MONEY BOX - consistency for Harness...

[LottaKash]

The subject of "Improving Horses" came up in another thread yesterday.....Pandy had written a good piece pointing out positive signshorse may show before a win... http://www.drf.com/news/bob-pandolf...-positive-signs

After reading this I took stock a bit and pondered about some of the points that Bob brought up....My thoughts then drifted to my own ways of discovering an Improving horse..I thoght of one of the things that I use, as one reason, to keep tabs and have horse that will remain on my radar until something causes me to lose interest in any particular horse or competitive race...

So, the one thing that I would like to share with you, and, it is something that goes a great ways in pointing out horses, who, when in form to do so, are very likely to improve in his next race or two.... These are the horses who have shown themselves to be, simply "horses that like to win"....And when I find these, and they are being trained by a "pro", and they are in shape enough to set, maintain, or overcome any pace scenario, they are terrific horses to watch for..

It is very simple to make a "Money-Box" score....

Bill Quirin in some book that I read, created this Money Box Consistency formula....And I have used it ever since...

It goes like this, simply, add up all of a horses wins and "multiply that number X2, than add up all the 2d's and 3d's, and then subtract those place and show numbers from the wins, and that will this horse's MBX (money box).....

IE: 18 7 4 2 so add up the wind =7 x 2 = 14....then 4 +2 = 6.....14 - 6 =+8
....This is a horse that likes to win...!!

If less than 10-15 starts then use both years in the formula...

This same horse had only 5 starts so far this year, so we use both years then...

IE: 5 1 1 1 2014..,,,, 1 X 2 = 2......& 1 +1 = 2
.... 18 7 4 2 2013......7 x 2 =14..... 4 + 2 = 6

so it is now 8 X 2 = 16..... 1+1+4+2 = 8 16 - 8 = +8...

So when we add up both years to get a more accurate picture about this horse, will se that his MBX of +8 still holds up....He is the real deal, imo..

Another: 13 4 2 2.....4 X 2= 8...... 2+2=4 8 - 4 = +4 mbx.. Clearly a positive figure....

SUPERIOR CONSISTENCY.....+5 or HIGHER...superior money box
ACCEPTABLE CONSITENCY = -4 to +4.......average money box
POOR CONSISTENCY........ = -5 or LESS....negative money box

That is basically "it" in a nutshell....

==================================

It is a good rule of thumb to require at least 10-starts before dismissing a horse for inconsistency....

Don't eliminate a horse for inconsistency that has won a race in tonight's class or higher in the past 21-days...

We will try to confine our win wagers to starters with "acceptable" and "superior consistency....

==========================================

Being a pen and paper guy, I don't keep many stats aside from what I can remember from week to week, but I used to do this for a good while before I got older and lazier.....

When you find a race where there are 3 or more top contenders for consideration, I usually will go to the money box to see how competitive a race may be or might've been....

For instance, say we have a race where we have 4 solid contenders for possible play, so I mark up that race starting with a "4"....then I do the money box, and let's say the average mbx for these guys is+5 or higher, and may additionally be supported with other but yet acceptable mbx horses, then this type of race will most likely be an all out slug-fest, and possibly a very "key race" once run....This type of race, gets my attention, every time, more than any other type of race, as even the losers in this type of race could well be winners when in with softer....

So if we have 4 - solid contenders with an average mbx of 5 or higher....I will mark this race as "4/+5"...This is one tuff bunch...and most of these horses are "go's" tonite..Lookout !...their MBX's speaks volumes....these horse have the will to win...


It is profitable to make this effort..."rating a race for intent and heart"



Good luck with this....It is not a magical formula for picking winners, it merely points out horses that are worth watching and waiting for and worth our KASH..:cool:

[LottaKash]

After posting this I had some additional thoughts about using the Superior MBX to your advantage...

Horse that have a SMBX are good horse to watch when:

Coming off of layoffs, Barn changes whether by Claim, or private change of Ownership, and especially when a trainer change is made out of owner dissatisfaction with the former trainer (enter Ron Burke)....

Horses claimed by a trainer for himself are very worth watching for, especially from a so-so or poor trainer to one that knows how to make them go faster...

Horses that sport a SMBX, when coming around and giving signs and efffort that suggests improving form, can often be caught before the crowd catches on and this horse catches fire...And many SMBX horses will often rattle off several wins before they peak and/or begin to lose form..

Horses that have been down on their luck whether by sickness/lameness, or by many poor drives by poor drivers, or a bevy of poor positions, are also good horses to pay attention to when they begin to show positive signs of coming around, and seem to be over their particular ills, and the driver and/or Post Position problems have improved, and have been showing signs of good life lately....Especially true when there is a very Positive Driver change involved with the SMBX horse..

GL with that...haha..

[Charlie]

LottaKash ... I also have that book by Quirin. I also use his money box formula to recognize horses that like to win. But, I will now add the one tough bunch analysis to my handicapping. Your postings are always interesting and informative. Thanks for sharing.

[coachv30]

First of all, I love formulas like this, especially when they show credence. However, the one concern I have with this formula is that it seems that a horse can get penalized for too many 2nds and 3rds.

For example: Horse A - 31 6 0 0 = MBX +12


Horse B- 28 8 7 5 = MBX +4


Am I doing something wrong?

By all means I am not criticizing. I am mainly an exotics player (especially Trifectas). However, if I was using this formula to eliminate a horse, should it be horse B?

I want to test this out tonight at Northfield by adding it into my handicapping. I just want to make sure that I'm not confusing anything.

[Charlie]

The most important component in handicapping is good recent form. The money box is just another criteria I use to analyze contenders. It tells me the win tendencies of each contender. Does that mean I eliminate any horse that has a lesser MB #? No, it doesn't. It just another factor that I use along with such things as PP changes, Driver changes, Final times, Scratch Sick angles ect. So for me, I wouldn't eliminate Horse B without an analysis of other handicapping factors. If all else seems equal, then I'd like to bet on a horse that shows me that he likes to win, especially if there is good value being offered.

[mrroyboy]

I agree that consistency is important but as a secondary factor behind speed, class etc. A better way to do the money box might be the old Kelco Class calculator formula Multiple. Wins by .5 places by .2 thirds by .1 fourths or fifths .05. Divide that into total money won. That gives you the classes the horse races successfully. Kind of a cons/class measure. If the horses number is higher than today's purse might have a class edge. Several problems however due to young horses and the series stuff inflates their numbers but might be an interesting way to determine class etc.

Also John it is VERY good to see you writing again. For you newer members John(LottaKash)'s stuff is very good. You will learn a lot from reading his posts.

[LottaKash]

First of all, I love formulas like this, especially when they show credence. However, the one concern I have with this formula is that it seems that a horse can get penalized for too many 2nds and 3rds.

For example: Horse A - 31 6 0 0 = MBX +12


Horse B- 28 8 7 5 = MBX +4


Am I doing something wrong?

By all means I am not criticizing. I am mainly an exotics player (especially Trifectas). However, if I was using this formula to eliminate a horse, should it be horse B?

I want to test this out tonight at Northfield by adding it into my handicapping. I just want to make sure that I'm not confusing anything.

Coach, I can only speak for myself and the way I go about things....

I don't use the MBX as a handicapping tool, per se, as in picking the most likely winner of a race, nor do I use it to detect the class of a horse...But as in my previous posts, I use the MBX "mostly" for identifying the horses that show a strong propensity to win when in shape to do so...These are the "best" horses to look for, whether in tonite's contest, or for future watching....They, simply put, give you the most bang for your buck after other considerations have been factored in.....

As for A: This is a horse that will usually explode from time to time, and most times at a "price"....Barn pattern watching pays dividends with these types....They are either there or they ain't...and btw, the +12 is correct...( with stipulations of course)

As for B:...that is correct math...+4

I personally don't use the MBX for eliminations, I let the handicapping stand on it's own, race by race...As I said I use the MBX mainly to identify horses that love to win, and have proven that they have the heart to do it...I guess you could call them "proven-winners"...

Additionally, the MBX score will alert you to the "RATS", these are the ones who have no or few wins vs. a whole bunch of their places and shows....Rats are consistent in that regard....Maybe good for the underneath in exotics, but not for a win spot, imo...

Still, winter racing is different from most other times of the year, imo, as what is running this late in the year, are usually, the aforementioned "rats", along with a whole bunch of the sickest, lamest, and laziest of horses with very poor MBX consistencies...So having said that, the MBX horses are in short supply this time of year, as opposed to when racing begins to wake up in early spring....My favorite time of year in racing...:)

P.S. thx Charlie for the thx....and to Roy, for his props..

Many people know the MBX formula, especially the oldtimers, but there are some of us here at PA that aren't as far along as some of us, and that is why I wanted to pass this along to them...

[Sea Biscuit]

John: Not trying to be critical of your SMBX method, but supposing you have 2 hypothetical horses whose money box looks like these.

Horse A:11-3-4-4 who gets a MBX of -2

Horse B: 11-3-0-0 who gets a MBX of +6

I always thought in the money finishes are better than out of money finishes. Horse A who has better in the money finishes than Horse B gets a poor MBX figure.

Just confused a bit. Rather shocked. :eek:

[LottaKash]

John: Not trying to be critical of your SMBX method, but supposing you have 2 hypothetical horses whose money box looks like these.

Horse A:11-3-4-4 who gets a MBX of -2

Horse B: 11-3-0-0 who gets a MBX of +6

I always thought in the money finishes are better than out of money finishes. Horse A who has better in the money finishes than Horse B gets a poor MBX figure.

Just confused a bit. Rather shocked. :eek:

Biscuit, good to see you again....Where you been ?....

Ok biscuit, nothing is written in stone....Still, in handicapping, you could say that everything is a balance of sorts...

In this case tho, just off the top of my head, with no additional information, I would say that is a bit diffy to truly discern, meaning that, certainly a +6 MBX is good thing, and the -2 is not necessarily a bad thing, as it is just an "average" mbx....

I guess a lot would depend on the running-lines of the horses, the class of the horses would be paramount as well....Perhap the +6 was achieved by the horse in the lesser classes, and he has now reached his true ability level , and that would be it, just an illusion beyond that maybe?...You'd have to know more, is all...Or, this particular horse may have soundness issues, but when he is right, he can win, and perhaps he can go higher as well...

I would still like to emphasize tho, that the MBX is not the reason for a play, it may be, but not necessarily so....The SMBX is just a way of giving you the added confidence, knowing that you have a horse going for you, that when in shape to do so, wins more than it loses....

Now, the "-2 guy" is a consistent sort, but his MBX is just average, so, without knowing more, I would have to say that he just doesn't have that killer instinct, and I would suspect that most, if not all, of his wins, came when he was in very good shape & "very well spotted"....Also, this trainer knows how to keep this horse sound and his consistency is evidence of that, and he most likely knows what his horse's true ability-level is...

Other than that, you would just have to know more, but I'll betcha almost anything, if one goes over his betting records, he will see that his best plays (overall) came with & from horses that had a Good or SMBX, and his losses (overall) were on suspect horses with a just an average or poor MBX....check it out...