what do you look for in racing factor?

[Capper Al]

A racing factor is something like speed, class, etc. Sometimes it's not about the best selector, but about the best eliminator. I have one that will cut the field in half with about 95% confidence. Good? Maybe. I have another that will cut the field in half with about 90% confidence. My selectors are a differnt story. They are not across the board like my eliminators. Currently, I'm reviewing these. Every capper should know theirs. Any comments?

[jahura2]

Thank you for posing this question AL.I look forward to reading responses. Long time player, minimal poster. Many selectors are also used as eliminators

Key Selectors: by the book. Speed, Form, Pace, Class, trainers, trainer angles, recent sharp works, horses surface perfomance, turf, AW, dirt, performance at the track they are at today.

Eliminators-Poor Trainers percentages in overall starts vs. wins, and angles i.e. turf to dirt, 1st off claim, basically poor past history of trainers when in todays conditions.
Horses lifetime start vs. win record
Horrible Jocks. Recent vet scratches

These help me narrow down the field, then the real work begins.

[BlueChip@DRF]

Recency is a major factor unless it's a stakes or turf race.

[Capper Al]

To my surprise after reviewing my records, form is my biggie.

[Overlay]

I don't totally eliminate any horse from consideration (since my approach is based on arriving at a fair-odds figure for each horse, so that I can maintain visibility of wagering value, at whatever point in a field it may occur). However, the factors that I've found to be most effective in differentiating the winning probability of horses have been speed, running style, and form.

[pondman]

After watching the Bill Benter video, I'm contemplating the relationship of jockey to the epsilon(unknown.) it's not an issue of win%, but do they belong. I've played the same single on the West Coast for years. But in the last few year I've tightened it. I went 34 for 51 at SA. And so far at Hol I'm 4 for 5. None of my consideration on the West Coast (except Turf Paradise) considers form or time or fractions. In that play the jockey is both a secondary variable as well as an eliminator. I'll toss a horse from a win bet because of the jockey. I've also have become interested in the c level riders, the people who might ride a few times week, but know the horses from morning rides. They add value to the bet.

[DRIVEWAY]

A racing factor is something like speed, class, etc. Sometimes it's not about the best selector, but about the best eliminator. I have one that will cut the field in half with about 95% confidence. Good? Maybe. I have another that will cut the field in half with about 90% confidence. My selectors are a differnt story. They are not across the board like my eliminators. Currently, I'm reviewing these. Every capper should know theirs. Any comments?

What are these two across the board eliminators with 95% and 90% confidence? Knowing your eliminators makes it easier to identify selector factors that might help.

[Capper Al]

What are these two across the board eliminators with 95% and 90% confidence? Knowing your eliminators makes it easier to identify selector factors that might help.

All I will say is that one is form based and the other is recent activity based.

[MightBeSosa]

After watching the Bill Benter video, I'm contemplating the relationship of jockey to the epsilon(unknown.) it's not an issue of win%, but do they belong. I've played the same single on the West Coast for years. But in the last few year I've tightened it. I went 34 for 51 at SA. And so far at Hol I'm 4 for 5.

30 for 51 wouldn't interest me, but 34 for 51....

What are you talking about.

[acorn54]

i don't know if this is off topic but i'll add this
i remember in my youth reading somewhere of starting out handicapping a field of horses by assigning each one a percentage chance of winning, based on the field size and random chance probability.
for example if a 12 horse field, each horse would get .0825% random chance-if a 10 horse field, then a .10% random chance, and so on.
then add or subtract a certain percentage for the major factors in the pp's, such as class-speed-and whatever you want for each horse.

[DRIVEWAY]

All I will say is that one is form based and the other is recent activity based.

I picked this up along the way.

Does this qualify as form based? Not sure that you can eliminate 50% of the field. If not, you could just pass the race.
95 % of winners ran 4th or better in their last race

or/and

PPO less than 10

[pondman]

30 for 51 wouldn't interest me, but 34 for 51....

What are you talking about.
Maiden winner repeats. I'm slowly spreading my fingers out throughout the US. Should be able to make it on the East Coast as well.

[OCF]

I picked this up along the way.

Does this qualify as form based? Not sure that you can eliminate 50% of the field. If not, you could just pass the race.
95 % of winners ran 4th or better in their last race

or/and

PPO less than 10

Thanks for sharing the tips Driveway - just one question: what does PPO stand for?

[Robert Fischer]

I use factors to decide whether or not I want to handicap a horse or a race more thoroughly.

The odds play a role. The lower the odds, the stronger the positive factors have to be, and the more likely I will use a negative factor as an eliminator.

At higher odds ranges, what was an eliminator for a favorite could be just a negative factor.

[DRIVEWAY]

Thanks for sharing the tips Driveway - just one question: what does PPO stand for?

Past Performance Odds = PPO
for last race or selected running line or lines.

I find it reasonable to eliminate a horse with last race odds greater than 11.9 and finished out of the money while greater than 5 lengths back. i.e. If a horse finishes 5th 3 lengths back at >11.9, he remains a contender.

You must also identify unplayable races. Hint: Maidens, 2yr olds, nw2l claimers, nw1year claimers, any claimer with "b" conditions are a good start.

If you have some historical data take some time to go through and test it out. It will improve your focus and help you identify playable races.

[OCF]

If you have some historical data take some time to go through and test it out. It will improve your focus and help you identify playable races.

Will do, thanks again :ThmbUp:

[Capper Al]

I picked this up along the way.

Does this qualify as form based? Not sure that you can eliminate 50% of the field. If not, you could just pass the race.
95 % of winners ran 4th or better in their last race

or/and

PPO less than 10

That was racing form or shape. The stat isn't holding up umder further analysis.

[Capper Al]

Past Performance Odds = PPO
for last race or selected running line or lines.

I find it reasonable to eliminate a horse with last race odds greater than 11.9 and finished out of the money while greater than 5 lengths back. i.e. If a horse finishes 5th 3 lengths back at >11.9, he remains a contender.

You must also identify unplayable races. Hint: Maidens, 2yr olds, nw2l claimers, nw1year claimers, any claimer with "b" conditions are a good start.

If you have some historical data take some time to go through and test it out. It will improve your focus and help you identify playable races.

Agree.

[Capper Al]

I use factors to decide whether or not I want to handicap a horse or a race more thoroughly.

The odds play a role. The lower the odds, the stronger the positive factors have to be, and the more likely I will use a negative factor as an eliminator.

At higher odds ranges, what was an eliminator for a favorite could be just a negative factor.

That's a reasonable approach used by many handicapping authors. First handicap the race to determine if it's playable.

[Capper Al]

Maiden winner repeats. I'm slowly spreading my fingers out throughout the US. Should be able to make it on the East Coast as well.

Pondman,

How was your Mother's Day?

[CincyHorseplayer]

One that keeps coming back to you.

Oh they have class.Oh they probable pace worthy.Oh they have a solid speed/pace line or lines.

Some times they just sit on your head and they make you think too much.5/2 is awesome 3 times a day when the Moron-Athon kicks in on a Tuesday.Take it bro.You can make a whole month's living on one day of this BS.

[BlueChip@DRF]

Sometimes cheap speed in a class race can commit grand theft - especially if he's the only speed in the race.

[Tom]

I like to find factors that get 80% of the winners in the top 4.

[Capper Al]

I like to find factors that get 80% of the winners in the top 4.

I use 80/20 a lot. It works well in an imperfect world.

[Capper Al]

One that keeps coming back to you.

Oh they have class.Oh they probable pace worthy.Oh they have a solid speed/pace line or lines.

Some times they just sit on your head and they make you think too much.5/2 is awesome 3 times a day when the Moron-Athon kicks in on a Tuesday.Take it bro.You can make a whole month's living on one day of this BS.

I'm missing it here.

[traynor]

All I will say is that one is form based and the other is recent activity based.

You may want to do a bit of research on mutual disclosure before expecting too many to jump up and hand you detailed information in exchange for comments like the above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

Information exchange implies an exchange--not a one-way flow from those who have it to those who expect it should be given to them freely because they want it.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'm missing it here.

OK.I got it now.That last post was called lack of sleep!What I was trying to say is that at some smaller tracks,like my River Downs home,all the factors keep landing on one horse.In disbelief you find the horse at 5/2 when it should be 4/5.And some days it happens 2-3 times.I have underachieved in this stunned state many times.The multitude of handicapping factors got me there though.I'm learning.There were a handful of times where I did the right thing and nearly emptied my wallet on winners.

[appistappis]

Past Performance Odds = PPO
for last race or selected running line or lines.

I find it reasonable to eliminate a horse with last race odds greater than 11.9 and finished out of the money while greater than 5 lengths back. i.e. If a horse finishes 5th 3 lengths back at >11.9, he remains a contender.

You must also identify unplayable races. Hint: Maidens, 2yr olds, nw2l claimers, nw1year claimers, any claimer with "b" conditions are a good start.

If you have some historical data take some time to go through and test it out. It will improve your focus and help you identify playable races.


over 90% of my plays are either maidens or n2l so I guess there is more than one way to skin the handicapping cat.

[DRIVEWAY]

over 90% of my plays are either maidens or n2l so I guess there is more than one way to skin the handicapping cat.


If you look at a track like Finger Lakes, it would seem that just about every horse has run for a claiming tag of 4000 or will run for that tag. Most of those events are Maiden 4000, nw2 4000 claimer or nw1year 4000 claimer. On many days these types of races are the majority of races carded. Records of 0/1 for 20+ abound. Do you play these types of races?

If you consistently play these types of races, what is your key selection criteria?

Does the lightly raced horse become your focal point?

Look forward to hearing about your approach.

Happy Punting.

[Robert Goren]

One of the first things I learned was that races are differently at small tracks than they are at large ones. For instance at a large tracks, you won't find very many older sprinters stretching to route winning. Happens all the time at small tracks. Likewise with cut backs. Happen a lot at large tracks almost never at small tracks. A mile track is lot different than a 5f track. The first thing I look at is track size. If I know how the track can play at times, then I look to see if it is fitting into one of those models. Belmont Dirt for instance can bias for closers, front runners or a fast rail or rarely a dead rail. Or it can be completely fair. Then there are days when for some reason every race is run a contested early very fast half. It not only the winners I have to look at but the place and show horses, because if I don't, the day is over before I have a clue. Then it can get really tricky when you get to the turf races because two turf course can play completely opposite of one other at times. In other words I look at how the track is playing as my first factor. In the first dirt race of the day I will look to early speed unless yesterday it was bias to closers. Belmont, most of the time, favors front runners.
In other words I look for a track bias as the main factor. Something I am taking a look at now is how well the jockey fits the horse. If horse is an E horse, what is the win % of the jockey with E horses. Is that % higher or lower than his normal winning %. I have noticed that you can find a lot bad fits on short priced horses. It is bit early in my research to tell how valuable a factor this is. But I am pretty sure it has some value.

[Capper Al]

You may want to do a bit of research on mutual disclosure before expecting too many to jump up and hand you detailed information in exchange for comments like the above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

Information exchange implies an exchange--not a one-way flow from those who have it to those who expect it should be given to them freely because they want it.

WTF are you talking about? I'm talking about factors are their use. What are you talking about?

[Capper Al]

Past Performance Odds = PPO
for last race or selected running line or lines.

I find it reasonable to eliminate a horse with last race odds greater than 11.9 and finished out of the money while greater than 5 lengths back. i.e. If a horse finishes 5th 3 lengths back at >11.9, he remains a contender.

You must also identify unplayable races. Hint: Maidens, 2yr olds, nw2l claimers, nw1year claimers, any claimer with "b" conditions are a good start.

If you have some historical data take some time to go through and test it out. It will improve your focus and help you identify playable races.

Here's how I look at it.

Odds last race is too difficult unless you read the form and are a P&P capper. There are circumstances that high odds might be justified. For example, running against a horse going off at 1/9 or up in class last race.

For finish last race consider 6 or more lenghts before giving the horse the axe. Again this is a dangerous automatic elimination unless you are a P&P capper.

Eliminating on race type is an individual preference. I play all types but handicap them differently.

I believe your method does fine. I'm just saying how I would play it if I were a P&P capper. I'm not.

[traynor]

WTF are you talking about? I'm talking about factors are their use. What are you talking about?

No further explanation should be necessary.

[appistappis]

I look at a few things for finger lakes but the most important factor is figuring out what the englehart's are up to. Notice that they quite often have the first and second favorite in a race but seldom run 1/2. Also, I like the lightly raced Kentucky breds against there ny bred counterparts and in the cheaper maiden races this time of year favor the 4 yr olds over the 3's.

[DRIVEWAY]

I look at a few things for finger lakes but the most important factor is figuring out what the englehart's are up to. Notice that they quite often have the first and second favorite in a race but seldom run 1/2. Also, I like the lightly raced Kentucky breds against there ny bred counterparts and in the cheaper maiden races this time of year favor the 4 yr olds over the 3's.

I wait til the 3rd week of June before looking at Finger Lakes. Many of the early season races are little more than paid/appearance workouts for many of the trainers. The 41/2 and 5fl races off a 90+day layoff can't be taken seriously.
Some cappers excel at this but I prefer to pass.

A spot play I've used successfully at the Finger is to favor 2nd over the track shippers who did poorly at short odds in their first effort over the track. A sweet spot for $10-15 mutuels.

Good Luck

[Capper Al]

No further explanation should be necessary.

I wasn't looking for anything. No need for further explanation because your premise is off.

[appistappis]

driveway, my buddy loves that second over the track angle.

[traynor]

I wasn't looking for anything. No need for further explanation because your premise is off.

Not really. You post many questions that make it seem you are seeking information on what others are doing that is successful, in specific terms rather than in generalities. That creates the impression that you expect to be given valuable information while offering none of your own in exchange.

I don't really care either way, other than as a reader. My suggestion is that if you were a bit more forthcoming about the specifics of your method(s), others might be inclined to respond in kind. An exchange of information, rather than a one way tell-me-all-you-know-so-I-can-use-it-but-I-keep-all-the-good-stuff-to-myself.

I think that might get you more of the information you seem to be seeking, and would likely make your threads more interesting and useful to the readers. More exchange, and less of a whats-mine-is-mine-but-whats-yours-is-ours approach.

[BlueChip@DRF]

The number of next-out winners from the last race.

[jasperson]

A racing factor is something like speed, class, etc. Sometimes it's not about the best selector, but about the best eliminator. I have one that will cut the field in half with about 95% confidence. Good? Maybe. I have another that will cut the field in half with about 90% confidence. My selectors are a differnt story. They are not across the board like my eliminators. Currently, I'm reviewing these. Every capper should know theirs. Any comments?
First time front banages and the same trainer. You have to watch the post parade for this one. If he is my top selection then I throw him out. Since I am a win place better I will not use him

[Robert Goren]

First time front banages and the same trainer. You have to watch the post parade for this one. If he is my top selection then I throw him out. Since I am a win place better I will not use himThere a few trainers ( espicially at smaller tracks) that this a very postive move, but generally you are correct. Just for the record , front bandages off ,same trainer doesn't mean anything from I have observed.

[Tom]

Some other food for thought....some good reading here besides this.

http://www.netcapper.com/TrackTractsArchive/TT010126.htm

[Overlay]

In whatever handicapping area I'm considering, I concentrate on locating factors that produce results (either positive or negative) that are significantly better (or worse) (from a statistical standpoint) than could be accounted for by normal random variation.

[jasperson]

There a few trainers ( espicially at smaller tracks) that this a very postive move, but generally you are correct. Just for the record , front bandages (#) off ,same trainer doesn't mean anything from I have observed.

I know sometimes a top trainer will put fronts on when he drops a horse in a lower class for a win, but I will skip them also.

[Capper Al]

Some other food for thought....some good reading here besides this.

http://www.netcapper.com/TrackTractsArchive/TT010126.htm

I like TrackTracts a lot. The one you posted is one of my favorites. I re-read it from time to time.

[RaceBookJoe]

I know sometimes a top trainer will put fronts on when he drops a horse in a lower class for a win, but I will skip them also.

There was an old-time system with front wraps. Went something like this : In claiming races trainer ( with a live horse ) would try to trick others by bringing horse into paddock with front wraps on. Then once the claim box office closed, the wraps would come off. Not exact, but it went something like that.

[completebill]

Au Contraire------ALL recent research, using LARGE data sets, show conclusively that recency is NOT a positive factor. Indeed, horses perform best after short rests. There are many variables, such as age, class, distance, etc. but, roughly, 21-45 days would be a good starting point for best results.

Trainer competence and drug use also affect the recency factor.

[completebill]

A racing factor is something like speed, class, etc. Sometimes it's not about the best selector, but about the best eliminator. I have one that will cut the field in half with about 95% confidence. Good? Maybe. I have another that will cut the field in half with about 90% confidence. My selectors are a differnt story. They are not across the board like my eliminators. Currently, I'm reviewing these. Every capper should know theirs. Any comments?

"Racing Factors" that predict Winners, are often QUITE different from racing factors that uncover VALUE. For example dominant early speed (Fr-1) used to be a "factor" that predicted profit. The masses caught on as pace analysis become widely understood (relatively---at least among serious handicappers).
NOW, dominant early speed is still a relevant "factor" in predicting winners, but at a negative R.O.I.
Important factors now are those that are underused by the masses. They include Workouts, Pedigree, and detailed trainer information, among many others.

[thaskalos]

"Racing Factors" that predict Winners, are often QUITE different from racing factors that uncover VALUE. For example dominant early speed (Fr-1) used to be a "factor" that predicted profit. The masses caught on as pace analysis become widely understood (relatively---at least among serious handicappers).
NOW, dominant early speed is still a relevant "factor" in predicting winners, but at a negative R.O.I.
Important factors now are those that are underused by the masses. They include Workouts, Pedigree, and detailed trainer information, among many others.
Just because a factor is underused by the masses does not mean that this factor is "important".

Some factors are underused by the masses simply because they are not important enough.

Workouts, for instance, were always considered "important"...and then the public became aware of how fraught with error the process of timing these workouts really was...

[Tom]

Workouts is one of the key factors that enhance performance of other factors in HTR.