Tandem horses irrelevant?

[dkithore]

Has anyone seen or researched whether horses that run together beat each other, as if they that the other guy beat me last out. Today is my turn to beat him.
The concept I learned during the Pirco (Sartin) days. And today I know some good software programs use tandem horses as contenders (if they met some conditions). I was wondering because there is so much preoccupation with speed-pace-class that some of this other factors go unexamined. Or people in the know do not want others to know facts and fiction about tandem horses. Just wondering what you have experienced.

[traynor]

Has anyone seen or researched whether horses that run together beat each other, as if they that the other guy beat me last out. Today is my turn to beat him.
The concept I learned during the Pirco (Sartin) days. And today I know some good software programs use tandem horses as contenders (if they met some conditions). I was wondering because there is so much preoccupation with speed-pace-class that some of this other factors go unexamined. Or people in the know do not want others to know facts and fiction about tandem horses. Just wondering what you have experienced.

Long ago I worked with a young lady from the Pacific Northwest (Virginia Butler) who was a PIRCO teaching member and a strong advocate of tandem races. Despite the strong emphasis of PIRCO at the time on the concept, I never found much of value in it. That is, other than the "key race" factor, there seemed little or no benefit to be derived from horses running against each other in previous races.

There is a peripheral concept in trip handicapping that has to do with equine hierarchies, but that is not something that can be determined solely by looking at numbers and text in past performance data. Lots of people have tried. Lots of people have wasted lots of time chasing rainbows trying to put a number on something that is best understood with more qualitative research.

As presented by Sartin, I think the concept of tandem races is pretty much irrelevant, with the exception the caveat about key races noted above.

[Pensacola Pete]

I did a large database study of tandem and key races. Didn't find anything in it. Doesn't mean somebody else can't make it work.

[Aner]

I've had some good luck looking at horses that exit the same race as the favorite. If they were not worse than 2 lengths behind said favorite in the common race and are at least 5:1 today, they can be played. When they go off at 10:1 or greater ( not uncommon), it can be a great play.

[LottaKash]

As presented by Sartin, I think the concept of tandem races is pretty much irrelevant, with the exception the caveat about key races noted above.

On a case by case basis, I have found that in harness-racing at least, that when 2 or 3 horses come out of what appears to be a key tandem race (discovered using my own pace-patterns) and then they ship together to another track and are entered together in the same race today, (sometimes if it is a real key tandem race, in another race at the new track, as well), itis then that I will look at those horses much more closely....From time to time, I have been onto some lucrative payouts as a result of this "key-race/ship" factor...

Another tandem thing I like to looksee more of, is when a certain class of horses, the ones that seem to be facing only each other week after week, will as a result, when the pace pattern may look a certain way, will reveal acertain looking "running line", that was born as a result of that pace pattern, that in turn may reveal an edge in the very next tandem situation.... And then I will make a point of being very alert for it in this scenario...I call this angle "456", and it bears steady fruit for me...

[dkithore]

I have noticed that in quality races (stakes in particular), if there was close finish in the obvious race and has been pointed out that in key races, reversals as some chose to call it, does lend some weight in predicting that results may reverse. I have also noticed (anecdotal) that the previous favorite runs out of money and the followers grab the lucrative top spot. But again as Aner said, 'with some luck".

However Pete's study appears to be credible in that so many oter reversal horses just don't make it.

[Aner]

Here's an example.

In yesterday's Front Runner Stakes at Santa Anita, 4 horses last raced in the Del Mar Derby.

#8 She's a Tiger won the Del Mar D.
#1 Ontology was 2nd (1/2 length back)
#7 Secret Compass was 4th (off 4 len)
#5 Awesome Baby was 7th (off 7 len)

Final of Front Runner:

#7 (10:1) won $23.40
#8 (2:1) placed
#1 (6/5 fav) showed
#5 (6:1) 5th

[dkithore]

Here's an example.

In yesterday's Front Runner Stakes at Santa Anita, 4 horses last raced in the Del Mar Derby.

#8 She's a Tiger won the Del Mar D.
#1 Ontology was 2nd (1/2 length back)
#7 Secret Compass was 4th (off 4 len)
#5 Awesome Baby was 7th (off 7 len)

Final of Front Runner:

#7 (10:1) won $23.40
#8 (2:1) placed
#1 (6/5 fav) showed
#5 (6:1) 5th

This is a perfect example. I assume #8 was the favorite. I suspect that this scenario is more predictible in quality races such as the one in your example (my guess) than cheaper races where form shifts are more volatile. I am still hoping that someone has info. about expected vs actual ratios. That is more definitive than intuitive. Regardless, the tandem angle seems to work better in key races (as suggested by Traynor).

[Pensacola Pete]

Back in 1978, ten Louisiana-bred two year olds met in an Allowance NW2 at old Evangeline. The weird thing was that every one of them was making the second start of his career, and every one had won his first start. Creole Gumbeaux won the race. Partner's luck finished second.

About six weeks later, they ran the Futurity. All of the best horses were entered. Creole Gumbeaux went off at about 20-1 and Partner's Luck about 25-1. Neither of them had been in the money since that race. Didn't stop them from repeating their 1-2 finish. Perfecta paid $about $550.

[Xman2]

The best thing about tandem horses is the one that was beaten last time will almost certainly be under bet by the public. I play this angle very often and find it quite profitable.

Xman2

[plainolebill]

The best thing about tandem horses is the one that was beaten last time will almost certainly be under bet by the public. I play this angle very often and find it quite profitable.

Xman2

I like this play too.

[Fingal]

The best thing about tandem horses is the one that was beaten last time will almost certainly be under bet by the public. I play this angle very often and find it quite profitable.

Xman2

Mentioned this once to someone I used to put tickets in with, & he literally laughed in my face.

I'll give a 3rd to this angle. Logically each race is a separate event, but if it works that's good enough for me, it's like they take turns.

[dkithore]

Mentioned this once to someone I used to put tickets in with, & he literally laughed in my face.

I'll give a 3rd to this angle. Logically each race is a separate event, but if it works that's good enough for me, it's like they take turns.
Yesterday while playing UK racing, Hamilton , I backed the Tandem horse at 12-1 and the favorite went off at 2-1 (winner of the previous race). Tandem won and the favorite ran second paying a $ 61 Exacta. The problem is: we just do not have a reasonable certainty as to who from the string of the previous tandems (if there are more than a few will oblige. So, like others have said in this thread, it is important to notice that it was a key race. Secondly when there are others with similar characteristics but with higher odds, often do not materialize. of course there are exceptions.

That is why I was looking for some definitive study by members on this forum that can guide us better. Meanwhile the journey continues. Best.

[barn32]

The winner of a last race tandem repeats that win only 12% of the time.

[traynor]

The winner of a last race tandem repeats that win only 12% of the time.

As compared to what percentage of repeat winners in non-tandem races?

[dkithore]

The winner of a last race tandem repeats that win only 12% of the time.
Good info. Thanks.

[thaskalos]

There is enough conflicting evidence out there to prove -- or disprove -- any handicapping theory under the sun.

The tandem-horse theory has its supporters -- as all theories do -- but I remain unimpressed by it.

[traynor]

The "tandem" theory is both simple and complex. In simple terms, a "tandem" race is a race in which one or more of the entries has competed previously against one or more of the other entries. It is considered more "meaningful" if they ran closely together. Not necessarily a "duel" but at least contention. That is, entries that show 1-1-1-2-5 and 8-8-7-7-6 may have been in the same race, but it would not be considered a "tandem" race.

The useful part (largely ignored, including by most Sartin advocates) is the notion of searching for indicators in the race(s) preceding the tandem race of how the same entries are likely to perform today--more on the order of analyzing form cycles over multiple races rather than viewing the "tandem" races in isolation.

Like many of Sartin's concepts, it was (is) deceptive in that the purpose is (was) to encourage users to look more closely at PPs, and to look at them in other than the simplistic, limited ways preferred by most bettors.

[Xman2]

The most meaningful part of tandem races is the better price on the beaten horse in the tandem. These beaten horses win frequently enough at better prices than they should pay. A favorite play is the beaten horse over the "winner" of the tandem in the exacta, and the same thing in the trifecta with all in the 3rd spot. These also pay way more than they should. I love 'em.

Xman2

[traynor]

The most meaningful part of tandem races is the better price on the beaten horse in the tandem. These beaten horses win frequently enough at better prices than they should pay. A favorite play is the beaten horse over the "winner" of the tandem in the exacta, and the same thing in the trifecta with all in the 3rd spot. These also pay way more than they should. I love 'em.

Xman2

Yes. You seem to be one of the few who realize that it is foolish to believe that horses will exactly replicate past performances so that meaningful comparisons can be made by simplisitic number crunching. Many software users seem to believe that--because the winner had a "higher rating" in a race some period of time ago than another entry in that same race--both will somehow be magically compelled to "run back to their numbers."

I love it! Crunch on, number crunchers! Keep searching for that proper pace line. I need the money.

[Speed Figure]

Michael Pizzolla's Five Star Reversers are pretty cool!

[Pensacola Pete]

I see the idea that the winner will be lower odds and the loser higher odds. My issue was that they were saying the horse that finished 8th by 15 lengths was now a solid play because the horse that won the race was there today. That never made any sense to me.

Makes more sense at the harness or Arabian races because they do take turns there. Both are tightly knit groups with fewer people than the thoroughbred folks. They wash each other's backs. Thoroughbred horseman aren't as chummy; of course they do some business once in a while.