7 Furlongs.. need help

[johnhenry81]

My 7f game has been dreadful. It is the only distance I have a glaring weakness. (my other distances have lesser weaknesses)

I believe now that the reason is that I use too high an impact value on wire to wire speed. I have stats showing dirt sprint w2w winners at 32%, but I now suspect the bastard distance of 7f is clearly lower.

Does anyone have this specific stat they could share?

thanks jh

[magwell]

Only stat I have is, some horses that's their best distance..........:cool:

[Sir Barton]

7F data since June by run style
Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-1065.90 4512.00 0.7638 286 2256 .1268 1.032 E
-416.10 2186.00 0.8097 150 1093 .1372 1.118 EP
-115.40 2314.00 0.9501 176 1157 .1521 1.239 P
-1176.20 6426.00 0.8170 402 3213 .1251 1.019 PS
-2367.30 8342.00 0.7162 538 4171 .1290 1.050 S
-905.00 3576.00 0.7469 185 1788 .1035 0.842 SS
-985.80 1922.00 0.4871 60 961 .0624 0.5086 U

[DeltaLover]

My 7f game has been dreadful. It is the only distance I have a glaring weakness. (my other distances have lesser weaknesses)

I believe now that the reason is that I use too high an impact value on wire to wire speed. I have stats showing dirt sprint w2w winners at 32%, but I now suspect the bastard distance of 7f is clearly lower.

Does anyone have this specific stat they could share?

thanks jh

How did you come up to your conclusion? What is your approach to detect that you have a glaring weakness on a specific distance while you are doing fine on the others?

What kind of statistic are you looking for? The specific statistic you are referring to, although it could be correct, it still is meaningless for any kind of a betting purpose

[johnhenry81]

SirBarton, Delta Lover, thanks for your replies.

DL in response to your questions:

I make my own impact values, and I keep records on each specific distance ie 5.5f, 6.0m 6.5 anf 7f. My data shows wire to wire winners for sprints combined are 32% on dirt, which is a significant part of my personal IV "recipe." After perfoming a sort by exact distance as mentioned above, the 5.5, 6.0 and 6.5 all had very similar results, and the 7f results were divergent.
My speculation is that for 7f, the w2w win% is well below the 32% figure, thus flawing my IV for that distance.

[DeltaLover]

SirBarton, Delta Lover, thanks for your replies.

DL in response to your questions:

I make my own impact values, and I keep records on each specific distance ie 5.5f, 6.0m 6.5 anf 7f. My data shows wire to wire winners for sprints combined are 32% on dirt, which is a significant part of my personal IV "recipe." After perfoming a sort by exact distance as mentioned above, the 5.5, 6.0 and 6.5 all had very similar results, and the 7f results were divergent.
My speculation is that for 7f, the w2w win% is well below the 32% figure, thus flawing my IV for that distance.

Does your IV "recipe" considers public odds or any other kind of a derivative?

[johnhenry81]

Yes I consider public odds

[Ocala Mike]

Wouldn't it be important (and you probably do this) to compare impact values at different tracks? For example, I always approached Belmont Park 7f races as more favorable to W2W than, say, Aqueduct 7f races or even 6f races at both tracks (Aqu Main, not inner). Anyone gave any stats on that?

[Flysofree]

Does this 32% figure include all dirt track conditions....Fast Muddy Sloppy, etc?

[mikesal57]

There are 2 distances that do not run like others , they have their own set of factors...5 & 7 furlongs
You are correct in assuming that speed is not a top factor for 7 furlongs.
I suggest passing them or find what factors do win those distances.

Mike

[johnhenry81]

yes I do have w2w for different tracks and wet v. dry. However as we all have found, the more you "parse" before you have a handle on inclusive large batch info., you chase your tail.

[johnhenry81]

Ocala Mike,

Well my BEL v. AQU info disagrees with your approach there. I show AQU inner dirt @ 37% w2w, which is about as high a w2w as Ive seen. Is your approach statistical or anecdotal?

jh

[Ocala Mike]

Anecdotal, johnhenry, but...

I SPECIFICALLY LEFT AQU INNER OUT OF THE COMPARISON.

In other words, I know intuitively your findings about 6f on AQU INNER (they don't run 7f there, of course). What I'd like to see are the figs for AQU MAIN, 6f and 7f and BEL, 6f and 7f. Without any statistics to go by, if my back was to the wall I'd rate the W2W strengths this way:

BEL 7f
AQU 6f
BEL 6f
AQU 7f

Curious to see how far off the mark I am.

[johnhenry81]

Gotcha Ocala Mike,

Yes I would like to see those Aq Bel 6f, 7f seperated also.

FYI I have BEL and AQU (main) w2w both @ 31% for all sprints..

[Ocala Mike]

Well, with the switch to the main track at Aqueduct tomorrow, this might be the right time to get wonky with those figures.

Also, I don't know if you filter or select for post positions, but you generally can expect the outside draws to fare pretty well down the 7f chute at the Big A - far better than they did at 6f on the inner. Again, just intuitively.

[RXB]

My 7f game has been dreadful. It is the only distance I have a glaring weakness. (my other distances have lesser weaknesses)

I believe now that the reason is that I use too high an impact value on wire to wire speed. I have stats showing dirt sprint w2w winners at 32%, but I now suspect the bastard distance of 7f is clearly lower.

Does anyone have this specific stat they could share?

thanks jh

Restricting to dirt and races around one turn (i.e., no bullrings), approximately 25% of the 2f leaders win at 7f.

[thespaah]

Looked at today's AQU charts. There were two 7f races and one 7.5 event. In al l three, the winner went gate to wire, leading at every call

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Don't bet on 7F races?

Is that possibly an option?

It isn't like we get a plethora of 7F races day in and day out shoved down our throat, so when they do show up, you don't have to wager.

[Secondbest]

At 7f horses cutting back seem to have edge over stretchouts more so at belmont

[seattlemorn]

I have had success at 7f betting horses consistently press strong paces in one turn races. It seems to me that 7f is a distance that requires you not really take a break. I am not including the tracks that card this at 2 turns, but I have been wildly successful at major tracks playing this angle.

[JohnGalt1]

Your question reminded me of a bit of advice I read in William L. Scott's "Total Victory at the Track."

He wrote that he had success when adding the second and final call positions, and if the two numbers were about equal, that horse ran better in 7 furlong races.

Saturday April 18 Keeneland's 2nd race is a 7f 10k claiming race. I added up the 2nd and final call positions. Lengths behind are irrelevant for this. Also I don't use turf races or races where the horse finished 40+lengths behind since it was basically eased. Routes and sprints are treated the same for this since 7f races are a hybrid.

E
2) Choctaw 23/40--7 races
4) Defer 17/43--10 races
9) Bad 14/36--8 races

EP
6) Rous 36/26--10 races
7) Combat 22/17 8 races

P
1) Sequoia 34/24 10 races
3) Bowdrie 50/39 10 races
8) Rocky 55/39 10 races

S
5) Strong 42/40 9 races

This is obviously NOT a stand alone factor. Also if a track favors early or late runners that should be taken into consideration. I do not know how Keeneland's dirt track favors a specific running style.

You can see by the numbers how the E horses have lower 2nd call numbers than final call numbers, and the closers have lower second call numbers, except for the 5.

The 7 has lower numbers early and late, which is a plus, the 3 and 8 have higher numbers at both calls, so unless these horses have a class or speed advantage may be up against it.

I will be passing this race since none of the horses have a good reason to play them using all the factors I use in handicapping.

Try this on other 7f races, and let me know if it's a legitimate factor in these races.