Race Replay Watchers

[EMD4ME]

I know what I look for in race replays, a million things but predominantly the following:

Race flow
How hard a horse was stressed or used before the stretch drive
Suck up horses
Items that are not captured in the "comments"
Comments that seem like they matter but don't or are misleading
Running paths
Gate bumps
Dressed up perfect trips
Lead changes
Gallop outs

I have the following questions of everyone:

1) How do you treat a horse who breaks slow, for no reason, for the first time? As a general sign of new illness? A freak occurrence? A reason to stay out of that horse's next race as you have no idea as to if it will happen again?

2) Do you downgrade horses who run naturally early, with no encouragement and finish full of run? Or do you view that as a positive as the horse did it on their own accord? (of course I factor race dynamics & specific pace elements in consideration)

Just looking to see what others look at/how others feel about the aforementioned items & other aspects of race replays

[Stillriledup]

Depends on the horse and trainer. For example, if a Neil Drysdale horse from Europe breaks slow out of the gate and "runs on" late in the mile and i like him visually, i won't hold that too much against him. Now, if its a Bob Baffert firster who is bred to be quick and has quite a few gate works to his credit, i would look at that in a different light.

Also, it depends on HOW the horse looks coming out of the gate, if the slow break was physical and maybe he was alert on and brushed the side of the gate and or was intimidated by a rival who shifted over, OR was the horse sort of "sleeping" when the gate opened and missed the break due to something mental.

I'm not sure what you're asking in question two, can you rephrase that?

[Si2see]

I am a visual handicapper and have a pretty good system. i come up with more longshot winners and live horses when watching replays than I would with just pencil and paper handicapping. if I had put more money on some of the horses and not been scared to load up on them it would have been the difference in a slight loss last year, versus having a very very good year.

The only problem I have with it is putting the time into it, I can only play during weekends with how busy I am at work, and basically start watching replays Friday night while most of you are asleep, and watch them all the way until races start Saturdays, then do it all over again Saturday nights and Sunday mornings.

[EMD4ME]

Depends on the horse and trainer. For example, if a Neil Drysdale horse from Europe breaks slow out of the gate and "runs on" late in the mile and i like him visually, i won't hold that too much against him. Now, if its a Bob Baffert firster who is bred to be quick and has quite a few gate works to his credit, i would look at that in a different light.

Also, it depends on HOW the horse looks coming out of the gate, if the slow break was physical and maybe he was alert on and brushed the side of the gate and or was intimidated by a rival who shifted over, OR was the horse sort of "sleeping" when the gate opened and missed the break due to something mental.

I'm not sure what you're asking in question two, can you rephrase that?

Sorry for the tardy reply....

To rephrase question #2, let's say a horse is running in a race at 6F race. He breaks up close and stays up close with no encouragement or little encouragement. He wins in a no race flow race (no duel, pace soft and makes up 2 lengths). Do you downgrade the effort as the horse didn't have to chase (as the pace was soft and the competition was probably of lesser quality)?

Back to question #1. I agree about the type of trainer. I'm talking about the horse who never breaks slow (outside of "victim" starts where there was an unfortunate incident at the gate) and for the first time is off slow for no reason.

Again, I have my theories, just wondering what my peers are thinking as they watch replays.

[Stillriledup]

Sorry for the tardy reply....

To rephrase question #2, let's say a horse is running in a race at 6F race. He breaks up close and stays up close with no encouragement or little encouragement. He wins in a no race flow race (no duel, pace soft and makes up 2 lengths). Do you downgrade the effort as the horse didn't have to chase (as the pace was soft and the competition was probably of lesser quality)?

Back to question #1. I agree about the type of trainer. I'm talking about the horse who never breaks slow (outside of "victim" starts where there was an unfortunate incident at the gate) and for the first time is off slow for no reason.

Again, I have my theories, just wondering what my peers are thinking as they watch replays.

I will absolutely factor in the turn time in a sprint race.....but, essentially, what i'm looking for is how easy or how hard a horse had to work to get from point A to point B. Sometimes a horse will brush into a fast turn time and tire, he gets brownie points for that just as a horse, in your example, will have brownie points deducted for winning with a perfect trip.

As for the slow breakers, let me add that i don't really put too much stock in slow breaks because in almost every race, someone gets off a beat slower than the horse who breaks the fastest, as long as its not a habit, i won't worry too much.

What i won't do is give too much credit for a horse who breaks a beat or 2 slow because sometimes the slow break will actually help a horse from a position standpoint, but again, i have to see how that horse raced after his break. If he was a speed horse with quick hitch action and broke a beat slow and made a "Quick" internal move, that would catch my attention more than if a horse was a slow plodder who normally comes from behind and that slow break didnt really alter his style too much, it all depends on the horse and situation.

[DeltaLover]

I know what I look for in race replays, a million things but
predominantly the following:

Race flow How hard a horse was stressed or used before the stretch drive Suck up
horses Items that are not captured in the "comments" Comments that seem like
they matter but don't or are misleading Running paths Gate bumps Dressed up
perfect trips Lead changes Gallop outs

I have the following questions of everyone:

1) How do you treat a horse who breaks slow, for no reason, for the first time?
As a general sign of new illness? A freak occurrence? A reason to stay out of
that horse's next race as you have no idea as to if it will happen again?

2) Do you downgrade horses who run naturally early, with no encouragement and
finish full of run? Or do you view that as a positive as the horse did it on
their own accord? (of course I factor race dynamics & specific pace elements in
consideration)

Just looking to see what others look at/how others feel about the aforementioned
items & other aspects of race replays

This post is one the most interesting I have seen lately here in PA as it is touching a concrete and measurable handicapping approach and can spawn some interesting discussions.

Trip handicapping consists of both things that can be quantified objectively (like a slow break) and things that are more a matter of an opinion (like no encouragement and finish full of run).

Besides that the real value of a trip handicapping factor is not a matter of an opinion but something that can be evaluated analytically.

If you have the time and the patience, you can create some sort of a "language" to identify and record each trip factor you are using, creating database that allowing for easy evaluation of its value.

At this point I will not delve in to the details of how this can be done, but you can find related information in this site and also in more general statistical analysis texts.

Having said these, I strongly believe that you will not find and real betting value applying your trip notes. The crowd is very good at recognizing trip trouble, and although you might increase your hit ratio, still your expected value will not be increased significantly to justify the cost of the related effort.

In my opinion, the handicapping process is clearly overrated when it comes to horse racing. Becoming better than the consensus of the crowd as it is reflected in the betting pools, is extremely difficult despite the fact that it seems like an easy task and most of us maintain the belief that we can out-handicap the crowd. The extremely high takeout, is enough in the vast majority of the cases, to convert the opinions of even the most astute handicappers to a 'slight' loss, which can be expressed as a 0.98 ROI or anything similar. Of course even this tiny disadvantage is more enough to destroy even the largest bankrolls.

I think that what we should focus more than mere handicapping, in betting execution methods and bet sizing and progression, which when understood properly can give some hope for a big score that will allow us to elevate our game to the next level.

[Sapio]

DL writes:

"I think that what we should focus more than mere handicapping, in betting execution methods and bet sizing and progression, which when understood properly can give some hope for a big score that will allow us to elevate our game to the next level."

Isn't that a moot point, if you don't a positive edge?

Thomas Sapio

[DeltaLover]

DL writes:

"I think that what we should focus more than mere handicapping, in betting execution methods and bet sizing and progression, which when understood properly can give some hope for a big score that will allow us to elevate our game to the next level."

Isn't that a moot point, if you don't a positive edge?

Thomas Sapio

Yes you are right in the sense that you can never end up with a positive number while adding only negatives. In other words having negative expectation per bet makes it impossible to overcome this disantantage, using any possible betting scheme or system. I completely agree. What I am referering here though is something different and has to do with non self weighted events, game theory and parlay progressions which can give you the hope for a big score while any other self weighted method is a sure way to going bankrupt.

[Sapio]

Yes you are right in the sense that you can never end up with a positive number while adding only negatives. In other words having negative expectation per bet makes it impossible to overcome this disantantage, using any possible betting scheme or system. I completely agree. What I am referering here though is something different and has to do with non self weighted events, game theory and parlay progressions which can give you the hope for a big score while any other self weighted method is a sure way to going bankrupt.

DL,

I believe I know what you are saying ( I'm probably wrong ). Play BOLD and hope for the best.

Thomas Sapio

[mountainman]

Sorry for the tardy reply....

To rephrase question #2, let's say a horse is running in a race at 6F race. He breaks up close and stays up close with no encouragement or little encouragement. He wins in a no race flow race (no duel, pace soft and makes up 2 lengths). Do you downgrade the effort as the horse didn't have to chase (as the pace was soft and the competition was probably of lesser quality)?

Back to question #1. I agree about the type of trainer. I'm talking about the horse who never breaks slow (outside of "victim" starts where there was an unfortunate incident at the gate) and for the first time is off slow for no reason.

Again, I have my theories, just wondering what my peers are thinking as they watch replays.

Intriguing post......In response to your first item: Slow breaks are rarely an anomaly. Look more closely at a horse's history and behavior BEHIND the gate. You'll likely find clues that portended the poor start. And slow starts frequently become habit. Even when not repeated, they sit there ominously on a horse's form, likely at some point to occur again.

Before concluding that a slow breaker had not done so before, keep in mind that a break-call isn't REALLY a break call. Chart callers will tell you they catch and record it just several jumps in. Don't buy it. Note instead how many times a horse misses the kick a tad, but accelerates to the lead within 10 or 12 jumps and receives a "1" for the break call. Thus, deceptively good start calls can camouflage a suspect breaker.

A horse's break is often a function of distance. Shorter races will expose slow breakers. Embed an even slightly suspect breaker in a quicker field than it normally faces, and a really poor start looms distinctly possible.

In my opinion, the break call is easily the most neglected factor in handicapping. I've intended to blog on it for quite some time.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

...Having said these, I strongly believe that you will not find and (any?) real betting value applying your trip notes....

I agree with a lot of your post Delta, but strongly disagree with this part. It's the "subjective" parts of handicapping that sets a value horse apart, and I'm continually surprised by horses that I thought had easily identifiable tough trips or finished with good energy that come back at great prices.

The conclusion that I come to is that a very small percentage of bettors use trip handicapping to any great degree. So, trip notes, along with other subjective handicapping factors (tote action, appearance on the track, etc.) are still under-represented in the handicapping process.

However, I do agree that most players would benefit from improving their wagering, versus tweaking their handicapping - there's just more room for improvement there.

[traynor]

I agree with a lot of your post Delta, but strongly disagree with this part. It's the "subjective" parts of handicapping that sets a value horse apart, and I'm continually surprised by horses that I thought had easily identifiable tough trips or finished with good energy that come back at great prices.

The conclusion that I come to is that a very small percentage of bettors use trip handicapping to any great degree. So, trip notes, along with other subjective handicapping factors (tote action, appearance on the track, etc.) are still under-represented in the handicapping process.

However, I do agree that most players would benefit from improving their wagering, versus tweaking their handicapping - there's just more room for improvement there.

I second that. Of the serious bettors I have known over the years, trip handicapping is one of the near-universal specialties of those who wager professionally--and have successfully done so for many years. Conversely, the computer specialists seem to come and go regularly. Most come in with high hopes and healthy bankrolls, and leave with little left of either.

Trip handicapping (and related skill sets) are also much more readily available to (and developed by) the average bettor than are immense databases and super-complex number crunching software applications. All it takes is a bit of concentration, critically watching the races, and keeping notes.

I think way too many handicappers with computers fall victim to the "to-a-carpenter-with-a-hammer-every-problem-looks-like-a-nail" syndrome and convince themselves that computers are The Answer. To the never-ending joy (and source of profit) for those willing to look at the horses rather than just at the numbers on a computer screen, trip handicapping is a great leveler of the playing field.

[Sapio]

Of the serious trip handicappers I've known over the years who were successful concentrated on rating performances of winners... That is the probability of repeating or not.

Thomas Sapio

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I second that. Of the serious bettors I have known over the years, trip handicapping is one of the near-universal specialties of those who wager professionally--and have successfully done so for many years. Conversely, the computer specialists seem to come and go regularly. Most come in with high hopes and healthy bankrolls, and leave with little left of either.

Trip handicapping (and related skill sets) are also much more readily available to (and developed by) the average bettor than are immense databases and super-complex number crunching software applications. All it takes is a bit of concentration, critically watching the races, and keeping notes.

I think way too many handicappers with computers fall victim to the "to-a-carpenter-with-a-hammer-every-problem-looks-like-a-nail" syndrome and convince themselves that computers are The Answer. To the never-ending joy (and source of profit) for those willing to look at the horses rather than just at the numbers on a computer screen, trip handicapping is a great leveler of the playing field.

The "pros" versus the "rest of the crowd" definitely have to use more than just computers and commonly available data files to gain a profitable edge, IMHO. One of the few I've met over the years back in the late 1980s was using trip notes, his own speed figures, and detailed trainer patterns to pick his spots. It didn't hurt that he also grew up on a farm, and had a great eye for horses. Good speed figures that incorporate trip and databases for trainer patterns are now more common, but trips are still subjective and appearance is really subjective.

Computers can be like loaded guns - very dangerous to your wallet because they provide such "precise" answers. In the wrong hands and used improperly, they are a just another trip to the poor house.

Using your own trip notes is still a very powerful tool - anything that sets your selections apart from the "big data" crowd can only help.

[traynor]

Of the serious trip handicappers I've known over the years who were successful concentrated on rating performances of winners... That is the probability of repeating or not.

Thomas Sapio

Coupled with an intimate knowedge of which trainers specialize in back-to-back wins, and which prefer a cooler race after a win--especially at odds below a specific level.