspect opposition. For one reason, even bad horses can look great versus weak fields. For another, i don't believe in "easy" wins. The margin of victory can be large, and the winner seeming merely to canter, but horses rarely run as fast as when rolling inferior company and doing it under wraps. Those horses are usually overbet when ascending the ladder, or even a condition rung. Two notable exceptions would be an inexperienced winner with upside, or a veteran horse with established chops.

Also, there is a certain mystique to the key race theory not found in some other handicapping factors. Beyond quick times, an obviously strong field or the competitive presence of supertrainers, some races, for reasons not always clear, seem to propel participants to good, subsequent form,while other events seem to sap and have a deleterious effect on the entrants.

Such "negative" key races become just as distinguishable as positive keys.
Find a horse, for instance, with numerous failed tries in N2L races and pull up the chart from its mdn win. In most cases you'll find that none of the beaten field went on to impress, either.

Los Alamitos has,as i like to tout it, #RacingsBestEntryRecapSheet~
here is a sample copy:
http://www.losalamitos.com/Admin/pdfs/Entries/20130301.pdf
At tracks like LosAL & Mountaineer, it's almost as important to know the
owner as it is the trainer, & by having a sheet to easily keep track of who
is behind the trainer's curtain, you can maintain simple written notes for
future handicapping.
Anyways, at LosAL, i try to note a "Negative Key Race" with a ??? after
it when i see a horse win EZ with a suspect bunch behind them.
You can find a LOT of overbet next out horses to attack with this simple
Recap sheet and an opinion. i'm not ALWAYS right, but enough to take the
time to keep nightly LosAl notes. (& Because Recap Sheet makes it EZ)

Stillriledup
03-15-2013, 04:18 AM
Brisnet PPs from Trks2Day for the sixth on Friday at SA - basically your non-two starter with a hodgepodge of last out maiden winners and recent graduates with a few that have run just once or twice and have earned big numbers without having yet faced winners.

Not sure why it wouldn't open for you if you can view PDFs.

I'll skip this race because SA was incredibly speed favoring on Thursday, lets see the track get back to normal on Friday and i'll pick out a smiliar race to this soon enough.

Stillriledup
03-15-2013, 04:22 AM
Following up on how runners exiting an event perform may be an imperfect means of assessing field strength-but it's the only ongoing, after-the-fact feedback we have.

And i do think beating a subsequently- productive field trumps, in most cases, a wide-margin, perhaps visually impressive score over suspect opposition. For one reason, even bad horses can look great versus weak fields. For another, i don't believe in "easy" wins. The margin of victory can be large, and the winner seeming merely to canter, but horses rarely run as fast as when rolling inferior company and doing it under wraps. Those horses are usually overbet when ascending the ladder, or even a condition rung. Two notable exceptions would be an inexperienced winner with upside, or a veteran horse with established chops.

Also, there is a certain mystique to the key race theory not found in some other handicapping factors. Beyond quick times, an obviously strong field or the competitive presence of supertrainers, some races, for reasons not always clear, seem to propel participants to good, subsequent form,while other events seem to sap and have a deleterious effect on the entrants.

Such "negative" key races become just as distinguishable as positive keys.
Find a horse, for instance, with numerous failed tries in N2L races and pull up the chart from its mdn win. In most cases you'll find that none of the beaten field went on to impress, either.

Great post Mark.

I agree with the concept of a large margin winner not looking so good when he's challenged the following week in a better race. The key is to be able to seperate the horse who isnt that great and took advantage of a great setup and the horse who, despite a great setup is really good anyway....this stuff, figuring out which large margin wins are pretenders is what makes this the greatest game on earth.

Valuist
03-15-2013, 11:12 AM
IMO, key races are most useful with maidens and maiden claimers. At most meets, it seems like there's a race early in the meet that produces a number of graduates. The Verrazano race at Gulfstream is an example of that.

classhandicapper
03-15-2013, 12:10 PM
1. Occasionally figure makers get a figure "wrong" or something occurs in the race development that makes a race come up faster/slower than the actual ability of the horses under normal conditions.

If the horses coming out of particular race are consistently underperforming/outperforming their "figures", it's a hint about the real quality of the field that may not be present in the speed figures (or a hint that the figure is wrong).

2. If you don't use figures at all to evaluate horses and are a true class handicapper, key races are a great technique for separating strong and weak fields at a certain class after the fact (there are also techniques before the fact).

3. In fields that are very deep in quality, some very good horses almost always get outrun and buried. They will look slow and out of form when they come back, but really, they just ran into a very tough field and are in form and capable of running faster than they did that day if spotted properly.

4. "He beat nothing" is a way of saying that a large margin of victory or fast final time that is typically associated with a great performance was partly a function of weak competition and the type of easy trip that often comes along with facing much weaker competition.

A great horse is a great horse regardless of the competition, but if you beat a bunch of slugs by a wide margin in fast time, that does not necessarily mean you ran a great race. You have to dig deeper.

MightBeSosa
03-15-2013, 12:18 PM
Has anyone well versed in the art of statistics ever studied this?

Should be rather simple to determine 'significance'.

pondman
03-15-2013, 12:46 PM
good trainers and riders figure out how to get a horse to feel more comfortable during a race so that they can perform at their top levels. that is something you can predict from pace figures.

Great trainers have the resources to manage their affairs and can over come the obstacles of the industry.

I would disagree with your statement, because I believe a well managed horse, a horse that I would focus on, often does not have anything significant in it's past performance. However the horse is being entered in a proper spot with proper conditioning. The great trainer fixed a problem. In context of gambling and the topic of riders, I find much more value when a little know rider shows up on a horse. A super trainer and super jockey combo is generally of bad value over time.

I do spot play key races and horse, but not for any of the reason suggested so far on this thread. In a few race I want to see some movement forwards. But for the overwhelming majority of my bets, I don't care about PP. I rely more on class and conditioning.

classhandicapper
03-15-2013, 01:12 PM
This happened at Aqu the other day with speedball supreme NF Destiny. He got into a race where someone actually dared run with him early and he got passed in the lane by hardened gamesters who had 'fight' in their bellies. (for a change)



That was an interesting race. I thought that field was a little tougher than he had been facing and the track wasn't particularly kind to speed that day. I played against him (didn't cash).

But this reminds me of another use of key races.

You can compare horses with similar trips inside the same race and see how they do next time out. If the first one does "X", then it gives you evidence about the impact of that trip within that race.

Stillriledup
03-15-2013, 01:32 PM
That was an interesting race. I thought that field was a little tougher than he had been facing and the track wasn't particularly kind to speed that day. I played against him (didn't cash).

But this reminds me of another use of key races.

You can compare horses with similar trips inside the same race and see how they do next time out. If the first one does "X", then it gives you evidence about the impact of that trip within that race.
Fyi,
NF Destiny's sister, a firster, is running in the 4th today at Aqu. (#4)

1st time lasix
03-18-2013, 09:18 PM
in terms of "key" races....i agree with the concepts illustrated by Classhandicapper's previous post. In action...i attempt to make the extra effort of memorising names of horses in races i have handicpped in case a key horse or race provides a clue to an overlay possibilities in either a vertical or horizontal wager today i find it is particularly helpful in four scenarios: when a horse wins after moving up in class i take a hard look at the top finishers in their last....in baby races where class is not yet truly established.... cheap claimers or even maidens tilts when some of the horses are dropping down and some are trying to advance thru conditions....finally in next day or two day away races that are not yet italized in the DRF. i find maybe two or three potential entries from key race opinions in each day on a circuit. not all work ll the time. Key race analysis has numerous nuiances and I wish i knew them all.

Stillriledup
03-18-2013, 09:24 PM
One of the question's is this. If a race is jam packed with quality horses, won't the efforts of the 4th, 5th, etc place finishers be reflected in the Beyer/TG/Rag figures?

In other words, do we really have to know how the other horses in the race have fared in order to really get a 'handle' on the 5th place finishers (for example) actual, personal speed figure? If the 5th place finisher ran an 89 Beyer, his beyer is what it is regardless of how the horses who beat him perform next time...an 89 is an 89 .....if the 4 horses who beat him all flop badly in their next start, what does that have to do with the 5th place horse as an individual talent? He is what he is, he runs what he runs, his figures are what his figures say they are, no?

classhandicapper
03-19-2013, 02:00 PM
One of the question's is this. If a race is jam packed with quality horses, won't the efforts of the 4th, 5th, etc place finishers be reflected in the Beyer/TG/Rag figures?



This is the key. IMO the answer is often NO.

The easiest illustration of this is races like the K Derby/the BC races where loads of high level horses often finish well beaten with figures below their norm and then come back to run faster next time in a more average Grade 1 or Grade 2 spot.

Imagine a race with 10 Spectacular Bids.

You are never going to see 10 horses across the track all earning their typical figure. Part of that may be related to ground loss which could be built in, but excluding that, some are going to get more favorable position and trip scenarios based on random factors or jockey decisions. So they are going to take turns finishing 1st and last depending on the race development.

The same thing happens in a 2K claimer if it's deep enough with sharp fit horses of very similar ability (maybe not 10 deep, but much deeper than average). The idea is to recognize these very deep fields BEFORE they start coming back.

MightBeSosa
03-19-2013, 05:05 PM
I asked if the key race theory has been statistically tested by ANYONE and got no response.

Should be possible to determine if certain past races are more predictive of winners than a random sample.

If not, its just voodoo.

Maximillion
03-19-2013, 08:16 PM
I asked if the key race theory has been statistically tested by ANYONE and got no response.

Should be possible to determine if certain past races are more predictive of winners than a random sample.

If not, its just voodoo.

My opinion is this would be information that would be nice to have...others may completely ignore it and be no worse for wear.

AFAIK only formulator offers this type of info (quickly) unless there is any software im not aware of?

Stillriledup
03-19-2013, 08:19 PM
This is the key. IMO the answer is often NO.

The easiest illustration of this is races like the K Derby/the BC races where loads of high level horses often finish well beaten with figures below their norm and then come back to run faster next time in a more average Grade 1 or Grade 2 spot.

Imagine a race with 10 Spectacular Bids.

You are never going to see 10 horses across the track all earning their typical figure. Part of that may be related to ground loss which could be built in, but excluding that, some are going to get more favorable position and trip scenarios based on random factors or jockey decisions. So they are going to take turns finishing 1st and last depending on the race development.

The same thing happens in a 2K claimer if it's deep enough with sharp fit horses of very similar ability (maybe not 10 deep, but much deeper than average). The idea is to recognize these very deep fields BEFORE they start coming back.

Great point about the 10 Spectacular Bids, by definition, one of them will finish last. With the Ky Derby however, with 20 starters, its pretty obvious that some of the horses will underachieve just because the size of the fleld, length of the race, new surface to negotiate (for many of them), etc.

For me personally, i'd like to think that i've done enough work to be able to come up with a strong opinion on the talent of each individual racehorse and not have to resort to common opponents future performances to determine that runner's talent.

MightBeSosa
03-20-2013, 12:10 AM
My opinion is this would be information that would be nice to have...others may completely ignore it and be no worse for wear.

AFAIK only formulator offers this type of info (quickly) unless there is any software im not aware of?

Anyone with a decent database and some programming skill should be able to test the theory. You'd also have to have some knowledge of statistics and how to test for significance.

Winners have to come from somewhere, and they won't be evenly distributed. This can create the illusion of a key race. 3 winners out of a 10 horse field doesn't really prove a thing.

classhandicapper
03-20-2013, 10:15 AM
I asked if the key race theory has been statistically tested by ANYONE and got no response.

Should be possible to determine if certain past races are more predictive of winners than a random sample.

If not, its just voodoo.

It's kind of hard to test this after the fact.

This is the test I did (but don't ask for the exact data because it was in a notebook from about 20 years ago that is long gone).

I handicapped every race at the NYRA tracks for several months. I identified every race as either weak, average, or strong, right after the race.

They were rated on 3 factors.

1. Pace relative to Par for the class

2. Final Time figure relative to Par for the class

3. Quality and depth of field relative to average for the class. By this I mean the number of sharp, fit horses that were suited to the class, distance, surface etc.. This was strictly about the class labels of the races the horses were competing successfully at, finishing positions etc... No figures.

I put a special note next to races I rated at Triple +" (races better than average for the class on all 3 counts)

Every time a horse won I noted it in my book.

The Triple + races produced the most winners per starter, Double + races the 2nd most, etc.. all the way down the line.

The key point here was that even on criteria 3 alone, the horses would outperform even when they had average figures.

MightBeSosa
03-20-2013, 11:29 AM
I don't see what was proved there. You identified fields that contained competitive horses with good records, and those horses returned to perform well.

Ice in the Winter?

Not hard to test this theory. Can races be identified after X number of horses run back and win, that produce a better than RANDOM forward result.

classhandicapper
03-20-2013, 12:47 PM
I don't see what was proved there. You identified fields that contained competitive horses with good records, and those horses returned to perform well.

Ice in the Winter?

Not hard to test this theory. Can races be identified after X number of horses run back and win, that produce a better than RANDOM forward result.

You are missing the point or I wasn't clear enough.

1. I identified the races BEFORE they were productive. I took the randomness out it. Just by chance some races with produce multiple winners without it meaning anything. This proved you could recognize the good ones beforehand.

2. More importantly, many of the come back winners got buried in those tough fields and looked like crap in the PPs when they ran next, but they were easy to identify as good horses that just happened to draw into tough fields. (same is also true for horses that beat weak fields disappointing next time)

The whole point of key races is to identify horses that may be better or worse than their speed figures and finish positions before they run back. The test was a pass on both counts.

If you have Formulator, take a look at the BC Sprint for 2012 (11/3, 10th race, at SA). That was not a great field, but it was a very large and very deep field. Take a look at how many horses that got buried in that field came back to run much better Beyer figures next time out. They weren't slow or out of form when they got buried in that race. They got buried because it was a very deep race that could easily be identified as likely to produce horses that would improve their form/figures next out.

MightBeSosa
03-21-2013, 01:27 PM
I understood you perfectly. What I'm getting at ,is a field full of mostly sharp horses is in fact guaranteed to be more productive than average going forward.

Seem obvious. That's my point. The whole mystique about key race magic is rarely anything more than this.

Some maiden races excepted.

Robert Fischer
03-21-2013, 02:48 PM
I understood you perfectly. What I'm getting at ,is a field full of mostly sharp horses is in fact guaranteed to be more productive than average going forward.

Seem obvious. That's my point. The whole mystique about key race magic is rarely anything more than this.

Some maiden races excepted.

The trick is finding value.

A key race, or company lines with a name horse can occasionally cause an overlay, or an underlay.

A lot of times the overlays will come from horses that had an ugly past performance line in that key race, or from key races that don't fit the classic definition of being a key race.

classhandicapper
03-22-2013, 09:49 AM
I understood you perfectly. What I'm getting at ,is a field full of mostly sharp horses is in fact guaranteed to be more productive than average going forward.

Seem obvious. That's my point. The whole mystique about key race magic is rarely anything more than this.

Some maiden races excepted.


The point is NOT that a good field will be more productive.

It's that the horses coming out of very strong fields will often have subpar speed figures and subpar looking form, when they are in fact sharper than they look. So there can be betting value in that.

The tradition has been to wait until after the fact (winners coming out of the race), but it's hard to tell the difference between horses that are moving forward randomly and horses that are moving forward because of field strength. Also, once a few horses come out of race to run better than expected, the others start getting bet and some/all of the value is lost.

If you can identify these races beforehand (including maidens), you can find an edge - which is the whole point behind key races. It's not as easy to identify strong fields from weak ones as you would think. It requires a really solid understanding of the norms for each class.

MightBeSosa
03-22-2013, 11:54 PM
Well, you seem to have redefined what a key race is, so very few people will know what you mean if you call it that.

You probably get those buried races on turf more often than dirt, but it really boils down to making legit excuses for a losing effort/sub par effort.