The optical illusion of PPs and replays.

[Stillriledup]

I guess this is why horse racing is the greatest game on earth, you have past performances and you have your eyes (watching tape) and both *allegedly* tell a tale, but at closer view, this game is much deeper and complex than just looking at those PPs and watching those replays.

Case in Point, today's first race at Parx.

The 2 horses i want to focus on are the 7 horse She's Secretly Mine and the 8 horse Beer Goggles.

On Sept 22 in the 9th race, SSM and BG were noses apart at the wire. On Video, it appeared that She's Secretly Mine's jock was "fumbling" with the lines and was riding in odd fashion, he looked like he was going to run second in midstretch, but the horse just refused to pass and finished noses apart with Beer Goggles, seemed like SSM might have had more in the tank and if the jock was just able to steer her straight, she might have been able to defeat Beer Goggles.

SSM is a 3 year old by Mineshaft and is actually not a bad looking specimen for a bottom level horse. She ran a 49 Beyer figure as a 2 year old so at one point, she could run a bit. Beer Goggles best dirt figure in her 9 lifetime dirt starts was 33, so you can make the case that at worst, SSM is Beer Goggles equal.

So, they race today and Beer Goggles goes off at 7-2 and She's Secretly Mine goes off at 10-1 despite these horses being "evenly matched" off their last PP line and off tape.

So, what happens today?

Beer Goggles defeats She's Secretly Mine by....oh, lets call it 50 lengths. Well, it wasn't really 50, but it may as well have been.

Now, stuff like this is why the game is deeper than just PPs and Video. I'm sure there was a way to know that SSM was going to be a million lengths slower than Beer Goggles today, but thru conventional study, there was no way to know.

I know cheapies are in and outers, but the key to this game is knowing when they're in and when they're out.

I could see Beer Goggles beating She's Secretly Mine to the wire today. BUT, i can't see how she beat her by 20 lengths (or whatever the margin was).

Thus, the optical illusion of video and PPs, if you can't trust what you see on tape and on PPs, where does that leave you?

[DJofSD]

I see the expression 'optical illusion' used a number of times. When I read that phrase in the context of this thread, I am literally thinking about a difference between what the chart caller/PP running line has versus what you saw either during the running of the prior race or what you saw during a replay.

But you seem to be focused on something else.

Did you think today's race would be a closer contest based upon what the PPs showed?

[Stillriledup]

I see the expression 'optical illusion' used a number of times. When I read that phrase in the context of this thread, I am literally thinking about a difference between what the chart caller/PP running line has versus what you saw either during the running of the prior race or what you saw during a replay.

But you seem to be focused on something else.

Did you think today's race would be a closer contest based upon what the PPs showed?

Last time these horses raced, they were noses apart. So, on tape, it looked like they were fairly evenly matched. The PPs also suggest that, if anything, She's Secretly Mine has more "upside" being a younger horse with less PP lines and she had an ok 2 year old performance to fall back on. The Goggles horse just runs 30s beyers, so i would think that this other horse has to be able to at least accomplish that.

Maybe Beer Goggles is a far superior horse and i just can't see it on PPs and tape?

[DJofSD]

You have me at a disadvantage -- I don't have the PP's nor am I familiar with the two runners or the track.

But, I believe I can identify with the feeling: how could the result of today's race been so lop sided. BTDT.

Post mortems are something I believe in strongly but if I can't find anything that might explain today's race that I either overlooked or dismissed, I'll just move on. Form cycles, equipment problems, jockey with a hang over, yada, yada, yada -- it will drive you crazy.

[GameTheory]

So, they race today and Beer Goggles goes off at 7-2 and She's Secretly Mine goes off at 10-1 despite these horses being "evenly matched" off their last PP line and off tape....

.... I'm sure there was a way to know that SSM was going to be a million lengths slower than Beer Goggles today, but thru conventional study, there was no way to know. No way to know is a bit of a stretch. It is true they were close at the finish last out so if you are relying strictly on that (or final time-only based figures) they'd be difficult to separate, but my figures show at a glance that Beer Googles should be rated well-better from the last race, and just generally from recent races. Looking at SSM's figures it looks like she hasn't run anywhere close to her 2 year old races this year, although the first one back in June was ok, and last race was a slight improvement from the previous two. You know, they are cheap horses and go up and down, it wouldn't surprise me if the result was reversed...

[Maximillion]

Last time these horses raced, they were noses apart. So, on tape, it looked like they were fairly evenly matched. The PPs also suggest that, if anything, She's Secretly Mine has more "upside" being a younger horse with less PP lines and she had an ok 2 year old performance to fall back on. The Goggles horse just runs 30s beyers, so i would think that this other horse has to be able to at least accomplish that.

Maybe Beer Goggles is a far superior horse and i just can't see it on PPs and tape?

the drop into bottom-level mdn claimers after the layoff for (seemingly) no reason would leave me to believe that the form SSM showed as a 2yo is now gone and likely never to return........but it is Prx, so for all i know someone may claim her one day and turn her into a new horse.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You may just need glasses.

[Stillriledup]

No way to know is a bit of a stretch. It is true they were close at the finish last out so if you are relying strictly on that (or final time-only based figures) they'd be difficult to separate, but my figures show at a glance that Beer Googles should be rated well-better from the last race, and just generally from recent races. Looking at SSM's figures it looks like she hasn't run anywhere close to her 2 year old races this year, although the first one back in June was ok, and last race was a slight improvement from the previous two. You know, they are cheap horses and go up and down, it wouldn't surprise me if the result was reversed...

Sure, you can make a strong case BG is better. But 20 lengths better?

Your point about cheap horses being up and down is valid....my question is under what method can i determine that SSM will be 23 lengths behind BG at the finish when they were noses apart last time. Is it completely random?

I'd prefer it not to be random, you know? :D

[Stillriledup]

You have me at a disadvantage -- I don't have the PP's nor am I familiar with the two runners or the track.

But, I believe I can identify with the feeling: how could the result of today's race been so lop sided. BTDT.

Post mortems are something I believe in strongly but if I can't find anything that might explain today's race that I either overlooked or dismissed, I'll just move on. Form cycles, equipment problems, jockey with a hang over, yada, yada, yada -- it will drive you crazy.

What bugs me about it is that one horse was 10-1 and the Beer horse was 7-2...so, the crowd was right.....just wondering what they saw that i didnt.

[GameTheory]

Sure, you can make a strong case BG is better. But 20 lengths better? I don't get too excited about how many lengths if it was more than a few -- the race was won or lost long before the finish. According to the chart posted now, SSM was actually eased, sounds like she stopped racing after the first quarter...

[GameTheory]

What bugs me about it is that one horse was 10-1 and the Beer horse was 7-2...so, the crowd was right.....just wondering what they saw that i didnt."bug" might be a key word there...

[cj]

What bugs me about it is that one horse was 10-1 and the Beer horse was 7-2...so, the crowd was right.....just wondering what they saw that i didnt.

That past performances consist of more than the last race is probably what they saw.

[Stillriledup]

That past performances consist of more than the last race is probably what they saw.

I think that if the public is going to differentiate between two horses who were noses apart, they can go back to previous PPs to try and determine if maybe that race is a fluke and one of the 2 runners is really much better.

She's Secretly Mine had 3 Beyer figs in her previous 6 starts of 38 or higher. Beer Goggles had a high Beyer of 33 in her previous 8 races. She also added front bandages for the first time last time.

So sure, they're going on other PPs, i'm just wondering what PP this horse shows that suggests she's really 20 lengths better than a horse who has historically run faster Beyers.

[cj]

I think that if the public is going to differentiate between two horses who were noses apart, they can go back to previous PPs to try and determine if maybe that race is a fluke and one of the 2 runners is really much better.

She's Secretly Mine had 3 Beyer figs in her previous 6 starts of 38 or higher. Beer Goggles had a high Beyer of 33 in her previous 8 races. She also added front bandages for the first time last time.

So sure, they're going on other PPs, i'm just wondering what PP this horse shows that suggests she's really 20 lengths better than a horse who has historically run faster Beyers.

As I'm sure you know, I don't look at Beyer figures.

Sometimes horses just don't show up and get beat a long way.

[Stillriledup]

As I'm sure you know, I don't look at Beyer figures.

Sometimes horses just don't show up and get beat a long way.

That's what i'm trying to find out. If this horse "didnt show up" or if she's just much slower than the other runner. And, if she didnt show up, what in the PPs or on video could lead me to that conclusion BEFORE the race.

If there's absolutely nothing at all that can lead a non insider to the conclusion that this horse was about to lose by over 20 lengths, thats something worth knowing.

It did appear that the "public" knew she stunk and she wasn't remotely competitive with Beer Goggles who was a much shorter price.

[AndyC]

I think that if the public is going to differentiate between two horses who were noses apart, they can go back to previous PPs to try and determine if maybe that race is a fluke and one of the 2 runners is really much better.

She's Secretly Mine had 3 Beyer figs in her previous 6 starts of 38 or higher. Beer Goggles had a high Beyer of 33 in her previous 8 races. She also added front bandages for the first time last time.

So sure, they're going on other PPs, i'm just wondering what PP this horse shows that suggests she's really 20 lengths better than a horse who has historically run faster Beyers.

Given that the information you are quoting is public info from the DRF why would there be such a disparity in odds and performance? It certainly wasn't because a lot of experienced players like yourself were betting based on an analysis of speed figures.

[DJofSD]

That's what i'm trying to find out. If this horse "didnt show up" or if she's just much slower than the other runner. And, if she didnt show up, what in the PPs or on video could lead me to that conclusion BEFORE the race.

If there's absolutely nothing at all that can lead a non insider to the conclusion that this horse was about to lose by over 20 lengths, thats something worth knowing.

It did appear that the "public" knew she stunk and she wasn't remotely competitive with Beer Goggles who was a much shorter price.
Did you do a paddock inspection?

How do you know if the horse didn't throw a shoe or have the saddle slip?

[GameTheory]

I think that if the public is going to differentiate between two horses who were noses apart, they can go back to previous PPs to try and determine if maybe that race is a fluke and one of the 2 runners is really much better.

She's Secretly Mine had 3 Beyer figs in her previous 6 starts of 38 or higher. Beer Goggles had a high Beyer of 33 in her previous 8 races. She also added front bandages for the first time last time.

So sure, they're going on other PPs, i'm just wondering what PP this horse shows that suggests she's really 20 lengths better than a horse who has historically run faster Beyers.Really it can't be such a mystery to you.

Here are some reasons:

-- Because of *whatever*, the ML was 7/2 on BG and 6-1 on SSM. That will attract more casual money to BG.

-- SSM has a 2% trainer, BG has a 12% trainer. So one is horrible, and one is average. That's a good reason to stay away from SSM, but not BG.

-- The horrible trainer also has gotten a horrible 4% jockey, BG has an apprentice taking 7 lbs and winning at 23%.

(We haven't looked at a running line yet and BG already looks much better.)

-- Many wouldn't even notice that they came out of the same race, but they would notice that BG is a maiden who came in 2nd last time as the favorite. That will always attract money in a maiden race.

-- SSM ran some good races as a 2 year old and then had a long layoff and ran one decent race coming back. BUT WAS CLAIMED OUT OF THAT RACE and hasn't run anything nearly as good since. Good reason to discount all those better races and only look at the last 3, which suck figure-wise. (Best is 30.)

-- BG is up and down, but within a fairly narrow range the last 6, has been in the money 5 of those 6 (the other one being an off track), her record is getting a little long so it is just a question of does this horse have seconditus or will she finally break through today?

All in all, SSM seems like a longshot with appropriate odds, and BG a decent second option to the favorite.

Now then, I wouldn't fault you for betting SSM and hoping for a wake-up. I might do that, but I'd WANT and expect those longer odds. Certainly they are no mystery...

[classhandicapper]

If you don't mind me redboarding I can tell you why the #8 was bet heavier.

The #7 was recently claimed by a low percentage trainer and her form seemed to deteriorate a little. The trainer was 1-50 at the meet.

The #7 was being ridden by a very low percentage jockey.

The #7 was longer odds last time they met.

That's why despite finishing a nose apart last time, they solidly preferred the #8 today. The public will always give extra credit to any horse trained by a high percentage trainer and allow horses with very low percentage trainers to go off longer than seems justified by the PPs alone.

IMO it's justified.

It's not just stock that makes a trainer successful or unsuccessful. It's also spotting horses well (which wasn't a factor here) AND developing them and getting to perform at a high level consistently. The best trainers get their horses to fire their "A" race or BETTER more often than the weaker ones. So they get bet on that expectation.

I think this was a case of a horse not firing it's "A" race.

[Stillriledup]

If you don't mind me redboarding I can tell you why the #8 was bet heavier.

The #7 was recently claimed by a low percentage trainer and her form seemed to deteriorate a little. The trainer was 1-50 at the meet.

The #7 was being ridden by a very low percentage jockey.

The #7 was longer odds last time they met.

That's why despite finishing a nose apart last time, they solidly preferred the #8 today. The public will always give extra credit to any horse trained by a high percentage trainer and allow horses with very low percentage trainers to go off longer than seems justified by the PPs alone.

IMO it's justified.

It's not just stock that makes a trainer successful or unsuccessful. It's also spotting horses well (which wasn't a factor here) AND developing them and getting to perform at a high level consistently. The best trainers get their horses to fire their "A" race or BETTER more often than the weaker ones. So they get bet on that expectation.

I think this was a case of a horse not firing it's "A" race.

The low percentage connections aren't a factor because the horse had those same connections last time when she was noses apart, there was no change in connections. I would agree with you if this was first time 1 for 50 trainer, but the horse raced respectable last time with those very connections.

[Stillriledup]

Did you do a paddock inspection?

How do you know if the horse didn't throw a shoe or have the saddle slip?

If the horse threw a shoe, it would have ran for purse money only :D

I didnt see the paddock, but the horse looked fine to me in the post parade.

[Tom]

And that was different distance, too.
And that is why they are low percentage trainers - they don't put two good ones together.

[whodoyoulike]

That's what i'm trying to find out. If this horse "didnt show up" or if she's just much slower than the other runner. And, if she didnt show up, what in the PPs or on video could lead me to that conclusion BEFORE the race.

If there's absolutely nothing at all that can lead a non insider to the conclusion that this horse was about to lose by over 20 lengths, thats something worth knowing.

It did appear that the "public" knew she stunk and she wasn't remotely competitive with Beer Goggles who was a much shorter price.

Reason was probably as DJofSD stated. But, if you could determine it before the race you would definitely be in the top 1% of bettors. The question should be:

How can we determine the horse is not going to run to their past performances? Whether it's GOOD or BAD?

...
Form cycles, equipment problems, jockey with a hang over, yada, yada, yada -- it will drive you crazy.

[cj]

The low percentage connections aren't a factor because the horse had those same connections last time when she was noses apart, there was no change in connections. I would agree with you if this was first time 1 for 50 trainer, but the horse raced respectable last time with those very connections.


But bad connections underachieve, that is the point. You think the horse was going to improve?

[Stillriledup]

Given that the information you are quoting is public info from the DRF why would there be such a disparity in odds and performance? It certainly wasn't because a lot of experienced players like yourself were betting based on an analysis of speed figures.

I don't know why such a disparity. The DRF says these horses were noses apart. SSM is a 3 yo Mineshaft who has had "back" numbers and to my eye, looked "more interesting" in her previous start vs BG.

I don't know why one horse took money and the other one didnt when they were "equal" last time. BG barely breaks a 30, the other horse seemed to have more upside....or, at least not as much downside for her to get beaten by 23 lengths by the same horse she was noses apart with the race before.

CJ says that these odds were made by looking at ALL the PPs, but i didnt see on PPs and or video why the support for BG and or the lack of support for SSM.

Seemed like equal horses with more upside going to SSM, they should have been equal prices at worst.

[Stillriledup]

But bad connections underachieve, that is the point. You think the horse was going to improve?

It didnt have to improve to win. Well, the winner was bet off the board, she wasn't going to beat that horse, but not a hard horse to think she might hit the board. She had the "bad connections" last time, nothing changed, why would i think the horse would all of a sudden regress to lose by 23?

My original question was this. What was on paper or video that would lead me to believe this horse would run up the track and or lose to a horse she was noses apart with last time by 23 lengths.

If you say its completely random and there's no rhyme or reason, i'll accept that. If you think it was predictable she would lose by over 20 lengths, i'd love to hear what you saw on video or on paper that led you to believe this was going to happen.

[Stillriledup]

Reason was probably as DJofSD stated. But, if you could determine it before the race you would definitely be in the top 1% of bettors. The question should be:

How can we determine the horse is not going to run to their past performances? Whether it's GOOD or BAD?

That's what i'm trying to say, where was the "tip off" on paper, or her replay that pointed to this type of effort. Or, its completely possible that unless you are an insider and knew this horse's vet history and how she's been acting coming up to the race, there's zero way to know by just looking at PPs or replays.

[Greyfox]

But bad connections underachieve, that is the point.

That bears repeating. :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

That bears repeating. :ThmbUp:

I guess this is the all important point, a horse who races well and has a terrible trainer and jock, might not put two races back to back....but, that's just blind hope that its going to be this horse in this race on this day its going to happen to.

[Greyfox]

I guess this is the all important point, a horse who races well and has a terrible trainer and jock, might not put two races back to back.

Right.
They seldom repeat those peak performances.
They can break your heart and your wallet believing that they will.

[Tom]

My original question was this. What was on paper or video that would lead me to believe this horse would run up the track and or lose to a horse she was noses apart with last time by 23 lengths.

She is a proven loser at the cheapest level on the grounds, I think. she has done this before - look at her record - dismal performances after a good race are not new to her. You want horse like this after a bad race, not a good one.

[Clocker]

The CHART (http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/PRX100514USA1.pdf) for the race says the horse "gave way, eased late".

Horses are people too. ;) Some times they just have a bad day. If the horse wasn't trying, the jockey probably just let up. No sense beating it up.

The 20 lengths doesn't always mean a lot. One writer, I can't remember who, said he gives no weight to anything over 8 beaten lengths. More than that and the horse isn't trying, the jockey isn't trying, and the caller is probably just guessing.

[GameTheory]

It didnt have to improve to win. Well, the winner was bet off the board, she wasn't going to beat that horse, but not a hard horse to think she might hit the board. She had the "bad connections" last time, nothing changed, why would i think the horse would all of a sudden regress to lose by 23? I wish you would stop repeating "23 lengths" like it means something when the horse was eased out of the race, obviously something was wrong with her. This and your other recent post about Mountaineer makes it sound as if you believe horses -- even these cheap-ass nags -- are going to run the same race every time out. As long as you believe such nonsense these "regressions" and "form reversals" are going to baffle you. When dealing with these cheapies, assuming that the last race will predict nothing is a better idea...

[Greyfox]

Horses are people too. ;) .

Some people believe that about cats and dogs too.
I'm glad you put a smiley behind that. ;)

[Maximillion]

the horse seemed,to me at least,to have "damaged goods"written all over her...,and im sure im not the only one felt that way.Im not saying i thought she would finish the way she did,but it just looked like a horse that was going nowhere.

[Stillriledup]

I wish you would stop repeating "23 lengths" like it means something when the horse was eased out of the race, obviously something was wrong with her. This and your other recent post about Mountaineer makes it sound as if you believe horses -- even these cheap-ass nags -- are going to run the same race every time out. As long as you believe such nonsense these "regressions" and "form reversals" are going to baffle you. When dealing with these cheapies, assuming that the last race will predict nothing is a better idea...

You're missing the point. I don't expect too much from horses, they're very inconsistent, fragile and for the most part, cowards. Other than Wise Dan and a few others, most have no real fight or heart, so i don't expect any of them to run over broken glass for me or any other bettor.

The point is this. How was this predictable on paper or tape. If its not predictable, its not predictable. SOMEONE predicted it because she was ignored in the betting and was a much longer price than a horse she was on the wire with last time...so, "they" knew she was a dead piece today....but, i want to know if this was predictable off of something i saw on paper or something we can decipher off of video.

[Clocker]

I'm glad you put a smiley behind that. ;)

They aren't machines, and they are just as ornery and unpredictable as people, so they must be people. :p

[Tom]

I hope he didn't see the Close Hatches race just now...... :rolleyes:

[Stillriledup]

I hope he didn't see the Close Hatches race just now...... :rolleyes:

I did. And i bet a few bucks to show on all the other runners. :D

OOPS REDBOARD ALERT!!

[Stillriledup]

They aren't machines, and they are just as ornery and unpredictable as people, so they must be people. :p

You know what they say, Horse sense is horses having the sense to not bet on people!

[Robert Fischer]

...

The point is this. How was this predictable on paper or tape. If its not predictable, its not predictable. SOMEONE predicted it because she was ignored in the betting and was a much longer price than a horse she was on the wire with last time...so, "they" knew she was a dead piece today....but, i want to know if this was predictable off of something i saw on paper or something we can decipher off of video.

What did they know?

These aren't horses that I bet or handicapped, but assuming that everything in this thread is legit and can be taken at face-value (and not exaggerations to build a case),
-then take a 2nd look at the wagering from today.

(last time 9/22) = SHES SECRETLY MINE was 3.27 x odds of BEER GOGGLES.
(5.90-1(5th choice) / 1.80-1(favorite) = 3.27).

(Today) =SHES SECRETLY MINE was 2.72 x odds of BEER GOGGLES. (10.60-1(4th choice) / 3.90-1(2nd choice) = 2.72).

so today you actually had a lower odds ratio, and they were only 2 betting ranks apart as opposed to 3 ranks apart last time.

I'd want to see individual win-pool info for the last two races, but "They" sure didn't bet as dramatically different as you seem to think.

The primary difference in the pools of the last 2 races is that today's race featured #4 To Believe, an obvious favorite that crushed the field to pay $3.40.

[GameTheory]

The difference in the connections (from one horse to the other) and the fact that BG was 2nd as fave last out is all I need to explain the price difference. So the odds were completely predictable and normal "on paper".

You CAN'T predict the performances to a certainty, and like I said if the result was reversed I'd be no more surprised because sometimes that horse will wake-up and have a big improvement, etc. But the way things actually unfolded was much more likely "on paper".

There are no big mysteries here. It is only your insistence on focusing on one out of context detail (they were noses apart last time) like that is the whole story that is confounding you when instead you should be saying, "The ONLY positives I can see for this horse are that she was close last time and she's lightly raced so maybe she doesn't suck as bad as it appears." While the other one was even closer last time, has been in the money 5 out of last 6, has vastly better connections and is telegraphing good intent again (apprentice jockey), and has much better recent figures considering more than the last race. (And in fact I'd claim ran clearly better race last time despite the close finish -- meaning a race more predictive of running decently again next time compared to SSM's race.) So BG just is significantly more likely a winner "on paper", if you can't see that I don't know what to tell you...

[Stillriledup]

Thank you GT and RF and others, great posts.

GT, onto your most recent post. I do normally take into consideration previous PPs, i dont get latched onto one specific effort as an end all, but with these two horses, if you believe Beyers matter at all, the longer priced of the two we are discussing had better lifetime figures on dirt. Now, i dont know what Ragozin or T graph says or even what CJs figures say, but the Beer horse was barely getting into the low 30s Beyerwise.

Its possible that the beyers for this horse are way off and she's far faster than SSM.

Thanks for the contributions, i appreciate them.

[GameTheory]

Thank you GT and RF and others, great posts.

GT, onto your most recent post. I do normally take into consideration previous PPs, i dont get latched onto one specific effort as an end all, but with these two horses, if you believe Beyers matter at all, the longer priced of the two we are discussing had better lifetime figures on dirt.I believe the "change in management" and the fact that those good figures all occurred previous to that will negate those better figures for most people (including me) when the new trainer is at 2% winners...

Just make a list...positives attract money, negatives send it elsewhere. I can't make a reasonable case that they should have similar odds, I just can't. With a better trainer, I could make a case for betting SSM, for at 1 for 50, you're a bit foolish to back anything from this barn...

[cashmachine]

Guys I think you put too much emphasise on just ONE datapoint. It is generally agreeable that there is significant random component in every race. Maybe horse did not get enough sleep the night before the race, or maybe stable boy kicked her and she was in a bad mood, or maybe she had a headache... There are many possible reasons why horse did not perform well in this particular race, and they are not observable in the sense that horse bettors do not have access to this information and couldn't possibly know this happen in advance. So we just group all these reasons into one big category and call it "random event". We cannot do much about it, but still it is possible to make a profit even in the presence of such random or, put it another way, "inexplicable" results. It is possible to make profit if we just think in the terms of averages, like "horses with higher class tend to win more" etc. You cannot beat a race, but you can beat the game. Demanding explanations for results of every and each race is just unreasonable, it is just like assuming that there is a method to predict outcome of a race with 100% accuracy, and we all know this is not achievable.

[Stillriledup]

Guys I think you put too much emphasise on just ONE datapoint. It is generally agreeable that there is significant random component in every race. Maybe horse did not get enough sleep the night before the race, or maybe stable boy kicked her and she was in a bad mood, or maybe she had a headache... There are many possible reasons why horse did not perform well in this particular race, and they are not observable in the sense that horse bettors do not have access to this information and couldn't possibly know this happen in advance. So we just group all these reasons into one big category and call it "random event". We cannot do much about it, but still it is possible to make a profit even in the presence of such random or, put it another way, "inexplicable" results. It is possible to make profit if we just think in the terms of averages, like "horses with higher class tend to win more" etc. You cannot beat a race, but you can beat the game. Demanding explanations for results of every and each race is just unreasonable, it is just like assuming that there is a method to predict outcome of a race with 100% accuracy, and we all know this is not achievable.


Good post. I think you're right, this regression for this particular horse was not there on paper or video....its just the 1 for 50 barn, buncha clowns, are more likely to have their own horse regress than for it to stay the same or move forward.

[notoutofpounds]

"The Mystery of the 5 % Trainer & The 3 % Jockey "


What a powerful team. Hard to see them ever losing.

[dnlgfnk]

What did they know?

These aren't horses that I bet or handicapped, but assuming that everything in this thread is legit and can be taken at face-value (and not exaggerations to build a case),
-then take a 2nd look at the wagering from today.

(last time 9/22) = SHES SECRETLY MINE was 3.27 x odds of BEER GOGGLES.
(5.90-1(5th choice) / 1.80-1(favorite) = 3.27).

(Today) =SHES SECRETLY MINE was 2.72 x odds of BEER GOGGLES. (10.60-1(4th choice) / 3.90-1(2nd choice) = 2.72).

so today you actually had a lower odds ratio, and they were only 2 betting ranks apart as opposed to 3 ranks apart last time.

I'd want to see individual win-pool info for the last two races, but "They" sure didn't bet as dramatically different as you seem to think.

The primary difference in the pools of the last 2 races is that today's race featured #4 To Believe, an obvious favorite that crushed the field to pay $3.40.

Yes. Lots of fuss about a roughly 8% swing in public support for She's Secretly, relative to Beer in today's race...the diff between 9-5 and 6-1 (actually 5.90) is greater than the diff between 7-2 and 10-1.

[Robert Fischer]

Yes. Lots of fuss about a roughly 8% swing in public support for She's Secretly, relative to Beer in today's race...the diff between 9-5 and 6-1 (actually 5.90) is greater than the diff between 7-2 and 10-1.

optical illusion ;)

[classhandicapper]

The low percentage connections aren't a factor because the horse had those same connections last time when she was noses apart, there was no change in connections. I would agree with you if this was first time 1 for 50 trainer, but the horse raced respectable last time with those very connections.


That's where you are misunderstanding. I misunderstood this for the better part of 2 decades. So do a lot of other very experienced handicappers.

The connections impact the probability of a horse duplicating his recent form or improving it even when there was no trainer change. More competent trainers do a better job of keeping a horse sound and developing it. With lower level trainers you get greater inconsistency and more clunkers. All else being equal, a horse is more likely to run it's "A" race or better for a very competent trainer than for a lesser trainer. The public builds this into the odds.

Trainer changes matter more, but competent training matters too.

[biggestal99]

I :jump: like the guy who said "its only one data point".

There ae many variables in horse racing. Focusing in on only one and betting off that is a sure way to the poor house.

Allan

[Robert Fischer]

Even though I brought up something that seems to contradict the thread starter, I did enjoy the thread, and I do think that it was an interesting idea (similar performance in last, possible value today).

[GameTheory]

That's where you are misunderstanding. I misunderstood this for the better part of 2 decades. So do a lot of other very experienced handicappers.

The connections impact the probability of a horse duplicating his recent form or improving it even when there was no trainer change. More competent trainers do a better job of keeping a horse sound and developing it. With lower level trainers you get greater inconsistency and more clunkers. All else being equal, a horse is more likely to run it's "A" race or better for a very competent trainer than for a lesser trainer. The public builds this into the odds.

Trainer changes matter more, but competent training matters too.I would say competent training is the only thing that matters. A change is a change from more or less competent (which isn't a constant -- trainers have their specialities too so certain types of horses are more suitable for any particular trainer). So that's what makes a change significant, and certainly sometimes quick action can be expected with a training change (especially if there is an owner change to go with it as with a claim).

But honestly I admit I find the idea that someone would think "same connections as last time, therefore they don't matter" to be a baffling thought. If a batter in baseball with a .187 average comes to the plate and he happened to get a hit last at bat, do you now assume he's a .400 hitter?

[DJofSD]

In a large part, this thread is a good example of Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

[classhandicapper]

But honestly I admit I find the idea that someone would think "same connections as last time, therefore they don't matter" to be a baffling thought. If a batter in baseball with a .187 average comes to the plate and he happened to get a hit last at bat, do you now assume he's a .400 hitter?

The perspective MANY people have is that it's the stock a trainer has and how he/she spots them that matters. Trainers may have strengths and weaknesses, but they think that kind of thing generally gets built into the performances of the horses on the track. So they kind of ignore the trainer unless there a change or he's making a major "move" with the horse (trainer pattern). They consider the fluctuations in form to generally be related to the HORSE, not the trainer.

That was my thought process for a very long time.

Then I woke up and started realizing that the consistency and development of the horse was also very related to who was training it. You get more consistent performance and development from the best trainers. That's why they often take a lot of extra money relative to the horse's PPs but their ROI remains in line with the take (or better).

[GameTheory]

The perspective MANY people have is that it's the stock a trainer has and how he/she spots them that matters. Trainers may have strengths and weaknesses, but they think that kind of thing generally gets built into the performances of the horses on the track. So they kind of ignore the trainer unless there a change or he's making a major "move" with the horse (trainer pattern). They consider the fluctuations in form to generally be related to the HORSE, not the trainer. Well, I guess that's one pitfall I've avoided in my handicapping development as that makes not a bit of sense to me. This is the person responsible for the feeding, shoeing, and overall well-being of the horse day-to-day. There are plenty of trainers that aren't even competent (which may just mean lack of interest) at the bare minimum of basic care of the animal before any "training" or "skilled placement" comes into play...

[classhandicapper]

Well, I guess that's one pitfall I've avoided in my handicapping development as that makes not a bit of sense to me. This is the person responsible for the feeding, shoeing, and overall well-being of the horse day-to-day. There are plenty of trainers that aren't even competent (which may just mean lack of interest) at the bare minimum of basic care of the animal before any "training" or "skilled placement" comes into play...

You'd be surprised how often I hear excellent handicappers say "so and so" is very overbet because he's trained by "X". But if you look at the trainer's horses and stats they all get bet like that and the ROI remains in line with expectations. So they deserve the extra action.

The other one comes up is the "hot or cold trainer". That one is even more controversial because clearly streaks are part of random results. So many people will ignore that totally.

But there are periods where a certain trainer will seemingly get hot that all his/her horses seem to be firing their "A" race and many of them are running lifetime tops. A lot of wins can be random, but horses jumping out of their skin to new tops sounds like a new vet, new treatment, or other change. Similarly, the bad streaks where horses are all misfiring can sometimes be a minor bug circulating in the barn and a lot of the horses are either not feeling well or missed a few days of training. Great game.

[ultracapper]

The race is run on the track. Trust your eyes. My handicapping has improved 1000% since I began handicapping by that maxim. It is my mantra.

Haven't read the thread, so maybe I'm missing the point, but I always defer to what I've seen.

[Stillriledup]

That's where you are misunderstanding. I misunderstood this for the better part of 2 decades. So do a lot of other very experienced handicappers.

The connections impact the probability of a horse duplicating his recent form or improving it even when there was no trainer change. More competent trainers do a better job of keeping a horse sound and developing it. With lower level trainers you get greater inconsistency and more clunkers. All else being equal, a horse is more likely to run it's "A" race or better for a very competent trainer than for a lesser trainer. The public builds this into the odds.

Trainer changes matter more, but competent training matters too.

I think the "worse trainer vs better trainer" is a bit misleading in the sense that most of the horses that the "1 for 50" trainer trains are low level slowpokes...so, its much more likely to have those horses not duplicate performances than a grade 1 runner. So, a lot of it has to do with the stock.

Also, the question i've been asking is even if we know the lesser trainer is more likely to underachieve, how can we know that THIS horse and THIS trainer on THIS day was the day for the regression? Sure, in the long run, over a large sample, we will see that the top trainers in the game outperform the "idiots" but how can you know in any one individual race if the bad trainer is going to have a regression when nothing else (paper and video) points to it? Long runs and large samples sure, in one individual case? Hard to say.

[jk3521]

I think the "worse trainer vs better trainer" is a bit misleading in the sense that most of the horses that the "1 for 50" trainer trains are low level slowpokes...so, its much more likely to have those horses not duplicate performances than a grade 1 runner. So, a lot of it has to do with the stock.

Also, the question i've been asking is even if we know the lesser trainer is more likely to underachieve, how can we know that THIS horse and THIS trainer on THIS day was the day for the regression? Sure, in the long run, over a large sample, we will see that the top trainers in the game outperform the "idiots" but how can you know in any one individual race if the bad trainer is going to have a regression when nothing else (paper and video) points to it? Long runs and large samples sure, in one individual case? Hard to say.
That's why we call it G-A-M-B-L-I-N-G !!

[GameTheory]

I think the "worse trainer vs better trainer" is a bit misleading in the sense that most of the horses that the "1 for 50" trainer trains are low level slowpokes...so, its much more likely to have those horses not duplicate performances than a grade 1 runner. So, a lot of it has to do with the stock.

Also, the question i've been asking is even if we know the lesser trainer is more likely to underachieve, how can we know that THIS horse and THIS trainer on THIS day was the day for the regression? Sure, in the long run, over a large sample, we will see that the top trainers in the game outperform the "idiots" but how can you know in any one individual race if the bad trainer is going to have a regression when nothing else (paper and video) points to it? Long runs and large samples sure, in one individual case? Hard to say.It is pretty straightforward: a 2% trainer only wins 2% of the time! In other words, stay away from that barn, they never win. Only if every other horse in the race also has a 2% trainer should they be taken at all seriously as threats to win. Now, if you're looking to fill out your superfectas that is a whole other ballgame, and of course many low level trainers are avoiding wins on purpose, but that's another discussion...

[Robert Fischer]

The other one comes up is the "hot or cold trainer". That one is even more controversial because clearly streaks are part of random results. So many people will ignore that totally.


I've been a guy who believes in streaks.

It's an unpopular view among the more sophisticated crowd. (and vice versa!)

Part of it is my own overconfidence that I can notice actual streaks before they've produced enough data to be statistically significant. (and I'm also crazy enough to think that actual hot and cold streaks can also exist within the limits of statistically probably streaks, and thus wouldn't be flagged as 'improbable' events) And part of the reason I believe that I can do it is that I'm noticing more than just the meta data. It could be a fault or a strength, depending on who you ask.

Anyway, my theory - and for anyone who is playing along or thinks they are noticing hot or cold streaks - is that you generally don't get hurt for passing on a perceived cold streak. Unless you are some high volume whale (and even then), passing a few extra races is pretty safe. Passing a cold streak is about as far as I'm willing to defend acting on statistically insignificant "streaks".

[classhandicapper]

I think the "worse trainer vs better trainer" is a bit misleading in the sense that most of the horses that the "1 for 50" trainer trains are low level slowpokes...so, its much more likely to have those horses not duplicate performances than a grade 1 runner. So, a lot of it has to do with the stock.

Also, the question i've been asking is even if we know the lesser trainer is more likely to underachieve, how can we know that THIS horse and THIS trainer on THIS day was the day for the regression? Sure, in the long run, over a large sample, we will see that the top trainers in the game outperform the "idiots" but how can you know in any one individual race if the bad trainer is going to have a regression when nothing else (paper and video) points to it? Long runs and large samples sure, in one individual case? Hard to say.


If you have access to DRF Formulator, try an experiment.

Take a look at the ROI of every very high and very low percentage trainer.

If you are willing to concede that the public bets the high percentage trainers much stronger than their PPs suggest and vice versa, then those high percentage trainers should have low ROIs and vice versa. But that's not what happens. That means those high percentage trainers ARE outperforming the PPs of their horses and vice versa.

[classhandicapper]

I've been a guy who believes in streaks.

It's an unpopular view among the more sophisticated crowd. (and vice versa!)

Part of it is my own overconfidence that I can notice actual streaks before they've produced enough data to be statistically significant. (and I'm also crazy enough to think that actual hot and cold streaks can also exist within the limits of statistically probably streaks, and thus wouldn't be flagged as 'improbable' events) And part of the reason I believe that I can do it is that I'm noticing more than just the meta data. It could be a fault or a strength, depending on who you ask.

Anyway, my theory - and for anyone who is playing along or thinks they are noticing hot or cold streaks - is that you generally don't get hurt for passing on a perceived cold streak. Unless you are some high volume whale (and even then), passing a few extra races is pretty safe. Passing a cold streak is about as far as I'm willing to defend acting on statistically insignificant "streaks".

I agree with you entirely.

If there were no logical explanations for these things, I would dismiss them.

But a change in vets can do a lot to change the form of horses. We don't have access to that info, but if we did I'd be wiling to bet there's a relationship. The "move up guys" that are suspected of foul play could easily be using something and then not intermittently.

Same with horses getting sick.

I recall a meet where a certain trainer was sending out 1 short priced horse after another in major stakes and they were all running poorly. So I started betting against him. Not long after that there was article about how a bug went around in his barn.

[Robert Fischer]

I agree with you entirely.

If there were no logical explanations for these things, I would dismiss them.

But a change in vets can do a lot to change the form of horses. We don't have access to that info, but if we did I'd be wiling to bet there's a relationship. The "move up guys" that are suspected of foul play could easily be using something and then not intermittently.

Same with horses getting sick.

I recall a meet where a certain trainer was sending out 1 short priced horse after another in major stakes and they were all running poorly. So I started betting against him. Not long after that there was article about how a bug went around in his barn.

I'm less comfortable betting on or against a streak than I am simply passing the race.
However, if you guess right, there are some some big value margins to be had. :ThmbUp:

[ReplayRandall]

I've been a guy who believes in streaks.

It's an unpopular view among the more sophisticated crowd. (and vice versa!)

Part of it is my own overconfidence that I can notice actual streaks before they've produced enough data to be statistically significant. (and I'm also crazy enough to think that actual hot and cold streaks can also exist within the limits of statistically probably streaks, and thus wouldn't be flagged as 'improbable' events) And part of the reason I believe that I can do it is that I'm noticing more than just the meta data. It could be a fault or a strength, depending on who you ask.

Anyway, my theory - and for anyone who is playing along or thinks they are noticing hot or cold streaks - is that you generally don't get hurt for passing on a perceived cold streak. Unless you are some high volume whale (and even then), passing a few extra races is pretty safe. Passing a cold streak is about as far as I'm willing to defend acting on statistically insignificant "streaks".

RF, give a little detail as to when you believe a cold/hot streak has begun before it appears obvious to everyone.......

[Robert Fischer]

RF, give a little detail as to when you believe a cold/hot streak has begun before it appears obvious to everyone.......
With trainers you really have to be thinking along and handicapping and knowing when you expect a horse to fire. The same insights that make you feel a horse is worth slightly more than his price (thus giving you reason to bet the horse) are the same type of insights that you are going to use to say "hey this horse performed above/below my expectations".

Failing that, you can use public odds, and that should be accurate overall, but you have less chance to see something unique.

I'll give you an example but this is something I just looked up, not a case where I've been knee deep in the game and giving you a great insight:

Wednesday Woodbine R6 #8 Hearing Whispers. (2-1ml) http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=WO&race=6&param1=632&param2=4740&param3=1051308
Robert Tiller is the trainer. Good trainer. 18%Winner 48%ITM
A quick look (http://form.horseracing.betfair.com/trainer?trainerId=2.00007110) at his last 10 races on paper (since I don't have a hands on insight for you at the moment), shows he's had a fairly rough time. He hasn't had a ton of heavy favorites, but he has been a little 'cold'. If limited to paper you look at how many favorites he ran, the odds, the finish...

For the sake of this reply, let's pretend I think he's cold.

So I look at that, and I see she's 2-1 in a 9 horse field. It's not going to kill me to pass that race.

[ReplayRandall]

Okay, that's looking at the "favorite" side of the coin. On the flip side, what would you do when said trainer has a horse who is 10-1?

[Stillriledup]

8th race at Parx today. Horse: Lemon Strudel. Trainer heading into the race 51-1 4 6 a very similar record to the trainer from yesterday. This horse was also coming of what looks like, at least to Beyer, a new top and certainly one of the best if not THE best PP line this horse has produced in her 15 (now 16) race Career.

So, what happens? She ends up winning and running her usual race. No bounce, no move forward, she stayed the same.

What was the difference between the horse in the first race yesterday and this horse, different "bad" trainers with similarly bad records and one regressed badly and the other one did not.

[GameTheory]

8th race at Parx today. Horse: Lemon Strudel. Trainer heading into the race 51-1 4 6 a very similar record to the trainer from yesterday. This horse was also coming of what looks like, at least to Beyer, a new top and certainly one of the best if not THE best PP line this horse has produced in her 15 (now 16) race Career.

So, what happens? She ends up winning and running her usual race. No bounce, no move forward, she stayed the same.

What was the difference between the horse in the first race yesterday and this horse, different "bad" trainers with similarly bad records and one regressed badly and the other one did not.
Well...actually decent trainer on turf -- 14% (recently). And with a horse that obviously prefers turf -- the two turf races showing are much higher figure-wise than the rest. Also a much classier race. So different situation all-around...

[Robert Fischer]

Okay, that's looking at the "favorite" side of the coin. On the flip side, what would you do when said trainer has a horse who is 10-1?

I wouldn't give the 'streak' much thought if she was 10-1. Just play as usual.

And I wouldn't bet on a trainer who I thought may be 'Hot' 10-1 or otherwise (at least not because of that opinion).

Even if you think there is something to the idea that streaks exist, and are possible to see once in a while, it's pretty risky to bet On or Against them. While passing is generally safe.

If for that Woodbine race, you liked another couple horses, and wanted to try to bet against the Robert Tiller Favorite, you may use the 'streak' thing as an extra factor among other negatives (maybe he's 'cold', she's got post 8, she hasn't really been a speed horse in spite of decent pace numbers could get hung wide..., etc..). - It's not super expensive to bet against a favorite, but it still costs something.

Passing a race is free for the most part. It's like baseball, you swing at bad pitches and you will rack up the strikeouts, and there's no "called-strikes" in horse racing (other than obsessing over a 10-1 you "should've" bet or a favorite you "should've" played against).

[GameTheory]

Actually I was reading that wrong, the 14% is just 1 out of 7 -- that's her one recent win...

[Stillriledup]

Well...actually decent trainer on turf -- 14% (recently). And with a horse that obviously prefers turf -- the two turf races showing are much higher figure-wise than the rest. Also a much classier race. So different situation all-around...

Hey, no editing. :D

In post 44 you were critical about the 1 for 50 barn....but now, you're backfitting the result in a 1 for 51 barn?

So, in my example its not ok to bet a "bad trainer" and i should know better, but a similar circumstance the following day the "bad trainer" is an ok bet?

If Lemon STrudel had run up the track and i made a post "i cant believe lemon strudel flopped, she looked so good on paper" you would have said to me "bad trainer, 1 for 51, what do you expect"

Can't have it both ways.

[GameTheory]

Hey, no editing. :D

In post 44 you were critical about the 1 for 50 barn....but now, you're backfitting the result in a 1 for 51 barn?

So, in my example its not ok to bet a "bad trainer" and i should know better, but a similar circumstance the following day the "bad trainer" is an ok bet?

If Lemon STrudel had run up the track and i made a post "i cant believe lemon strudel flopped, she looked so good on paper" you would have said to me "bad trainer, 1 for 51, what do you expect"

Can't have it both ways.I was reading it wrong as I said in the above post (I'm looking these races up when you mention them on Formulator which I rarely look at.) -- I thought that turf stat was more substantial. If you have a bad overall trainer but has a decent turf sample with a much higher percentage I'd have no problem with that, but at 1 out 7 (and looking back farther 1 out of something much higher) the trainer just sucks, yeah.

[Stillriledup]

I was reading it wrong as I said in the above post (I'm looking these races up when you mention them on Formulator which I rarely look at.) -- I thought that turf stat was more substantial. If you have a bad overall trainer but has a decent turf sample with a much higher percentage I'd have no problem with that, but at 1 out 7 (and looking back farther 1 out of something much higher) the trainer just sucks, yeah.

Any bad trainer can be a "great trainer" in any specific Subset....but, at the end of the day, if they're a bad trainer, they're a bad trainer.

The trainer from yesterday was 4 for 61 on the year, including 3 for 10 at tracks other than Parx. Today's trainer was only 1 for 52 on the year at all tracks combined.

So, if you want to say today's trainer is 1 for 7 on Turf and that makes her "competent" i can say that yesterday's "bad trainer" was 3 for 10 at non-Parx tracks...which also can go to prove that she's not actually a bad trainer in real life, just at Parx in a small-ish sample.

[GameTheory]

Any bad trainer can be a "great trainer" in any specific Subset....but, at the end of the day, if they're a bad trainer, they're a bad trainer.Depends on the size of the subset and how specific it is. To reverse it, almost all actually great trainers have subsets where they are terrible...and not just from statistics, they really are terrible. (Mostly because they don't care about that subset.)

So, if you want to say today's trainer is 1 for 7 on Turf and that makes her "competent" I do NOT want to say that...I corrected myself when I realized it was only 1 out of 7... This trainer sucks, period.

[098poi]

SRU I think the problem you are having here is that the foundation of your argument is that they were equal contenders coming in to that race. In looking at the last race at a glance I would much prefer Beer Goggles who ran 2 3 2 2 a beautiful running line. SSM's was 4 4 4 3. Just because they both finished together does not make them equal. I admit I would have given points to the lighter raced horse. It is interesting that the race of 9/21/13 was SSM's best, finishing third and (I use HSH) with a Cramer (speed rating) of 65 which is the highest of either horse, was followed by a race 9 months later! Why the layoff? That to me is a bad sign and the notion of looking for back class from a maiden claimer is a bit of a reach. HSH has SSM's last 3 speed ratings as 34,19,23 starting with the most recent and BG's as 34,39,33 with most of the previous ones in the 50's. I realize that I am saying this after the fact but you appear much too sharp to say oh they finished together in the last so they are equal. They both lost anyway but I don't think the crowd had a lot of inside info that you didn't have. BG's 7-2 was probably more of an overlay than SSM's 10-1.

[Stillriledup]

SRU I think the problem you are having here is that the foundation of your argument is that they were equal contenders coming in to that race. In looking at the last race at a glance I would much prefer Beer Goggles who ran 2 3 2 2 a beautiful running line. SSM's was 4 4 4 3. Just because they both finished together does not make them equal. I admit I would have given points to the lighter raced horse. It is interesting that the race of 9/21/13 was SSM's best, finishing third and (I use HSH) with a Cramer (speed rating) of 65 which is the highest of either horse, was followed by a race 9 months later! Why the layoff? That to me is a bad sign and the notion of looking for back class from a maiden claimer is a bit of a reach. HSH has SSM's last 3 speed ratings as 34,19,23 starting with the most recent and BG's as 34,39,33 with most of the previous ones in the 50's. I realize that I am saying this after the fact but you appear much too sharp to say oh they finished together in the last so they are equal. They both lost anyway but I don't think the crowd had a lot of inside info that you didn't have. BG's 7-2 was probably more of an overlay than SSM's 10-1.

There's no proof they're equal and there's no proof that either one is better. Thanks for thinking i'm sharp, that makes one of us :D .

My thinking was that if anything, SSM had more upside and that one race showed she was at least equals to BG. Now, i dont know what happened yesterday, but the general post was about Paper and Video and what was on paper or tape that indicated SSM and BG can be noses apart one race and 23 lengths apart the next.

[098poi]

Well probably the wisest thing is to not bet either of those in the future even if they can't lose because they probably will.

[senortout]

As a two year old, the filly(SSW) was being trained by a competent person, although I would hesitate to say that is no longer the case, not being familiar with this new trainer. Also, the horse began 2014 racing rather late(June) and ownership has changed as well. Horse was previously owned by a family member of the old trainer. Connections are important. Late 2014 start also a red flag. Races leading up to Oct 5th even suggest neither horse is worth more than 10,000. They may indeed be more equal that the last race suggests, however. The day they finished very close to one another was obviously a harder try for SSM as her previous race suggested she would be closer to the pace and this, in fact did occur. Beer Goggles races on a more regular basis, which indicates a bit of soundness.

[Tom]

Well...actually decent trainer on turf -- 14% (recently). And with a horse that obviously prefers turf -- the two turf races showing are much higher figure-wise than the rest. Also a much classier race. So different situation all-around...

Summed up - handicapping.

[cj]

Let's sum this up another way...

Wise Dan was .9 to 1, Optimizer 14.5 to 1. They finished a nose apart last time.

[Stillriledup]

Let's sum this up another way...

Wise Dan was .9 to 1, Optimizer 14.5 to 1. They finished a nose apart last time.

This was addressed at length in this thread, the two situations are different in that there's a lot of proof on video and paper that Wise Dan is the far superior horse to O and that nose finish was obviously a fluke. The situation in the OP suggested there was no proof who was the better horse and if anything, the longer priced runner was better (by a lot) according to some of the Beyers she had recorded (while BG's best dirt Beyer was low 30s)

[MJC922]

As a two year old, the filly(SSW) was being trained by a competent person, although I would hesitate to say that is no longer the case, not being familiar with this new trainer. Also, the horse began 2014 racing rather late(June) and ownership has changed as well. Horse was previously owned by a family member of the old trainer. Connections are important. Late 2014 start also a red flag. Races leading up to Oct 5th even suggest neither horse is worth more than 10,000. They may indeed be more equal that the last race suggests, however. The day they finished very close to one another was obviously a harder try for SSM as her previous race suggested she would be closer to the pace and this, in fact did occur. Beer Goggles races on a more regular basis, which indicates a bit of soundness.

I agree with you on this. On my numbers She's Secretly Mine had very good efforts as a 2-yo far and away better than anyone in this race had ever run period. 39 weeks later comes back, and the time off I don't have a huge problem with. She's 1-2 odds and probably supposed to win there but throws a clunker gets claimed. The claim is significant as the trainer seems to have a poor record and the first start for this trainer is an even worse effort. At this point a lot of red flags, likely not the same horse, what I like to call a horse 'on the slide'. After that they try blinkers light improvement, now looking at Sept 22nd she's finally starting to climb out of the abyss, managed to get back close to what was then the clunker on Jun21st. Like many low pct trainers there is no sense of 'spacing' here, the 3rd place finish is seen as oh she's getting sharp now and I gotta get her right back into a race -- totally wrong move. 13 days later. shortest rest of her career and probably half-cripple, there's no surprise this horse backs out of it completely. I'm not being critical of anyone playing the horse on price, that's fine, it's not necessarily a bad bet, just a bad result. Beer Goggles totally different line on this horse, much more steady performer, essentially ran the same number in her last three races since the 19 week layoff 4-back. You have the higher percentage trainer here and some slightly better numbers last year for her to get back to, top early pace fig (barely) and from the outside post coming out of the chute. You have a lot of really good things going on here to set the table for an effort but a little seconditis. I wouldn't play the race personally as the 4 & 5 are still too lightly raced for me to make a good call on.

[Stillriledup]

I agree with you on this. On my numbers She's Secretly Mine had very good efforts as a 2-yo far and away better than anyone in this race had ever run period. 39 weeks later comes back, and the time off I don't have a huge problem with. She's 1-2 odds and probably supposed to win there but throws a clunker gets claimed. The claim is significant as the trainer seems to have a poor record and the first start for this trainer is an even worse effort. At this point a lot of red flags, likely not the same horse, what I like to call a horse 'on the slide'. After that they try blinkers light improvement, now looking at Sept 22nd she's finally starting to climb out of the abyss, managed to get back close to what was then the clunker on Jun21st. Like many low pct trainers there is no sense of 'spacing' here, the 3rd place finish is seen as oh she's getting sharp now and I gotta get her right back into a race -- totally wrong move. 13 days later. shortest rest of her career and probably half-cripple, there's no surprise this horse backs out of it completely. I'm not being critical of anyone playing the horse on price, that's fine, it's not necessarily a bad bet, just a bad result. Beer Goggles totally different line on this horse, much more steady performer, essentially ran the same number in her last three races since the 19 week layoff 4-back. You have the higher percentage trainer here and some slightly better numbers last year for her to get back to, top early pace fig (barely) and from the outside post coming out of the chute. You have a lot of really good things going on here to set the table for an effort but a little seconditis. I wouldn't play the race personally as the 4 & 5 are still too lightly raced for me to make a good call on.

Good writeup.

My original question was a little different than coming up with logic after the fact as to why this horse "flopped".

My original point was that SSM and BG were in the same race, and were noses apart. So, off just that one line, they were virtually equal. Now, obviously, we don't always just look at one race, we look at the horse's "Career" and how it has run in the past. When i looked at the video and the PPs, i didnt see anything that indicated to me that these were anything but equals. While long run statistics say poor trainers are poor trainers for a reason, SSM ran noses apart with BG while she was in the barn of the poor trainer...so, you can make the case that she's a more talented filly being able to be "on the wire" with BG while having a much worse trainer.

While it looks "Easy" after the fact and we can backfit what actually happened to SSM, nothing indicated before hand that BG was a "virtual certainty" to finish ahead of SSM in this particular horse race.

[Maximillion]

The race following the layoff (the one with the 90k purse) for SSM would strongly lead me to believe that,to quote an 80s movie ,"you are a bad pony,and im not gonna bet on you".

[ReplayRandall]

To quote an 80s movie ,"you are a bad pony,and im not gonna bet on you".


The line was used in the 1987 film "House of Games", starring Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna....

[MJC922]

Good writeup.

My original question was a little different than coming up with logic after the fact as to why this horse "flopped".

My original point was that SSM and BG were in the same race, and were noses apart. So, off just that one line, they were virtually equal. Now, obviously, we don't always just look at one race, we look at the horse's "Career" and how it has run in the past. When i looked at the video and the PPs, i didnt see anything that indicated to me that these were anything but equals. While long run statistics say poor trainers are poor trainers for a reason, SSM ran noses apart with BG while she was in the barn of the poor trainer...so, you can make the case that she's a more talented filly being able to be "on the wire" with BG while having a much worse trainer.

While it looks "Easy" after the fact and we can backfit what actually happened to SSM, nothing indicated before hand that BG was a "virtual certainty" to finish ahead of SSM in this particular horse race.

Thanks. I think first of all, just looking at the paper I'd go with BG beating SSM in this race in 2 out of 3 minimum. Even if we take away the big 2yo efforts which suggest a physical problem now and the bad trainer, the other horse has top early pace, outside post coming out of the chute and has run a better number in 3 consecutive races. If we just look at trips from the prior race only which is I think part of your point, you would have to give the edge to BG at least the way I watch races. SSM sat a pocket trip inside on both turns and never looked the better of the two at any point that I could see, on just trips this is probably 60 / 40 or 55 / 45 edge. On the board BG went off 3.9-1 and SSM 10-1, so ballpark 20% of the pool for one and 10% for the other, ultimately the crowd was seeing 2 out of 3 in head to head. Anyway, that's my take FWIW. :)

[Stillriledup]

Thanks. I think first of all, just looking at the paper I'd go with BG beating SSM in this race in 2 out of 3 minimum. Even if we take away the big 2yo efforts which suggest a physical problem now and the bad trainer, the other horse has top early pace, outside post coming out of the chute and has run a better number in 3 consecutive races. If we just look at trips from the prior race only which is I think part of your point, you would have to give the edge to BG at least the way I watch races. SSM sat a pocket trip inside on both turns and never looked the better of the two at any point that I could see, on just trips this is probably 60 / 40 or 55 / 45 edge. On the board BG went off 3.9-1 and SSM 10-1, so ballpark 20% of the pool for one and 10% for the other, ultimately the crowd was seeing 2 out of 3 in head to head. Anyway, that's my take FWIW. :)

Do you think the Beyer figs were wrong? BG has only really cracked low 30s where SSM has "back figs" that were in the 40s.....which means SSM's best lifetime effort is better than BGs best lifetime effort (according to Beyer). So, if you look at the "noses apart" race and then add into the mix that SSM is "inherently" a better animal, that leaves you scratching your head as to why one horse is 10-1 and the other 7-2.

[A. Pineda]

I do NOT want to say that...I corrected myself when I realized it was only 1 out of 7... This trainer sucks, period.

While this trainer may or may not suck (I haven't seen his record) you may be missing some value plays if you ignore a runner trained by a 1/7 trainer in a particular subset.

Should he win his next race he is suddenly a 25% winner in that category, and consequently draws more scrutiny and perhaps more dollars. I prefer to be one of the first players on the bandwagon, although the trip is not always pleasant.

[MJC922]

Do you think the Beyer figs were wrong? BG has only really cracked low 30s where SSM has "back figs" that were in the 40s.....which means SSM's best lifetime effort is better than BGs best lifetime effort (according to Beyer). So, if you look at the "noses apart" race and then add into the mix that SSM is "inherently" a better animal, that leaves you scratching your head as to why one horse is 10-1 and the other 7-2.

Haven't seen the Beyer figs for the race, however based upon what you're saying they're somewhat following what mine look like for SSM. FWIW I tried to post my numbers so people could at least follow along but the upload limit was only 30k or something. The thing with Beyer is it's a final time number so the 2yo races on the surface of it aren't so far away from the 3yo races that it's going to throw up a big red flag unless you manually adjust them into the 3yo 'context'. Not being critical of his numbers, they measure time not class, so in these types of situations mine are easier lines to read. Inherently better animal you say, well I have no real problems with that, six lifetime starts, four in the money, I mean we can't write the horse off entirely yet. Again I'm also fine with anyone betting the horse at 10-1, she's climbing back out of the abyss and had the back numbers to win it, there are much worse bets but it's not a big overlay if it's an overlay at all. Show me ten horses just like this and sure one might win so probably not getting hurt long term. 10-1 always has warts on it. My whole negative outlook about the horse is mostly because the drop-off was so steep and coincided hitting rock bottom with the low percentage trainer. If the trip last time was big I could be a lot more forgiving too, but I didn't see a whole lot there and she got out quite a bit so if you're looking for a problem there's some evidence in the running... the carriage of her head on the backstretch in the head-on Sep22nd I thought showed some signs.

[Stillriledup]

Haven't seen the Beyer figs for the race, however based upon what you're saying they're somewhat following what mine look like for SSM. FWIW I tried to post my numbers so people could at least follow along but the upload limit was only 30k or something. The thing with Beyer is it's a final time number so the 2yo races on the surface of it aren't so far away from the 3yo races that it's going to throw up a big red flag unless you manually adjust them into the 3yo 'context'. Not being critical of his numbers, they measure time not class, so in these types of situations mine are easier lines to read. Inherently better animal you say, well I have no real problems with that, six lifetime starts, four in the money, I mean we can't write the horse off entirely yet. Again I'm also fine with anyone betting the horse at 10-1, she's climbing back out of the abyss and had the back numbers to win it, there are much worse bets but it's not a big overlay if it's an overlay at all. Show me ten horses just like this and sure one might win so probably not getting hurt long term. 10-1 always has warts on it. My whole negative outlook about the horse is mostly because the drop-off was so steep and coincided hitting rock bottom with the low percentage trainer. If the trip last time was big I could be a lot more forgiving too, but I didn't see a whole lot there and she got out quite a bit so if you're looking for a problem there's some evidence in the running... the carriage of her head on the backstretch in the head-on Sep22nd I thought showed some signs.

Good post, very good analysis. Thanks.

[MJC922]

Sure thing I appreciate that, thank you for starting the thread

[Stillriledup]

Btw, this Goggles Beer horse ran the other day and was, pretty much, the worst horse who ever lived. She was badly outrun by horses who were running Beyer figs in the ZERO range. Yep, zero, and Beer got beat by these horses handily and effortlessly.

[cj]

Btw, this Goggles Beer horse ran the other day and was, pretty much, the worst horse who ever lived. She was badly outrun by horses who were running Beyer figs in the ZERO range. Yep, zero, and Beer got beat by these horses handily and effortlessly.

You mean by the 1 to 5 shot? I love your summaries that in no way reflect reality. The horse finished fourth beaten 2 lengths, a neck out of third.

[DJofSD]

Are you still grousing about a horse that hasn't even won a race yet?

If it was the Green Monkey, maybe, but not for this one.

[Stillriledup]

You mean by the 1 to 5 shot? I love your summaries that in no way reflect reality. The horse finished fourth beaten 2 lengths, a neck out of third.

She couldn't run at all, was never a threat to hit the board, never got out of her own way. The reality was that she got outrun by horses who run 0s on the Beyer scale. She was never a threat to hit the board, she looked like she had cinder blocks taped to her legs.

[jk3521]

She couldn't run at all, was never a threat to hit the board, never got out of her own way. The reality was that she got outrun by horses who run 0s on the Beyer scale. She was never a threat to hit the board, she looked like she had cinder blocks taped to her legs.

Sounds like every other donkey... err, horse running at Mountaineer. :D

[cj]

She couldn't run at all, was never a threat to hit the board, never got out of her own way. The reality was that she got outrun by horses who run 0s on the Beyer scale. She was never a threat to hit the board, she looked like she had cinder blocks taped to her legs.

Rubbish, and I don't use Beyer figures or see them.

[cj]

Beer Goggles coming up in a few at Parx, currently favored. Not a fan here, prefer the outside horse.

[cj]

Beer Googles wins at 2-1 over the 9 at 3-1.

[DJofSD]

Some one sing Beer for my Horses.

Thanks, cj.

[bets]

Good writeup.

My original question was a little different than coming up with logic after the fact as to why this horse "flopped".

My original point was that SSM and BG were in the same race, and were noses apart. So, off just that one line, they were virtually equal. Now, obviously, we don't always just look at one race, we look at the horse's "Career" and how it has run in the past. When i looked at the video and the PPs, i didnt see anything that indicated to me that these were anything but equals.

While it looks "Easy" after the fact and we can backfit what actually happened to SSM, nothing indicated before hand that BG was a "virtual certainty" to finish ahead of SSM in this particular horse race.



I know nothing about the race or horses in question, but I'm just giving you a different angle to view the race, "or any other race" when comparing their previous runs, where they finished virtually equal according to you.


BG ran below her best making SSM's performance look greater than it really was.

SSM ran as good as YOU THINK she did in her previous race.

You said, the public sent out BG 7-2 and SSM 10-1 when there was nothing in it in their previous race -- maybe they the public got it wrong the very next race, and you got it right, and that there should not have been that much difference between them, but because the horse didn't back up for whatever reason; your now proven wrong, even though you actually might be right.

[Stillriledup]

I know nothing about the race or horses in question, but I'm just giving you a different angle to view the race, "or any other race" when comparing their previous runs, where they finished virtually equal according to you.


BG ran below her best making SSM's performance look greater than it really was.

SSM ran as good as YOU THINK she did in her previous race.

You said, the public sent out BG 7-2 and SSM 10-1 when there was nothing in it in their previous race -- maybe they the public got it wrong the very next race, and you got it right, and that there should not have been that much difference between them, but because the horse didn't back up for whatever reason; your now proven wrong, even though you actually might be right.

I think the "proven wrong" stuff doesn't mean much down the line...its like making a prediction on a quarter back and saying "i predict he will throw 0 TD passes today and 0 TD passes the following week, and your prediction comes in but in week 3 and week 4 he throw so many TD passes that he breaks the record for TD passes in a 2 game span, that makes your prediction LOOK foolish even though the actual prediction came true.

I know what you're saying, i'm just going on that race and trying to figure out why the public would be so "off" on the odds..now, the results on the track backed up what the public thought, they were right to make one horse 10-1 and one horse 7-2, but i was thinking their decision to make one horse much shorter than the other didn't have anything to do with video replays or paper...it was something else and i was trying to figure out what that something else was.

Welcome to the board, hope you can stick around!

[whodoyoulike]

...Welcome to the board, hope you can stick around!

Anyone want to give an over/under?

[bets]

I think the "proven wrong" stuff doesn't mean much down the line...its like making a prediction on a quarter back and saying "i predict he will throw 0 TD passes today and 0 TD passes the following week, and your prediction comes in but in week 3 and week 4 he throw so many TD passes that he breaks the record for TD passes in a 2 game span, that makes your prediction LOOK foolish even though the actual prediction came true.



Thanks, but i don't think you understood my point.

Often one will make a call and say that A horse is better than B horse going by their previous race "in that handicappers opinion", but A horse still starts 5 times the odds vs B next start with the public final odds, and runs accordingly to the public odds ordinary, but to only see A horse show that he is actually better the next start or a few starts later.


Also the word optical illusion IMO is the most overrated used word in handicapping, and usually used by lesser experienced trip handicapper.

[Stillriledup]

Thanks, but i don't think you understood my point.

Often one will make a call and say that A horse is better than B horse going by their previous race "in that handicappers opinion", but A horse still starts 5 times the odds vs B next start with the public final odds, and runs accordingly to the public odds ordinary, but to only see A horse show that he is actually better the next start or a few starts later.


Also the word optical illusion IMO is the most overrated used word in handicapping, and usually used by lesser experienced trip handicapper.

Maybe i'm not understanding your point. Horses get better and get worse, so what happens after that particular race is just something different than what i was originally talking about.

[bets]

Anyone want to give an over/under?

story?

[bets]

Maybe i'm not understanding your point. Horses get better and get worse, so what happens after that particular race is just something different than what i was originally talking about.

Not exactly, sometimes a horse will show a glimpse of its ability, but not show it the very next start or two. It might just need the penny to drop, but is placed straight into another race when still not ready mentally.

[whodoyoulike]

story?

No offense meant.

SRU's wording of "... hope you can stick around" sounded like a betting opportunity. Since, I've made bets which way a fly will take off for example.

[Stillriledup]

Lets revisit a new scenario of "misleading" PPs and possibly videos.

Today's 3rd at Sunland.

Torrid Dream, the #2 horse. Shows up here with a 6% jock off of some really spotty efforts, she appears to be a "Stopping crud" blowing a 3 length lead on Dec 13th in a lower class than today (at least numerically) at 1-1 and stopping to a walk in the lane in a 5 F race on Dec 29th while recording a lowly 24 Beyer at 1-2 odds. She stops in the stretch in most of her races and constantly loses at short odds. 7-2 Morning line.

The 8 horse appears to be an "up and comer" recording a nice pace pressing 55 Beyer last time, she also has a win in her career at Gulfstream by 10 lengths in Oct of last year recording a 64 Beyer.

Torrid Dream gets bet down to 6-5, gets the lead, gets hounded with pace pressure, drops back and looks like like she's in trouble (since she doesn't really show in her PPs that she can "come again") but thats exactly what happens, she "shoots" up the rail and wins powering away like a good thing.

I know the tendency here will be to try and backfit your argument as to why the 2 was a "Standout" that's what seems to happen here, but beyerwise and probably on video, this horse was far from a lock...yet, she got bet like a lock and won like a lock while the 8 horse, who appeared to be the "in form stalker" backed up like she was shot after a pretty easy stalking trip.

[cj]

Lets revisit a new scenario of "misleading" PPs and possibly videos.

Today's 3rd at Sunland.

Torrid Dream, the #2 horse. Shows up here with a 6% jock off of some really spotty efforts, she appears to be a "Stopping crud" blowing a 3 length lead on Dec 13th in a lower class than today (at least numerically) at 1-1 and stopping to a walk in the lane in a 5 F race on Dec 29th while recording a lowly 24 Beyer at 1-2 odds. She stops in the stretch in most of her races and constantly loses at short odds. 7-2 Morning line.

The 8 horse appears to be an "up and comer" recording a nice pace pressing 55 Beyer last time, she also has a win in her career at Gulfstream by 10 lengths in Oct of last year recording a 64 Beyer.

Torrid Dream gets bet down to 6-5, gets the lead, gets hounded with pace pressure, drops back and looks like like she's in trouble (since she doesn't really show in her PPs that she can "come again") but thats exactly what happens, she "shoots" up the rail and wins powering away like a good thing.

I know the tendency here will be to try and backfit your argument as to why the 2 was a "Standout" that's what seems to happen here, but beyerwise and probably on video, this horse was far from a lock...yet, she got bet like a lock and won like a lock while the 8 horse, who appeared to be the "in form stalker" backed up like she was shot after a pretty easy stalking trip.

My figures had the 2 a little better horse than the 8. I wouldn't call 6/5 vs 3/2 getting bet like a lock.

[Stillriledup]

My figures had the 2 a little better horse than the 8. I wouldn't call 6/5 vs 3/2 getting bet like a lock.

The 2 was 7-2 ML off a 24 Beyer and a 6% jock riding for the first time. The 8 was coming off a much higher beyer and a PP line that looked better. Not sure why the 2 was anything under 3-1.....unless the person who made the biggest win bet on the 2 knew something that wasn't in the PPs or on video. Why would you bet the 2 at 6-5 off those PPs and that jock unless you knew she would be "good" today?

[cj]

The 2 was 7-2 ML off a 24 Beyer and a 6% jock riding for the first time. The 8 was coming off a much higher beyer and a PP line that looked better. Not sure why the 2 was anything under 3-1.....unless the person who made the biggest win bet on the 2 knew something that wasn't in the PPs or on video. Why would you bet the 2 at 6-5 off those PPs and that jock unless you knew she would be "good" today?

It was essentially a two horse race on the PPs, and they were close in odds too. Why was the 2 6-5? Do I really have to tell you that? Justin Evans.

[Stillriledup]

It was essentially a two horse race on the PPs, and they were close in odds too. Why was the 2 6-5? Do I really have to tell you that? Justin Evans.

But it was justin Evans when the horse ran a 24, it was not like this was FT Evans.....the PP line that was there was an Evans PP, i can't believe people are betting Evans even though the PPs theyre looking at are also evans.

Unless Evans has the ability to move up one of his own horses who was a crud the week before? I don't know enough about Evans (other than he's one of America's greatest trainers) to know if that's par for the course.

I think what i'm trying to say is that if the other horse was 6-5 and the Evans horse was 3-2 you wouldn't have batted an eye and said that was "abnormal" and yet, the Evans horse was far superior in the race and even though the last PP line of the outside horse was better, the Evans horse was the favorite due to something that wasn't on replay or PPs and then validated those odds.

[overthehill]

I would say that experientially , more times than now , when a horse is bet down to 6/5 or less when the horse doesnt seem to merit that off its past performances it runs better than expected. i suspect that the trainer knows that horses it acting around the better than it has in the past and figures that a best effort will win today. more often than not this confidence also expresses itself in early play. so iwould give more credence to a horse that opens unexpectedly low and then drifts up then a horse who opens high and drifts down. although generally when i look at a race and there is only one horse who could possibly be the favorite it is almost never more than 6/5.
for example in the one of the turf stakes pletcher had the best horse coming off a win and the rail. there was no way anyother horse could have been the favorite and despite the size of the field and numerous contenders it still went off at 6/5.

it is certainly hard to believe for me that horses who finish nose apart one race would finish a dozen lengths apart in their very next race. It would seem like if a barn knows the horse is going to run that bad, why not rest it.

[LottaKash]

I
it is certainly hard to believe for me that horses who finish nose apart one race would finish a dozen lengths apart in their very next race. It would seem like if a barn knows the horse is going to run that bad, why not rest it.

Perhaps it may have something to do with how the horse came out of his last race meeting with the other horse....

Or, perhaps it may have something to do with the "form-cycle" of the horse...

After all, they are not machines...What I mean is, it took me a long time to get it thru my head about the machine thing.. :)

[JJMartin]

The #2 horse was tied at #1 with the #8 horse for speed figs (the ones I use), I don't understand why you think it is so amazing that he won.

[Robert Fischer]

Today's 3rd at Sunland.

Torrid Dream, the #2 horse. She stops in the stretch in most of her races and constantly loses at short odds. 7-2 Morning line.

The 8 horse appears to be an "up and comer" recording a nice pace pressing 55 Beyer last time...
...
So in the actual betting =
the :2: is sent off @ 1.2-1
and the :8: goes off @ 1.5-1

?Here is my Question to You:
Did you predict (before the race) that the 2 would be a heavier favorite than the 8?

[classhandicapper]

But it was justin Evans when the horse ran a 24, it was not like this was FT Evans.....the PP line that was there was an Evans PP, i can't believe people are betting Evans even though the PPs theyre looking at are also evans.

Unless Evans has the ability to move up one of his own horses who was a crud the week before? I don't know enough about Evans (other than he's one of America's greatest trainers) to know if that's par for the course.



I won't comment on the horses in question because I don't know them or all the trips etc...

However, in general, the thinking is that horses (on average) have a higher probability of holding their form, firing their "A" race, or improving when the trainer is a high percentage extremely competent trainer (or juicer if you are cynical) than if he's some average or subpar guy.

I think this has been discussed before (maybe even earlier in this thread).

It took me a very long time to understand that it's not just trainer changes that matter. Even when there wasn't a tainer change, horses trained by superior trainers are WAY more likely to run well and win than those trained by duds. The public bets them that way and the ROI stats verify they are correct to do so. Despite all that extra "trainer" money, the higher percentage trainers don't have terrible ROIs relative to the track take. Many of them actually outperform the track take despite all that extra money. That's telling you it's correct to weigh them positively even when there isn't a trainer change.

[cutchemist42]

I don't play Sunland, not familiar with its community, biases, etc. Here's the PP

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=SUN&race=3&param1=501735&param2=510&param3=765

While Im not a huge workout guy, I think seeing one for the :8: between the Dec27 and now might have helped me like her more. I also would have liked the :3: if not scratched so yeah, a 2 horse race.

The :2: set a fast pace last, has been working put publicly since, has Evans training, and is being kept at the same class.

Personally, this race is a pass for me once the 3 scratches and it turns into an almost coin flip.

[cj]

But it was justin Evans when the horse ran a 24, it was not like this was FT Evans.....the PP line that was there was an Evans PP, i can't believe people are betting Evans even though the PPs theyre looking at are also evans.

Unless Evans has the ability to move up one of his own horses who was a crud the week before? I don't know enough about Evans (other than he's one of America's greatest trainers) to know if that's par for the course.

I think what i'm trying to say is that if the other horse was 6-5 and the Evans horse was 3-2 you wouldn't have batted an eye and said that was "abnormal" and yet, the Evans horse was far superior in the race and even though the last PP line of the outside horse was better, the Evans horse was the favorite due to something that wasn't on replay or PPs and then validated those odds.


Cheap claimers run duds all the time and bounce back, and yes, the fact it was Evans matters a lot. People do bet him more than other trainers regardless of the last running line even if he already had the horse.

[Stillriledup]

Cheap claimers run duds all the time and bounce back, and yes, the fact it was Evans matters a lot. People do bet him more than other trainers regardless of the last running line even if he already had the horse.

Its possible that a trainer like that skews the process, but not all Hollendorfer horses are favored at Golden Gate and not all Amoss horses are favored at Fair Grounds, so at some point, even if there are examples that are few and far between, the public looks at the PPs and or replays and bets the horse who "looks better"

Maybe this was a horrible example and Justin Evans is the favorite 100% of the time no matter what his horse shows, my 64 dollar question is this. Is it just a coincidence that the Evans horse was favored with a much worse last race (or last 2 races) than the other main contender and ended up beating that horse by a city block showing massive improvement (at least Beyer wise) while the other horse regressed badly from her most recent race.

Sometimes they're coincidences and other times the PP and or replay is an "optical illusion". The people who bet on the Evans horse didnt bet her off PPs and probably didnt bet her off replay...so, if they bet her off "something else" which could have been that the just bet Evans blindly, it is a good example for this particular thread which talks about PPs being "optical illusions"

[Robert Fischer]

So in the actual betting =
the :2: is sent off @ 1.2-1
and the :8: goes off @ 1.5-1

?Here is my Question to You:
Did you predict (before the race) that the 2 would be a heavier favorite than the 8?

[Stillriledup]

So in the actual betting =
the :2: is sent off @ 1.2-1
and the :8: goes off @ 1.5-1

?Here is my Question to You:
Did you predict (before the race) that the 2 would be a heavier favorite than the 8?

I didnt make that prediction. I just flipped on the signal with a few mins to post, looked at the PPs, saw the 2 was "overbet" imo and then proceeded to watch her "come again" after being passed and draw off like a superhorse as the favorite. If i the Evans horse was 4-1 or 8-1 or 12-1 i wouldn't have batted an eye, her last start was bad, so to me, she could have been any price and no matter what she went off at, it wouldn't have surprised me.

[Robert Fischer]

I didnt make that prediction. I just flipped on the signal with a few mins to post, looked at the PPs, saw the 2 was "overbet" imo and then proceeded to watch her "come again" after being passed and draw off like a superhorse as the favorite. If i the Evans horse was 4-1 or 8-1 or 12-1 i wouldn't have batted an eye, her last start was bad, so to me, she could have been any price and no matter what she went off at, it wouldn't have surprised me.

If you felt the 2 was overbet, that means that probably one of the following occurred:

randomness(probably not)
your handicapping was wrong(maybe)
the public factored info not available to you(maybe)
With something like the race in question, and the information you gave in your post, interpreting the reason that the public's handicapping of the 2 was so much more accurate than you in this race is probably the prime question here.


It's possible as CJ seems to be suggesting, that you simply undervalued the trainer's impact, and allowed a possible poor effort to lead you to prematurely dismiss a horse that was much better conditioned than the field, while the Public accurately accounted for the trainer.


It would help if you knew or knew of a reliable Sunland Handicapper to compare notes with. He would be able to tell you, better than I whether or not he thought 7/2 was a terrible morning line.

Interesting. :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

If you felt the 2 was overbet, that means that probably one of the following occurred:

randomness(probably not)
your handicapping was wrong(maybe)
the public factored info not available to you(maybe)
With something like the race in question, and the information you gave in your post, interpreting the reason that the public's handicapping of the 2 was so much more accurate than you in this race is probably the prime question here.


It's possible as CJ seems to be suggesting, that you simply undervalued the trainer's impact, and allowed a possible poor effort to lead you to prematurely dismiss a horse that was much better conditioned than the field, while the Public accurately accounted for the trainer.


It would help if you knew or knew of a reliable Sunland Handicapper to compare notes with. He would be able to tell you, better than I whether or not he thought 7/2 was a terrible morning line.

Interesting. :ThmbUp:

Its about the PPs. Just on PPs, she didnt look like a 6-5 shot, esp since she had a 6% jock who was riding her for the first time.

My point was that whatever reason the winner was the favorite, and the public was right about this, it didnt come about because the public looked at her last PP line and bet her off that....there was some other reason she was bet and of course, that other reason turned out to be pretty good, whatever it was.

[classhandicapper]

My point was that whatever reason the winner was the favorite, and the public was right about this, it didnt come about because the public looked at her last PP line and bet her off that....there was some other reason she was bet and of course, that other reason turned out to be pretty good, whatever it was.

Maybe they looked past just Beyers?

It looks like Torrid Dream lost a duel last out. She went head to head with another horse, they opened up 3-4 lengths on the field, and then a closer won the race. If you upgrade or toss that race, she has a series of races in the upper 40s and low 50s that make her second choice at worst.

Ize On Sady has a better figure off her last, but she didn't look like a lock to repeat it based on her overall record and stepping up from a CLM5000N2L to a CLM7500N3L. That's a move up in class on both price and condition.

Obviously, I'm reboarding the hell out of this. Personally, I probably would have favored Ize On Sady by a bit. But it's just to make the point that it doesn't seem impossible that the public might conclude that Torrid Dream was slightly more likely to win given her trainer and the class jump by her main rival. Also, Torrid Dream was the consensus pick of the DRF.

[Stillriledup]

Maybe they looked past just Beyers?

It looks like Torrid Dream lost a duel last out. She went head to head with another horse, they opened up 3-4 lengths on the field, and then a closer won the race. If you upgrade or toss that race, she has a series of races in the upper 40s and low 50s that make her second choice at worst.

Ize On Sady has a better figure off her last, but she didn't look like a lock to repeat it based on her overall record and stepping up from a CLM5000N2L to a CLM7500N3L. That's a move up in class on both price and condition.

Obviously, I'm reboarding the hell out of this. Personally, I probably would have favored Ize On Sady by a bit. But it's just to make the point that it doesn't seem impossible that the public might conclude that Torrid Dream was slightly more likely to win given her trainer and the class jump by her main rival. Also, Torrid Dream was the consensus pick of the DRF.


It doesn't seem at all odd that they favored the Evans runner, but they didnt bet her off PPs, you had to look at her PP line and make an "excuse" for her performance and take a "leap" of faith that somehow she would improve 30 or 40 beyer points and take 6-5 to get that done.

The first "Red flag" was that Eikleberry (a 26 pct jock) picked the other evans runner who got scratched and hopped off Torrid Dream in favor of a guy who was riding at 6 for 112 at the meet.

Torrid Dream blew a 3 length lead 2 lines back at 1-1 in a 5k claimer. She went "up in class" and was no match at 1-2. I get the duel part, but when you're 1-2 you shouldnt be stopping at 5F after a duel, you should keep going, no real excuse, the internal fraction was 46 and she had run a 45 and 1 the previous race.

This Torrid Dream lost her last 7 times she was favored.....i guess the 8th time was the charm, but someone knew she would be "much improved" and she was......good "score" by the connections using a 6% jock, this horse might have been 1-2 with Eikleberry.

[Stillriledup]

Penn National Race 6 tonight.

Somehow Fara's Kid was 9-5 off a "slow" effort, but got bet and was much improved tonight.

He was beaten to a pulp by the rider last time to beat a horse called RK's Bobcat (the 4 horse) by 2 lengths. That horse was running Beyers in the low 50s and Fara only beat him by 2 lengths. Fara's 63 Beyer wasn't going to be competitive in here, the others had run higher recent numbers. The 3 horse was able to muster an 86 Beyer last time, and he was 7-2 and couldn't pick up his feet, even the 2 horse who finished 4th was running Beyers in the 70s and went off at 55-1.

Maybe "they" Knew that whatever was wrong with Fara last time and the time before was "fixed" and he was going to run back to his races 3 and 4 back.

The "fix up" wasn't anything you could see on paper or replay, yet, it was there.

[duncan04]

Its about the PPs. Just on PPs, she didnt look like a 6-5 shot, esp since she had a 6% jock who was riding her for the first time.

My point was that whatever reason the winner was the favorite, and the public was right about this, it didnt come about because the public looked at her last PP line and bet her off that....there was some other reason she was bet and of course, that other reason turned out to be pretty good, whatever it was.

Looking at just the last pp line is overrated. You need to evaluate all the running lines provided. Not always is the most recent running line relevant, especially if not on same surface, distance or class is same as today's race. Just my opinion though

[MJC922]

Quick look on paper, I didn't look at any replays... the value I suppose won the race there. 5 or 6 for me on price vs probabilities, take your pick. Huge back class on the 6 but that last race is enough of an effort to get me leaning toward the 5 on probabilities, but 7-1 on the 6 coming off a better number probably too tempting. 9 actually was a good line due to circling back to the pair of races 3 and 4 back that were probably 50/50 to take this. Still I agree with what I think your premise is here of the 9 taking a bit more money than expected. I'd have expected the odds reversed on the 5 and 9. I think it's a case of sometimes you get the vet and sometimes he gets you. :) Hopefully you got him here.

[Maximillion]

Penn National Race 6 tonight.

Somehow Fara's Kid was 9-5 off a "slow" effort, but got bet and was much improved tonight.

He was beaten to a pulp by the rider last time to beat a horse called RK's Bobcat (the 4 horse) by 2 lengths. That horse was running Beyers in the low 50s and Fara only beat him by 2 lengths. Fara's 63 Beyer wasn't going to be competitive in here, the others had run higher recent numbers. The 3 horse was able to muster an 86 Beyer last time, and he was 7-2 and couldn't pick up his feet, even the 2 horse who finished 4th was running Beyers in the 70s and went off at 55-1.

Maybe "they" Knew that whatever was wrong with Fara last time and the time before was "fixed" and he was going to run back to his races 3 and 4 back.

The "fix up" wasn't anything you could see on paper or replay, yet, it was there.

In this case i agree.....it looked pretty obvious that the horse appeared to be slipping,several others looked more dangerous in that spot...yet the toteboard told quite a different story.

[thaskalos]

Penn National Race 6 tonight.

Somehow Fara's Kid was 9-5 off a "slow" effort, but got bet and was much improved tonight.

He was beaten to a pulp by the rider last time to beat a horse called RK's Bobcat (the 4 horse) by 2 lengths. That horse was running Beyers in the low 50s and Fara only beat him by 2 lengths. Fara's 63 Beyer wasn't going to be competitive in here, the others had run higher recent numbers. The 3 horse was able to muster an 86 Beyer last time, and he was 7-2 and couldn't pick up his feet, even the 2 horse who finished 4th was running Beyers in the 70s and went off at 55-1.

Maybe "they" Knew that whatever was wrong with Fara last time and the time before was "fixed" and he was going to run back to his races 3 and 4 back.

The "fix up" wasn't anything you could see on paper or replay, yet, it was there.

Hey...you sound like me here, SRU.

There is definitely some information out there that's not available to the masses. :)

[Stillriledup]

Looking at just the last pp line is overrated. You need to evaluate all the running lines provided. Not always is the most recent running line relevant, especially if not on same surface, distance or class is same as today's race. Just my opinion though

But why take 9-5 on a horse and you're 'hoping' he cycles back? I could see if he was 6-1 you take a shot he can improve off 10 to 15 beyer pts off a win in order to be able to win again, but seems like the 9-5 price on him was made by people who knew he would be better tonight than he was last time....and that wasn't something that was on the paper.

[Stillriledup]

Hey...you sound like me here, SRU.

There is definitely some information out there that's not available to the masses. :)

Right? Seems like a bit of game playing to me.....he beat the cruddy 4 horse by 2 lengths last time...so he's an autotoss at 9-5 right? He's a HUGE underlay on paper and yet, runs his eyeballs out and even though he loses, he beats most of these runners by decent margins.

Its good to remember that he was "fixed up' for some reason, the field he beat last time at 7-5 was bad and he was on his hands and knees to do it. Not today, these were better, there was no horse in his last race coming off a huge win 86 Beyer i know that much for sure.

[duncan04]

But why take 9-5 on a horse and you're 'hoping' he cycles back? I could see if he was 6-1 you take a shot he can improve off 10 to 15 beyer pts off a win in order to be able to win again, but seems like the 9-5 price on him was made by people who knew he would be better tonight than he was last time....and that wasn't something that was on the paper.

Horse ran a good second last time when ran for those connections vs tougher. Bullet workout on 2/2 and Murphy is a 13% rider having tough meet and riding at 11% for trainer in last 60 days. The horse has a win, two seconds and a third in six starts at distance. Don't think there is anything sinister going on but to each their own.

[Stillriledup]

Horse ran a good second last time when ran for those connections vs tougher. Bullet workout on 2/2 and Murphy is a 13% rider having tough meet and riding at 11% for trainer in last 60 days. The horse has a win, two seconds and a third in six starts at distance. Don't think there is anything sinister going on but to each their own.

Not suggesting sinister, just suggesting that whatever reason the money showed up on this runner was not something you could see on paper or video.

[classhandicapper]

Not suggesting sinister, just suggesting that whatever reason the money showed up on this runner was not something you could see on paper or video.

If you are suggesting that sometimes insiders know something about the horse's condition or treatment (either in the previous race or for the current race) that gives them an advantage over someone just using the PPs, IMO there's no question that's a factor sometimes. All you have to do is look at the betting action on some first time starters and layoffs. Maybe that was the case here.

To play devil's advocate, I occasionally hear analysis from sharp handicappers where they are questioning the betting action on the favorite (heavily bet and they don't understand why). In some of those cases I've had a bias note, pace figure, etc.. that they didn't have. So I fully understood the betting action and why the horse won. I'm sure the same thing happens to me where I missing an insight.

[Stillriledup]

If you are suggesting that sometimes insiders know something about the horse's condition or treatment (either in the previous race or for the current race) that gives them an advantage over someone just using the PPs, IMO there's no question that's a factor sometimes. All you have to do is look at the betting action on some first time starters and layoffs. Maybe that was the case here.

To play devil's advocate, I occasionally hear analysis from sharp handicappers where they are questioning the betting action on the favorite (heavily bet and they don't understand why). In some of those cases I've had a bias note, pace figure, etc.. that they didn't have. So I fully understood the betting action and why the horse won. I'm sure the same thing happens to me where I missing an insight.

Good post CH, you're right, sometimes there is a reason or a note that you could obtain thru hard work without knowing any "inside" dope.

This race was a good example at how the public quite often will see something factual on paper and yet, just collectively decide what they're seeing is "not true" for lack of better words. This Fara horse has a driving all out win in a low 60s number while one of the other contenders had a huge margin win with an 86 and the public wasn't even close to making that horse the favorite even though 86 is much higher than 63.

Makes this the greatest game in the world.

[cj]

Good post CH, you're right, sometimes there is a reason or a note that you could obtain thru hard work without knowing any "inside" dope.

This race was a good example at how the public quite often will see something factual on paper and yet, just collectively decide what they're seeing is "not true" for lack of better words. This Fara horse has a driving all out win in a low 60s number while one of the other contenders had a huge margin win with an 86 and the public wasn't even close to making that horse the favorite even though 86 is much higher than 63.

Makes this the greatest game in the world.

Obviously I make a different set of speed figures, and no I don't think mine are always perfect, but your posts sure make it sound like you are over-reliant on Beyer numbers, particularly for really bad horses.

[Stillriledup]

Obviously I make a different set of speed figures, and no I don't think mine are always perfect, but your posts sure make it sound like you are over-reliant on Beyer numbers, particularly for really bad horses.

I'm not over reliant on Beyers for my own betting, i just use those numbers to make my points under the idea that if Beyer is wrong, someone here will chime in and say he's wrong and here's why. Its just a benchmark that i'm using for "entertainment value only" feel free to question Beyer and his numbers, i know that there was a big blowup in the racing section on that Grade 1 filly who got the 58 Beyer, i forget the horse, she was trained by a female trainer and wore front bandages, Alex Solis might have ridden her at some point, but i remember in that thread, some people got offended that i dare question beyer and his numbers...so, i don't question them anymore.

[cj]

I'm not over reliant on Beyers for my own betting, i just use those numbers to make my points under the idea that if Beyer is wrong, someone here will chime in and say he's wrong and here's why. Its just a benchmark that i'm using for "entertainment value only" feel free to question Beyer and his numbers, i know that there was a big blowup in the racing section on that Grade 1 filly who got the 58 Beyer, i forget the horse, she was trained by a female trainer and wore front bandages, Alex Solis might have ridden her at some point, but i remember in that thread, some people got offended that i dare question beyer and his numbers...so, i don't question them anymore.

I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning the figures from anyone, myself included. Nobody gets them all right. I don't think people realize how much harder it is now to make figures than it was in the past. There are far less races for consistent older horses and far more races for MCL and NW2 CL and what not.

[Stillriledup]

I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning the figures from anyone, myself included. Nobody gets them all right. I don't think people realize how much harder it is now to make figures than it was in the past. There are far less races for consistent older horses and far more races for MCL and NW2 CL and what not.

Its not easy for sure, i leave the figure making to the experts, its not something i know much about nor want to spend the time to get it right. When i quote Beyer its just using his number as an example, i could say "this horse ran faster than that horse" but its easier just to say "his beyer was this and this other horse's beyer was that". makes it easier to explain things.

[Robert Fischer]

Obviously I make a different set of speed figures, and no I don't think mine are always perfect, but your posts sure make it sound like you are over-reliant on Beyer numbers, particularly for really bad horses.

I'm guessing you are talking about TimeformUS?

I was so impressed by them that I am tempted to re-subscribe(I was a subscriber the last time I gave this game a serious run).
I am adept with the the freely available info/charts/replays to the point that I will personally never 'need' to subscribe to a service.
However, your TimeformUS product is high enough quality that it saves me time. And if I was playing at a high enough volume, that time saved would be well worth it. You guys simply do a better job with a lot of these races in both the pace figs and the speed figs.
I do not agree with every thing, and I don't take everything literally as a final product, - but that is true for me with all of the past performance and fig providers. Your 'point of reference' is better however.

[classhandicapper]

i know that there was a big blowup in the racing section on that Grade 1 filly who got the 58 Beyer, i forget the horse, she was trained by a female trainer and wore front bandages, Alex Solis might have ridden her at some point, but i remember in that thread, some people got offended that i dare question beyer and his numbers...so, i don't question them anymore.

I remember the race. It was an extremely slow paced race.

I've always recommended to people that they try to understand what goes into the figures they are using and the philosophy of the figure maker on some of the controversial issues.

Beyer is leaving ground loss, weight, pace, and other aspects of trip to you. So to the extent those things impact the time, you are on your own to make subjective judgements about them.

[Stillriledup]

I remember the race. It was an extremely slow paced race.

I've always recommended to people that they try to understand what goes into the figures they are using and the philosophy of the figure maker on some of the controversial issues.

Beyer is leaving ground loss, weight, pace, and other aspects of trip to you. So to the extent those things impact the time, you are on your own to make subjective judgements about them.

I was under the impression that Beyer "tweaks" the numbers to "make them fit" but i don't know for sure. I was originally under the impression they are just raw time based, but maybe not?

Beyer also splits variants...i don't even know if Ragozin does that.

[Robert Fischer]

If you are suggesting that sometimes insiders know something about the horse's condition or treatment (either in the previous race or for the current race) that gives them an advantage over someone just using the PPs, IMO there's no question that's a factor sometimes. All you have to do is look at the betting action on some first time starters and layoffs. Maybe that was the case here.

Classhandicapper, I think it's cool that you are not afraid to say that.

It doesn't have to be some crazy conspiracy, it's just a logical, clearly present piece of the information that is occasionally part of what the tote-board tells us.

Class, there are 3 main reasons for when the Odds Behave Unexpectedly:


randomness
you made a bad line
the public factored info not available to you('inside info')
Of course, you have no right to play along if you don't at the very least make an estimate or guess of what your horse will likely be at on the tote board.


If you have a sense of the game, you can still notice a horse is hot or cold on the board with 2 MTP or whatever, although it's not as useful as actually making the pre-race (blind) estimate.


So that's one of many things that I would strongly suggest to players who wish to improve the power of their game - at the very least, when you have a play, - make an estimate of what you think that horse's price will be.

On the PDF/Book that I have been working on I teach a simple 'exercise' and show the fundamental ways to read it.
The fundamental steps of that 'exercise' are fairly straight forward:

(before betting begins) 'Rank' the order of the top-5 contenders strictly in terms of what you Expect the Final Odds will be (like a Morning Line).
'Rank' Your top-5 selections in order of who you feel is most likely to win.
Compare both or your lists and write-out the biggest values(the differences between those 2 lists).
With about 5-8 minutes to Post, Record the 'ACTUAL' Odds Ranking of the top-5 betting favorites.
Compare the ranking order of the 'Actual' to your 'Expected Odds Ranking' estimates.
Note any significant differences and whether these differences fall into the pattern of known meaningful classification or types
^If that sounds like a lot or if it sounds complicated, it really isn't. It's basically about putting a name and a fundamentally sound approach behind "inside information" that hopefully leads to a lot more 'redboarding' and a lot less 'complaining' from horseplayers that give it a read and give it a try.

[classhandicapper]

I was under the impression that Beyer "tweaks" the numbers to "make them fit" but i don't know for sure. I was originally under the impression they are just raw time based, but maybe not?

Beyer also splits variants...i don't even know if Ragozin does that.

These days I check EVERY figure Beyer makes in NY and occasional ones for major stakes outside NY.

He occasionally splits the variant between sprints and routes.

He occasionally breaks a race out from the rest of the day.

He occasionally splits a day if he thinks the track changed speeds.

None of those are too controversial. Most figure makers will do those things on occasion.

He doesn't seem to tweak figures for pace much (at least anymore). When a high profile figure looks too fast or slow and he thinks it was pace related, either he or Jeradi might write an article on the thinking as they did with the San Antonio.

[classhandicapper]

Robert,

I try to find situations where I think I know who the favorite will be, why he will be the favorite, and why I think the public will be wrong.

Then I feel comfortable betting against it.

If I don't understand why the horse is the favorite, then I don't know if I am operating with a bag figure, missing information, inside money etc... That spooks me.

[Stillriledup]

These days I check EVERY figure Beyer makes in NY and occasional ones for major stakes outside NY.

He occasionally splits the variant between sprints and routes.

He occasionally breaks a race out from the rest of the day.

He occasionally splits a day if he thinks the track changed speeds.

None of those are too controversial. Most figure makers will do those things on occasion.

He doesn't seem to tweak figures for pace much (at least anymore). When a high profile figure looks too fast or slow and he thinks it was pace related, either he or Jeradi might write an article on the thinking as they did with the San Antonio.

You said this:

Beyer is leaving ground loss, weight, pace, and other aspects of trip to you. So to the extent those things impact the time, you are on your own to make subjective judgements about them.

So i'll ask....if he's tweaking figures for pace and splitting variants or breaking one race out with the rest of the day, when we look at a number, how can we be sure he "tweaked" it or its not tweaked? Its hard to make judgments if some stuff is tweaked to fit and other stuff is left alone.

[Robert Fischer]

Robert,

I try to find situations where I think I know who the favorite will be, why he will be the favorite, and why I think the public will be wrong.

Then I feel comfortable betting against it.

If I don't understand why the horse is the favorite, then I don't know if I am operating with a bad figure, missing information, inside money etc... That spooks me.

It sounds like our handicapping theories happen to be compatible at least in this part of the game.

If you have some fundamental insights into the game, then you have every right to play along.
And as you stress here, the favorite is of great importance, because it's a parimutuel game.

[Robert Fischer]

Robert,

I try to find situations where I think I know who the favorite will be, why he will be the favorite, and why I think the public will be wrong.

Then I feel comfortable betting against it.

If I don't understand why the horse is the favorite, then I don't know if I am operating with a bag figure, missing information, inside money etc... That spooks me.

This overlaps into another very basic fundamental = Assessing the strength of the favorite.

You are actually more advanced and are already taking 2 things (1.Expected Odds Behavior, and 2. Assessing Favorite Strength, and you are combining those two fundamental things into a more complex tool)

when "Assessing Favorite Strength"

I introduce the idea with a very simple subjective evaluation tool:

Does the Favorite deserve his odds?:



a) I don't know.
b) Seems to be an overlay/strongly deserve his odds.
c) Seems to be the favorite by default.
d) Seems to be an underlay/vulnerable.
It's a parimutuel game, so the lower the public odds the more priority a horse has, because it has a bigger bucket of money in front of it.

Most of the time you should be answering "a" or "c".

[classhandicapper]

So i'll ask....if he's tweaking figures for pace and splitting variants or breaking one race out with the rest of the day, when we look at a number, how can we be sure he "tweaked" it or its not tweaked? Its hard to make judgments if some stuff is tweaked to fit and other stuff is left alone.

Based on my current research, he rarely tweaks a figure for pace.

He's doing splits and breakouts when he thinks the track actually changed speeds. In "theory" you don't need to know that, but I think it helps a little to identify the days/races that might have been a little difficult to figure out.

The only way you can know what he did is to have his current time charts for the track in question. Then you can back into the answer. That requires some significant research because they are different from the charts published in his books. I am doing that work now because I want to accumulate some data for another project.

[classhandicapper]

It sounds like our handicapping theories happen to be compatible at least in this part of the game.



You are actually further along and doing a lot more than I am.

My approach is not very formal. It's more intuitive. I'll have some idea about how I expect the race to be bet. When something is way off from my thinking, I'll notice and take a better look. But as long as the betting seems reasonable compared to what I expected, I probably won't notice much.

[Robert Fischer]

My approach is not very formal. It's more intuitive. I'll have some idea about how I expect the race to be bet. When something is way off from my thinking, I'll notice and take a better look. But as long as the betting seems reasonable compared to what I expected, I probably won't notice much.

There's been hundreds of debates over intuitive vs. mechanical, subjective vs. objective etc... etc...
But the good players from both schools of thought are doing pretty much they same thing.
They understand the way the game works and then they are looking for significant enough events or scenarios to occur that they know to be profitable.

All that I'm trying to do with those 'fundamental exercises' and others like them, is simply to give names to key processes (the 'Rumpelstiltskin' idea where simply naming something empowers you), and then provide a very basic structure that is fundamentally sound and true to the way the things actually work, and the way a good handicapper actually intuitively thinks about them.

The result is hopefully a tool or a process that can is basic enough for a beginner to get the 'feel' of things, and fundamentally sound enough for an experienced player to use as a runway to take flight.

Some of the things like "inside info" or even the psychological hurdles like "discipline" or "chasing losses" they don't seem obvious as far as having any structure, so if we can actually find some fundamentally sound approaches, these things could be the type of things that horseplayers of all levels find useful.

[MJC922]

It's a good point being made about some legitimate handicappers having largely hidden insights at times which can show up as extra money on the board. In any given race money that's a bit out of line can literally be any number of things. It could be some player with a set of Ragozin sheets or even one of my own sheet subscribers having a hot day and is now just firing for the hell of it into relatively small pools.

I can see where a sheet-style handicapper might get over the top about this Fara's Kid horse cycling back. To me the horse was an underlay on paper but not a huge underlay. Typically when 2 of your last 4 are very likely to win the race the horse isn't going to be 4-1 after the take, we're looking at 3-1 here at most IMO. He has a pair of 14's followed by a non-effort 22 and then a 17 last time, par here is 13, the horse is dangerous in here to go back to a 14. The 3 horse being mentioned as a top fig off the last race should be expected to bounce to a non-effort in here, his last four are 12, 18, 22, 20. This 12 was a 3 point career top and now comes back in 20 days, it's a little short rest when you consider the top came with 7 weeks rest, so here you have a career effort followed up by a substantial change in spacing, put a line through IMO.

Back to 'taking money' though, I think there's a difference when 'cappers are firing on a horse because they think they saw a bias, a trip, numbers or whatever it may be, and I think there's a difference when offshore money is maybe laying bets off on a horse which IMO is no different. it's public money. That kind of money shows but it doesn't explain the uncanny knack for these kinds of horses to be there. In other words, even if it's a valid insight, the horse has to be ready to run back to it. The sense that I have is these horses all too often 'run on' strongly, and that's when I can't help but have a sense that 'something else' is usually going on.

[Robert Fischer]

A horse I saw tonight that was weird = :9: Kelbaker (Santa Anita r8)


FTS mdn clm 30k, solid works, 4/1 ml (so i guess there was some 'buzz'?) but the horse went off @ 2.20-1, with the 2nd most WPS money.

And Claimed $30K by Gary Barber (for Peter Miller)

I suspected it was maybe her nice pedigree, but why bet her also if that was the case?

I didn't see the horse do any running or flash any talent, but i'll look again later.

"They Knew" , she just didn't run as well as she was supposed to.

[Stillriledup]

A horse I saw tonight that was weird = :9: Kelbaker (Santa Anita r8)


FTS mdn clm 30k, solid works, 4/1 ml (so i guess there was some 'buzz'?) but the horse went off @ 2.20-1, with the 2nd most WPS money.

And Claimed $30K by Gary Barber (for Peter Miller)

I suspected it was maybe her nice pedigree, but why bet her also if that was the case?

I didn't see the horse do any running or flash any talent, but i'll look again later.

"They Knew" , she just didn't run as well as she was supposed to.

It think it was track money, the race was BEGGING for a firster and the public just decided she was the one..breaking from an outside post, there was just nothing else to play that was "Exciting".

[Robert Fischer]

It think it was track money, the race was BEGGING for a firster and the public just decided she was the one..breaking from an outside post, there was just nothing else to play that was "Exciting".

Could be.
The fact that she was claimed first time out, by an owner I have a lot of respect for, certainly adds to the mystery.

[Robert Fischer]

i sure don't understand the the betting action in gulfstream's 9th today

:12: franklin is a good contender but they are betting him like a superstar.

:4:loveisheartandsoul - how is this horse being bet so much? valentine names? seriously?

:3: el chivo viejo 16-1 off a 4-1 ml... i don't get it. The 'form' shows this horse to be a strong contender. What does the public know that is evident in the form? he should be 7-2 today.

[Stillriledup]

Could be.
The fact that she was claimed first time out, by an owner I have a lot of respect for, certainly adds to the mystery.

That owner claims firsters who are often pretty good, he has a "Good eye" for horses who have never raced.

[Robert Fischer]

That owner claims firsters who are often pretty good, he has a "Good eye" for horses who have never raced.

yup, some of these owners have "good eyes" and "good ears" for the am goings ons.

apparently they are up at the crack of dawn and watching the works ;)

[Stillriledup]

yup, some of these owners have "good eyes" and "good ears" for the am goings ons.

apparently they are up at the crack of dawn and watching the works ;)

Yes. They're all sitting at workouts for 3 or 4 hours every morning grabbing notes on these unraced prospects and making timely claims. :D

[outofthebox]

Yes. They're all sitting at workouts for 3 or 4 hours every morning grabbing notes on these unraced prospects and making timely claims. :DOr they subscribe to Nationalturf who had very high remarks for the #9. Some of these clocker reports have a big influence on the odds of first timers.

[Stillriledup]

Or they subscribe to Nationalturf who had very high remarks for the #9. Some of these clocker reports have a big influence on the odds of first timers.

Or they ask Gary Young what he saw. ;)

[Woodpicker]

I guess this is why horse racing is the greatest game on earth, you have past performances and you have your eyes (watching tape) and both *allegedly* tell a tale, but at closer view, this game is much deeper and complex than just looking at those PPs and watching those replays.

Case in Point, today's first race at Parx.

The 2 horses i want to focus on are the 7 horse She's Secretly Mine and the 8 horse Beer Goggles.

On Sept 22 in the 9th race, SSM and BG were noses apart at the wire. On Video, it appeared that She's Secretly Mine's jock was "fumbling" with the lines and was riding in odd fashion, he looked like he was going to run second in midstretch, but the horse just refused to pass and finished noses apart with Beer Goggles, seemed like SSM might have had more in the tank and if the jock was just able to steer her straight, she might have been able to defeat Beer Goggles.

SSM is a 3 year old by Mineshaft and is actually not a bad looking specimen for a bottom level horse. She ran a 49 Beyer figure as a 2 year old so at one point, she could run a bit. Beer Goggles best dirt figure in her 9 lifetime dirt starts was 33, so you can make the case that at worst, SSM is Beer Goggles equal.

So, they race today and Beer Goggles goes off at 7-2 and She's Secretly Mine goes off at 10-1 despite these horses being "evenly matched" off their last PP line and off tape.

So, what happens today?

Beer Goggles defeats She's Secretly Mine by....oh, lets call it 50 lengths. Well, it wasn't really 50, but it may as well have been.

Now, stuff like this is why the game is deeper than just PPs and Video. I'm sure there was a way to know that SSM was going to be a million lengths slower than Beer Goggles today, but thru conventional study, there was no way to know.

I know cheapies are in and outers, but the key to this game is knowing when they're in and when they're out.

I could see Beer Goggles beating She's Secretly Mine to the wire today. BUT, i can't see how she beat her by 20 lengths (or whatever the margin was).

Thus, the optical illusion of video and PPs, if you can't trust what you see on tape and on PPs, where does that leave you?


I have been seeing this scenario in horse racing for over sixty years. The only thing I
can say about it is that all of us is smarter than one of us. I had this discussion :3:about 20 years ago with the Racing Form and with Andy Beyer. But you know the
sport has cleaned itself up a little. I heard a trainer the other day recount the 90's
before steroids were at least regulated(joke).

[Stillriledup]

Race 5 at Saratoga has a good optical illusion horse.

S'mavelous.

5-2 ML, appears best on beyers as he's consistently in the 90s range, looks good on paper and is getting 'bet' like he has the bubonic plague.

[Robert Fischer]

Race 5 at Saratoga has a good optical illusion horse.

S'mavelous.

5-2 ML, appears best on beyers as he's consistently in the 90s range, looks good on paper and is getting 'bet' like he has the bubonic plague.

Won on kind of a slowish pace on the drop last race, but I think the public is saying "hey this horse went from Rudy/Irad to Balsamo/Silvera".

If you like the horse and either like Silvera, or think the outside stalking trip means an easy ride for the jockey anyway... be my guest.

[098poi]

Race 5 at Saratoga has a good optical illusion horse.

S'mavelous.

5-2 ML, appears best on beyers as he's consistently in the 90s range, looks good on paper and is getting 'bet' like he has the bubonic plague.

:ThmbUp: Good thing this wasn't GG or you would have missed out!

[Stillriledup]

:ThmbUp: Good thing this wasn't GG or you would have missed out!

RIGHT??? :D

[Stillriledup]

Race 1 today Indiana.

The winners 6 lifetime beyers not in order:

0 0 8 22 33 37

The runner ups 3 lifetime dirt beyers not in order:

0 11 28

The top 3 betting favorites all had dirt beyers of 57 or higher in their careers.

These two slow Beyer fig horses got in a cut throat duel and nobody got near them at any point.

[whodoyoulike]

Race 1 today Indiana.

The winners 6 lifetime beyers not in order:

0 0 8 22 33 37

The runner ups 3 lifetime dirt beyers not in order:

0 11 28

The top 3 betting favorites all had dirt beyers of 57 or higher in their careers.

These two slow Beyer fig horses got in a cut throat duel and nobody got near them at any point.


Well, after all it's Indiana!!

You seem to bet everywhere and any type of race. I'm very impressed.

[Stillriledup]

Well, after all it's Indiana!!

You seem to bet everywhere and any type of race. I'm very impressed.

I follow a lot of stuff.

[whodoyoulike]

I've noticed and I was sincere about being impressed.

[Stillriledup]

I've noticed and I was sincere about being impressed.

Thanks, I know you were sincere.

[Stillriledup]

Oh tru beat Henry's gal to the wire in the 7th at Parx.

Not much else need be said.

[Stillriledup]

Finale tonight at Mtn.

The winner's best Beyer in last 9 was a 19. The runner ups WORST Beyer in his last 9 starts was a 25.

Not only could the runner up not beat the winner, he wasnt ever competitive for the win and wasnt in the same zip code.

[cj]

Finale tonight at Mtn.

The winner's best Beyer in last 9 was a 19. The runner ups WORST Beyer in his last 9 starts was a 25.

Not only could the runner up not beat the winner, he wasnt ever competitive for the win and wasnt in the same zip code.

The 9th tonight? Really?

There are my speed figures for the 3 (the winner) and the 9 for the last five races:

3: 60, 57, 23, 45, 28
9: 57, 44, 58, 55, 55

Not only was the 3 competitive with the 9, he had a big edge in early speed ratings, 93 to 72, and it was a 5.5f maiden claiming race.

[Stillriledup]

The 9th tonight? Really?

There are my speed figures for the 3 (the winner) and the 9 for the last five races:

3: 60, 57, 23, 45, 28
9: 57, 44, 58, 55, 55

Not only was the 3 competitive with the 9, he had a big edge in early speed ratings, 93 to 72, and it was a 5.5f maiden claiming race.

So the beyers were wrong. Good to know.

[cj]

So the beyers were wrong. Good to know.

I'm sure I get plenty of races "wrong" too, whatever that means. But there is a lot more to handicapping than speed figures no matter which you use. The horse was hardly the no hoper on paper that you seem to be making him out to be via inclusion in this thread.

[Stillriledup]

I'm sure I get plenty of races "wrong" too, whatever that means. But there is a lot more to handicapping than speed figures no matter which you use. The horse was hardly the no hoper on paper that you seem to be making him out to be via inclusion in this thread.

I didnt say he was a no hoper, but the thread is about an optical illusion, the runner up was far superior on paper and couldn't get near the winner.

[cj]

I didnt say he was a no hoper, but the thread is about an optical illusion, the runner up was far superior on paper and couldn't get near the winner.

For the record, your last post isn't edited, I misclicked.

Obviously the runner up wasn't far superior in my opinion, or apparently the opinion of the track's leading rider/agent. Didn't that look odd that the leading rider would jump on board for a low percentage trainer? And that was plain as day, not an optical illusion.

[Stillriledup]

For the record, your last post isn't edited, I misclicked.

Obviously the runner up wasn't far superior in my opinion, or apparently the opinion of the track's leading rider/agent. Didn't that look odd that the leading rider would jump on board for a low percentage trainer? And that was plain as day, not an optical illusion.

It's a thread about PPs and replays, not 'angles' obviously the leading rider knew something that wasnt showing on paper.

[cj]

It's a thread about PPs and replays, not 'angles' obviously the leading rider knew something that wasnt showing on paper.

I disagree, the horse had much more early speed on the PPs and it showed on the track. You really think an 0-22 maiden was going to show some new found fire down the stretch? Good luck with that. I stick to speed in maiden claimers. Also, the jockey switch is clearly part of the PPs, at least all the ones I've ever seen.

[TJDave]

I apologize for the hijack but I couldn't get past the first post.

Beer Goggles...

Who would choose that name?

Obviously someone not related to Ogden Phipps.

Carry on.

[sammy the sage]

Fillies & Mares have a TENDENCY to sometimes NOT show up for BIOLOGICAL reasons...simple as THAT.... :faint: :eek:

ps...yes there are drugs to prevent...BUT....are they 100% foolproof...or better yet...was it even used...?????????? :mad: :bang:

[Stillriledup]

Race 7 tonight at Mountain the 7 horse had beyers of 40 or higher in her last (at least) 11 starts. The 1 and 1a entry had recent beyers of nothing over 40 in recent times, yet, the entry beat the 7 horse handily, the 7 ran like she was wearing cement blocks on her feet. I'm guessing there was something on paper or video that showed the entry was 5, 10, 15 lengths better than the 7?

[no breathalyzer]

Race 7 tonight at Mountain the 7 horse had beyers of 40 or higher in her last (at least) 11 starts. The 1 and 1a entry had recent beyers of nothing over 40 in recent times, yet, the entry beat the 7 horse handily, the 7 ran like she was wearing cement blocks on her feet. I'm guessing there was something on paper or video that showed the entry was 5, 10, 15 lengths better than the 7?
4.20 was a gift there

[Stillriledup]

4.20 was a gift there

Of course it was, winners are usually gifts after the race is over.

[no breathalyzer]

Of course it was, winners are usually gifts after the race is over.

take a trip over to selections.. i stated this before hand :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

take a trip over to selections.. i stated this before hand :ThmbUp:

Seems like a gift and IS a gift 2 different things :D

Hope u grabbed some of that free cash! :ThmbUp:

[cj]

Race 7 tonight at Mountain the 7 horse had beyers of 40 or higher in her last (at least) 11 starts. The 1 and 1a entry had recent beyers of nothing over 40 in recent times, yet, the entry beat the 7 horse handily, the 7 ran like she was wearing cement blocks on her feet. I'm guessing there was something on paper or video that showed the entry was 5, 10, 15 lengths better than the 7?

You're consistent, I'll give you that much.

[Stillriledup]

You're consistent, I'll give you that much.

This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Congrats on the winning pick.

[cj]

This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Congrats on the winning pick.

But it does have a lot to do with it...every time you post one of these I go look and see a completely different picture in the PPs. I'd never use final time figures (mine, Beyer, or anyone else) as any kind of guide for bottom level conditioned claimers. Figures are one piece of the puzzle.

Didn't it alarm you that the 7 was claimed away from a top guy at CT by a so so guy and had declined noticeably in the three races since? Isn't that readily apparent in the PPs and not an optical illusion?

I'm as big a figure guy as you'll find, but I'm often puzzled by your use of them in this thread and others I've seen. Your posts in this thread just look like you did a one minute speed read of the race and formed your conclusions.

[Stillriledup]

But it does have a lot to do with it...every time you post one of these I go look and see a completely different picture in the PPs. I'd never use final time figures (mine, Beyer, or anyone else) as any kind of guide for bottom level conditioned claimers. Figures are one piece of the puzzle.

Didn't it alarm you that the 7 was claimed away from a top guy at CT by a so so guy and had declined noticeably in the three races since? Isn't that readily apparent in the PPs and not an optical illusion?

I'm as big a figure guy as you'll find, but I'm often puzzled by your use of them in this thread and others I've seen. Your posts in this thread just look like you did a one minute speed read of the race and formed your conclusions.

The horse ran a 40 and a 47 on dirt for the new trainer. The entry had nothing higher than 38 in 2015.

Now, I'm not saying the entry had no chance, what I'm questioning is what was on paper or video that suggested the 7 was 13.5 lengths slower than the top 2 horses.

Certainly not Beyer figs. Do you have a fig showing the winner as 13.5 lengths better?

[no breathalyzer]

lol c;mon man even the most generic figs had the :1: as potential lone speed (by a lot) this race with the :1a: being the best finisher. I don't really under stand the post. judging by your comments you don't put a lot of weight in pace scenarios but im confused cause i know you know better then that

[cj]

The horse ran a 40 and a 47 on dirt for the new trainer. The entry had nothing higher than 38 in 2015.

Now, I'm not saying the entry had no chance, what I'm questioning is what was on paper or video that suggested the 7 was 13.5 lengths slower than the top 2 horses.

Certainly not Beyer figs. Do you have a fig showing the winner as 13.5 lengths better?


In the end, are you really shocked a bottom level conditioned claimer threw in a clunker? Plenty of signs were there that this horse was declining in form.

I would never rely on figures alone like you are, but here are the last four for each:

1: 69, 75, 49, 71
1a: 64, 72, 60, 63
7: 63, 42, 70, 74

I would never bet a race like this, so I'm hardly trying to redboard. I just don't see any optical illusion. The horse was bet pretty heavy like the PPs would suggest. She just didn't run. The optical illusion would be if she had good running lines and didn't get bet, or vise versa.

[cj]

So what is the point of this thread if when people point things out that are plausible you just argue with them?

[Stillriledup]

So what is the point of this thread if when people point things out that are plausible you just argue with them?

Point out something other than "just threw in a clunker'. What on paper or replay signified this horse couldn't run a lick today. She was the natural favorite, if the entry was uncoupled they both would have been higher prices, it's not like this entry was a standout, they were only slightly favored because you got 2 for the price of 2.

There was nothing on paper or tape that showed me she would just run like this. You can say that about any horse who runs poorly, I'm trying to figure out how this was predictable.

[cj]

Point out something other than "just threw in a clunker'. What on paper or replay signified this horse couldn't run a lick today. She was the natural favorite, if the entry was uncoupled they both would have been higher prices, it's not like this entry was a standout, they were only slightly favored because you got 2 for the price of 2.

There was nothing on paper or tape that showed me she would just run like this. You can say that about any horse who runs poorly, I'm trying to figure out how this was predictable.

Form...she was declining since the trainer change. Forget speed figures for a minute and just look at class/finish for the starts. She has looked bad since Runco lost her.

[menifee]

SRU, you need to stop focusing on Beyers at this level of racing.

[Stillriledup]

Form...she was declining since the trainer change. Forget speed figures for a minute and just look at class/finish for the starts. She has looked bad since Runco lost her.

Ok, I'll accept this.

[Stillriledup]

SRU, you need to stop focusing on Beyers at this level of racing.

I think it's not just one Beyer, it's a series of them, the slowest dirt Beyer the 7 had was faster than the best 2015 Beyer of both entry mates. I use Beyer because its what I see on paper, do you think these beyers are incorrect?

It will be interesting to see what this 7 does going forward although the post Runco decline is alarming.

[no breathalyzer]

Form...she was declining since the trainer change. Forget speed figures for a minute and just look at class/finish for the starts. She has looked bad since Runco lost her.

That doesn't happen often :D

[menifee]

I think it's not just one Beyer, it's a series of them, the slowest dirt Beyer the 7 had was faster than the best 2015 Beyer of both entry mates. I use Beyer because its what I see on paper, do you think these beyers are incorrect?

It will be interesting to see what this 7 does going forward although the post Runco decline is alarming.

I don't know whether they are correct or incorrect, I just think beyer speed figures in the context of these horses don't mean much. Class and pace handicapping mean a lot more.

I am going to preface my comments by saying I did not play the race.
The 7 was unplayable. The odds were way too low and a true analysis of the horse's races after the loss of Runco make it evident this is not the same horse.

[ebcorde]

Race 7 tonight at Mountain the 7 horse had beyers of 40 or higher in her last (at least) 11 starts. The 1 and 1a entry had recent beyers of nothing over 40 in recent times, yet, the entry beat the 7 horse handily, the 7 ran like she was wearing cement blocks on her feet. I'm guessing there was something on paper or video that showed the entry was 5, 10, 15 lengths better than the 7?


From experience I generally avoid CT horses when they run at MNR. The 1 and 1a had won at MNR the 7 never won. I saw and bet the race based on those 2 points. Mark was wrong. Nancy right on that race

I don't have beyers, Bris figs were about the same for the 1,7.

[ebcorde]

I'm not trying to be smart with you. I drove to and played CT about 2-3 times a week,for a few years. I love the short 4-4.5-5 furlong races, the best bet in racing are those short ones (early speed and it's over before the others get going). I generally avoid CT horses at all other tracks too, except Penn Nat, I mean a CT Horse has to look impressive on paper. You'll see.

off topic. CT is a nice area, I'll spend Saturday,Sunday there, Spend time at Gettysburg and Antietam battlefields, Harper's Ferry in the day.

[Stillriledup]

So what is the point of this thread if when people point things out that are plausible you just argue with them?

Feel free to post up an example of your own. unless you think that all PPs and or replays are never misleading and are 'exactly what you get' 100 pct of the time.?

[no breathalyzer]

replays are only as good as the people processing them

[Stillriledup]

replays are only as good as the people processing them

My point about this replay optical illusion is when a horse races well or races amazingly great and then the next time, you can't find them with a telescope, I would say what you saw might be an illusion. It could also work the other way where a horse finishes far back with no run and then all of a sudden he's a world beater the next time.

I do get your point that you could, in theory, always make the case that what you thought was a good performance was really not that good and vice Versa. Ill ask you the same question I posed to CJ, how about offering up an example of your own illusion?

[thaskalos]

My point about this replay optical illusion is when a horse races well or races amazingly great and then the next time, you can't find them with a telescope, I would say what you saw might be an illusion. It could also work the other way where a horse finishes far back with no run and then all of a sudden he's a world beater the next time.

I do get your point that you could, in theory, always make the case that what you thought was a good performance was really not that good and vice Versa. Ill ask you the same question I posed to CJ, how about offering up an example of your own illusion?

What you call an "illusion" is simply an example of the unpredictability factor inherent in the game. In our discussions here, we sometimes act as if there is a reasonable explanation for EVERYTHING that we see...as if this game closely abides to the "laws of logic". If the horse ran an unexpectedly good race, then there must be a valid reason for it...and if the horse unexpectedly bombed, then there must be a valid excuse. This is faulty thinking of the worst type...IMO.

Our game is largely UNPREDICTABLE...and anything could happen at any time. When the horses start running as if their past performances are forgeries, it is just the chaotic nature of our game in full display...and there is nothing that we, as horseplayers, can do about it. We already KNOW that our game is chaotic and unpredictable...that why we insist that money management and discipline are vital factors for our survival in this game. That's why I laugh whenever I see competent handicappers re-handicapping a lost race...to see what they "missed". They didn't miss ANYTHING...even if, after the fact, a dozen reasons might be discovered to explain the unexplainable result. Our brains love to recognize "patterns"...even where there are none.

I regularly see players who act as if they are SHOCKED every time they are wrong about a race. It's as if they expect their horses to always be right there at the wire...even when they lose. Inwardly...we know that these are fragile living-and-breathing animals who are expected to disappoint us about 70% of the time...but we still appear shocked and dismayed whenever the losses come. We run back to the past-performances...fully-expecting to identify our "mistake". :)

IMO...the winning horseplayer must, above all, be a good "loser". He is going to lose the great majority of the time...so, he must be comfortable with losing...and not let it wreck his equilibrium. A lot of this game remains totally out of our control...and "winning" is always a "collective" effort...between horse, trainer, horseplayer, jockey....and fate.

As horseplayers...all we can do is try to properly align ourselves against the odds...and then roll the dice.

[Robert Fischer]

Hasn't run since she was claimed in the 2 way shake on 2/13/2015

started working in September and has gradually been asked for more, with this bullet being the most recent. Hasn't gone beyond 3F yet in a recorded recent work. Maybe she'll be back to the races in a maiden race sometime soon?

San Luis Rey Training Center 9/25/2015 Dirt 3F 36.60 Handily 1/21


A horse I saw tonight that was weird = :9: Kelbaker (Santa Anita r8)


FTS mdn clm 30k, solid works, 4/1 ml (so i guess there was some 'buzz'?) but the horse went off @ 2.20-1, with the 2nd most WPS money.

And Claimed $30K by Gary Barber (for Peter Miller)

I suspected it was maybe her nice pedigree, but why bet her also if that was the case?

I didn't see the horse do any running or flash any talent, but i'll look again later.

"They Knew" , she just didn't run as well as she was supposed to.

[Robert Fischer]

What you call an "illusion" is simply an example of the unpredictability factor inherent in the game. In our discussions here, we sometimes act as if there is a reasonable explanation for EVERYTHING that we see...as if this game closely abides to the "laws of logic". If the horse ran an unexpectedly good race, then there must be a valid reason for it...and if the horse unexpectedly bombed, then there must be a valid excuse. This is faulty thinking of the worst type...IMO.

Our game is largely UNPREDICTABLE...and anything could happen at any time. When the horses start running as if their past performances are forgeries, it is just the chaotic nature of our game in full display...and there is nothing that we, as horseplayers, can do about it. We already KNOW that our game is chaotic and unpredictable...that why we insist that money management and discipline are vital factors for our survival in this game. That's why I laugh whenever I see competent handicappers re-handicapping a lost race...to see what they "missed". They didn't miss ANYTHING...even if, after the fact, a dozen reasons might be discovered to explain the unexplainable result. Our brains love to recognize "patterns"...even where there are none.

I regularly see players who act as if they are SHOCKED every time they are wrong about a race. It's as if they expect their horses to always be right there at the wire...even when they lose. Inwardly...we know that these are fragile living-and-breathing animals who are expected to disappoint us about 70% of the time...but we still appear shocked and dismayed whenever the losses come. We run back to the past-performances...fully-expecting to identify our "mistake". :)

IMO...the winning horseplayer must, above all, be a good "loser". He is going to lose the great majority of the time...so, he must be comfortable with losing...and not let it wreck his equilibrium. A lot of this game remains totally out of our control...and "winning" is always a "collective" effort...between horse, trainer, horseplayer, jockey....and fate.

As horseplayers...all we can do is try to properly align ourselves against the odds...and then roll the dice.

Great post.

[cj]

Feel free to post up an example of your own. unless you think that all PPs and or replays are never misleading and are 'exactly what you get' 100 pct of the time.?

So again, what is the point? You started the thread, not me. I'll be happy to post a few horses I think are being over/under bet compared to the print PPs, no problem. It doesn't mean I'll be right and I won't defend them at any cost. It is more likely I'm missing something than the PPs are an optical illusion. I'd welcome comments that disagree with thoughts. You never seem to do that.

[NorCalGreg]

Hasn't run since she was claimed in the 2 way shake on 2/13/2015

started working in September and has gradually been asked for more, with this bullet being the most recent. Hasn't gone beyond 3F yet in a recorded recent work. Maybe she'll be back to the races in a maiden race sometime soon?

San Luis Rey Training Center 9/25/2015 Dirt 3F 36.60 Handily 1/21

hmmm....if the pattern holds up---that 9/25 blowout should have been followed up already by a "just for excercise" work. Fresno opens up soon, a MDSW there might be a spot, but no Kelbaker entered.

[Stillriledup]

So again, what is the point? You started the thread, not me. I'll be happy to post a few horses I think are being over/under bet compared to the print PPs, no problem. It doesn't mean I'll be right and I won't defend them at any cost. It is more likely I'm missing something than the PPs are an optical illusion. I'd welcome comments that disagree with thoughts. You never seem to do that.

I talked about the higher Beyer numbers in this latest example, they're higher, it's in print, what I said was correct, I'm just defending that a horse who's lowest dirt Beyer is faster than the top 2 finishers highest 2015 Beyer , so my point was that the illusion is that the horse with the fastest beyers is faster in the PPs and yet, wasnt in the same zip code when they ran the race. Those 40s and 50s beyers were illusions.

[cj]

I talked about the higher Beyer numbers in this latest example, they're higher, it's in print, what I said was correct, I'm just defending that a horse who's lowest dirt Beyer is faster than the top 2 finishers highest 2015 Beyer , so my point was that the illusion is that the horse with the fastest beyers is faster in the PPs and yet, wasnt in the same zip code when they ran the race. Those 40s and 50s beyers were illusions.

I like hearing that the Beyer figures were an illusion. :)

A few other sources (not just my own figures) seem to confirm that in this case.

[no breathalyzer]

I'm confused.. so when this horse i bet today comes back next start and beats another horse that has a better Beyer by 15 pts. its an optical illusion?

[cj]

I'm confused.. so when this horse i bet today comes back next start and beats another horse that has a better Beyer by 15 pts. its an optical illusion?


Exactly. Like I said earlier, you won't find a bigger figure guy than me. I make them for a living, probably more than any person alive. But I still know there is a lot more to handicapping racing than speed and pace figures.

[Stillriledup]

I like hearing that the Beyer figures were an illusion. :)

A few other sources (not just my own figures) seem to confirm that in this case.

I didnt say the beyers are an illusion, I said the performance of the horse is an illusion, the beyers on the horse in my most recent example are legit, yet, yesterday's performance was not. I like Beyer and the figs, I talk about them here often.

[Robert Fischer]

hmmm....if the pattern holds up---that 9/25 blowout should have been followed up already by a "just for excercise" work. Fresno opens up soon, a MDSW there might be a spot, but no Kelbaker entered.

I'm not an expert on Peter Miller, but I expect a work going 4f or greater, and maybe an entry before Halloween.

Horse is on my watch list. Was not impressed with the debut effort, only the fact that she was bet and claimed. If she comes back at high enough odds, maybe I'll try to include her with some contenders.

[classhandicapper]

My point about this replay optical illusion is when a horse races well or races amazingly great and then the next time, you can't find them with a telescope, I would say what you saw might be an illusion. It could also work the other way where a horse finishes far back with no run and then all of a sudden he's a world beater the next time.



Horses are professional athletes. They have good days and bad days just like human athletes. They have aches and pains that can interfere with their performances. That doesn't even count the trip they might get today. You sound like you are expecting horses to run the same way every time.

Your goal should be to understand their trips and the probability they will run the same, better, or worse. The random stuff it outside our range.

[Stillriledup]

Trouble Kid vs Jake n Elwood.

The horse with the 'bad post' and 90, 93 and 94 beat the horse with the 'good post' and 97, 99, 100

Beat him as easy as one horse could beat another.

[cj]

Trouble Kid vs Jake n Elwood.

The horse with the 'bad post' and 90, 93 and 94 beat the horse with the 'good post' and 97, 99, 100

Beat him as easy as one horse could beat another.

Last three TimeformUS

Trouble Kid: 117, 117, 100?

Jake n Elwood: 119, 110, 111

I'd have given the edge to Trouble Kid and don't ever consider the rail a bad post for a very good breaker like Trouble Kid.

[Stillriledup]

Last three TimeformUS

Trouble Kid: 117, 117, 100?

Jake n Elwood: 119, 110, 111

I'd have given the edge to Trouble Kid and don't ever consider the rail a bad post for a very good breaker like Trouble Kid.

He got very fortunate that he didnt 'break running' he was able to get to the outside.

JAEs Parx number was better than TKs 3 Parx numbers according to Beyer and yourself, and yet, TK beat JAE like he was worth 5 cents, horses were not even in the same stratosphere.

And what was with the 113.4 final time. :D

[cj]

He got very fortunate that he didnt 'break running' he was able to get to the outside.

JAEs Parx number was better than TKs 3 Parx numbers according to Beyer and yourself, and yet, TK beat JAE like he was worth 5 cents, horses were not even in the same stratosphere.

And what was with the 113.4 final time. :D

His Parx number was done while winning by 16 and under wraps...I doubt the number meant much of anything. You seriously don't handicap the way you present things in this thread I'm sure.

I haven't seen the race, that time seems pretty crazy. I'll definitely look into that. Haven't paid attention to Parx today, but the 3rd did approach 1:16 for the same distance.

[Stillriledup]

His Parx number was done while winning by 16 and under wraps...I doubt the number meant much of anything. You seriously don't handicap the way you present things in this thread I'm sure.

I haven't seen the race, that time seems pretty crazy. I'll definitely look into that. Haven't paid attention to Parx today, but the 3rd did approach 1:16 for the same distance.

He had 2 shots after the 16 length win, so those races to me are more definitive of his ability. I'm not saying he had no shot, what I'm saying is that his form and numbers on paper were in no way FAR superior to the Jake n Elwood, who the public said (by their betting dollars) was the more likely winner.

Not only wasnt he the more likely winner, the 1 beat him like JAE didnt belong in the Race. The gist of the post is that there was nothing on video or paper that indicated JAE didnt belong on the same track, and yet, when they ran the race, that's exactly what happened.

[classhandicapper]

Jake and Elwood has become a very good sprinter since moving to Preciado, but Trouble Kid had just wired a loaded Grade 3 sprint race for 3yos in extremely fast fractions. Limousine Liberal was 2nd in that race (after just finishing 2nd in the extremely loaded Grade 1 Kings Bishop) and other solid Grade 3 winning sprinters like Grand Bili were behind them. That race was WAY tougher than a Grade 3. It didn't come up fast because it was so hot early.

I didn't look at the race beforehand, but if I had I almost certainly would have made Trouble Kid the favorite. At worst, they should have been really close co favorites. Figures are figures, but Trouble Kid ran huge last time if you looked at the race and how he was used early.

[overthehill]

you seem to be saying that perhaps the bettor knew that this horse would not run nearly as well as it last time. hence the higher odds. All i can say is that in general, horse that get more play than you would think run better than you would think and horse that get less play generally run worse. otoh most bettors know this and sometimes they are like lemmings and let a contender on paper go off at ridiculous odds. I think its hard to predict when this will happen though. On the face of it, it would seem to be a rare occurance where a horse goes off at 3 times their morning line odds yet we see it all the time. If I told you that a horse was beaten as the heavy favorite in a maiden special weight race last time out and was now dropping in for a tag would you expect its odds to be 30-1? Yet that's exactly what happened yesterday in New York!

[Stillriledup]

Disco Rose vs Welcoming in race 3 at Big A.

This is why you REQUIRE your 4/5 shots to have Lasix.

Also, wasnt Welcoming 1-2 at the gate load? I could have sworn I saw those odds.

Thanks guys.

[cj]

Disco Rose vs Welcoming in race 3 at Big A.

This is why you REQUIRE your 4/5 shots to have Lasix.

Also, wasnt Welcoming 1-2 at the gate load? I could have sworn I saw those odds.

Thanks guys.

Disco Rose had much lower TimeformUS Speed Figures than the favorite.

I doubt you can require drugging of a horse.

[Stillriledup]

Disco Rose had much lower TimeformUS Speed Figures than the favorite.

I doubt you can require drugging of a horse.

You can't, but you can as a better require it to make a wager, especially at short odds. You also can't require them to use Lasix but you can make a rule that says if you don't use lasix as a first time starter, there will be a required number of days you need to sit on the sidelines before you want to add Lasix.

[Tom]

You can't, but you can as a better require it to make a wager, especially at short odds.

You mean like Runhappy?

[Stillriledup]

You mean like Runhappy?

Yes, like Runhappy and like the chalk in the 3rd at A today.

[Stillriledup]

Did anyone have different PPs and or video tape than I did on the horse Securitiz in the 7th?

It didnt look like he was 30 lengths worse than the 2nd and 3rd place finishers but I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

[cj]

Did anyone have different PPs and or video tape than I did on the horse Securitiz in the 7th?

It didnt look like he was 30 lengths worse than the 2nd and 3rd place finishers but I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

But he wasn't bet like he was 30 lengths worse. Sometimes horses throw in stinkers.

[cj]

Got another heavy favorite with no L coming up in the 8th, currently 2-5.

[Stillriledup]

The 8 was 6-1 now he's 5/2?

[cj]

The 8 was 6-1 now he's 5/2?

7 took a lot of early money and all the "wiseguys" jumped on the 8, a horse that was 5-2 morning line. Probably a lot of "conditional" bets just got sunk.

[no breathalyzer]

The 8 was 6-1 now he's 5/2?

:lol: wise guy got it wrong there.. oooops

[Stillriledup]

:lol: wise guy got it wrong there.. oooops

No coincidence though that 'they' bet a live horse one that fired a big shot

[cj]

No coincidence though that 'they' bet a live horse one that fired a big shot

There are some big bettors that now hit the horses they know will be favorites early thus discouraging late money, especially from those waiting until the last second to bet. It isn't unusual to see these horses drift up late while the other logical horses get all the money. The 7 drifted back up to even money from 2-5 and won pretty easily.

[Stillriledup]

I guess the MVR ringer horse is a perfect example of PPs being an illusion :D

[Stillriledup]

Was there an illusion in Race 4 today at Aqu or are you guys going to come tell me how easy the winner was to have? :D

[cj]

She was 48 to 1, what was the illusion?

[Stillriledup]

She was 48 to 1, what was the illusion?

The illusion was the current PPs didnt indicate the horse could run like that.

[no breathalyzer]

i'm just gonna say that stunt didn't pass the eye test.. special feed tub this week i guess

[hracingplyr]

For ha ha look at the horses last 2 3 furlong works. compare them to her other 3 furlong works, pretty big improvement? :eek:

[EMD4ME]

Guys, I heard about this race while working today. Came home and looked at the PPs.

This horse was totally "haveable".

Had 1 race. Broke with the jock pulling backwards out of the gate in the horse's lone dirt start (More importantly the horse's 1st start overall). Was 4 back in a few strides. The horse accelerated and made up 3 lengths on the backstretch without being ASKED. Was hung 5 wide into the far turn and understandably tired.

Race was key and strong for the level as the winner earned a 73 Beyer and then won their next start (S N1X) with a 79 Beyer.

Women Win improved at the SPA later on in her year to win by double digits with an 83B.

Poor trainers have to eat. Horse was kind of tested for a burst and had it 1st time out.

Horse was entered on turf twice. Throw the Turf 2 races out.

When does Demola ever win? He is 3 /189 in the last 5 years.

3/73 on the inner track.............

When he wins, he NEEDS to bet and get paid.


The favorite was completely vulnerable. Maggie said the horse was super fit for her SPA race. Ran like it BUT exhibited some issue as she went back to the wrong lead at the 3/16 and blew that race.



How did she lose today? Sprinted clear, left the rail open and chased the aggressive winner from the late backstretch.

A completely FORECASTABLE situation today as the winner had broken slowly and it was KNOWN that this horse had the ability to burst early on in a race.............................................. ...............

Came back at Bel. Was loose as a goose, LEFT THE RAIL OPEN EARLY (AFTER SPRINTING CLEAR FROM THE GATE) and only because the rider of the winner (from PP 1) DECIDED to rate and not shoot up the rail early, was this fav allowed to lead loose till the 1/4 in her Belmont race.

The fav was completely outsprinted with no excuse in her last race, the Belmont start, by the 3 horses that were able to finish in that Belmont race.

Off paper, this fav understandably needed a layoff to correct any issues. Came back 3 months later and stunk it up as expected.

No offense....


Didn't take Columbo to sniff this one out.