WHY???

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Why is it when you perform the hard work analysis/research and wait for the next spot for said horse the horse ( at least for me) either (A) does not run well or (B) runs well and gets beat at the wire after a myriad of trouble during the running of the race. ha ha

This post is not a complaint it is simply stating a fact that when I wait for the right opportunity with a horse it is rarely successful AND when I have a chance wager ( a wager that pops out at me during the course of a racing day) the horse is very successful...I think I answered my own question. LOL LOL

[Overlay]

Why is it when you perform the hard work analysis/research and wait for the next spot for said horse the horse ( at least for me) either (A) does not run well or (B) runs well and gets beat at the wire after a myriad of trouble during the running of the race. ha ha

This post is not a complaint it is simply stating a fact that when I wait for the right opportunity with a horse it is rarely successful AND when I have a chance wager ( a wager that pops out at me during the course of a racing day) the horse is very successful...I think I answered my own question. LOL LOL
It sounds as if you're talking about analyzing the horse's latest performances to determine in advance what the right "spot" for the horse's next start would be, and then waiting for a race where a horse that you have studied is appropriately placed.

I don't know if I'm properly interpreting your post, but, to me, that type of analysis is complicated by the fact that, even if the horse itself is appropriately spotted in a future race, you have no idea until the future race's past performances are published about the caliber of competition that the horse will be facing in that race (aside from all the potential random or unpredictable events that might occur during the running of the race), which can nullify even the most skilled handicapper's predictive powers.

Even though it takes longer, I don't form any advance opinions about a horse's likelihood of winning a race (regardless of any belief I may have about the horse being "due" based on its recent performances, or the horse's form being clouded in some way) until I've not only seen the past performances for all the horses running in the horse's next race, but also been able to make an assessment as to whether the public is making the horse an overlay in that race in comparison to my view of the horse's winning chances.

[Dave Schwartz]

WHY???
Why is it when you perform the hard work analysis/research and wait for the next spot for said horse the horse ( at least for me) either (A) does not run well or (B) runs well and gets beat at the wire after a myriad of trouble during the running of the race. ha ha

This post is not a complaint it is simply stating a fact that when I wait for the right opportunity with a horse it is rarely successful AND when I have a chance wager ( a wager that pops out at me during the course of a racing day) the horse is very successful...I think I answered my own question. LOL LOL


Welcome to the club, my friend.

Truthfully, I LOVE this question, especially if you twist it a little, this way and that.

Again and again I hear people say similar things, like:

1) Why is it that I handicap a race, get it down to 3 or 4 contenders and seem to consistently wind up betting the wrong horse (or 2)?

2) Why is it that the obviously best horse just doesn't come run a good race or hardly comes out of the gate?

Imagine a dozen variations on this.

The answer, IMHO, is that the playing field is not level. That is, the participants in the game we are playing are not all playing the same game. (By "participants" I mean trainers, jockeys, horses, bettors.) The agendas are often different.

In other sports - like MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL - the participants are ALWAYS trying to win. Not so in horse racing. Amazingly, we accept this!


Dave

[ReplayRandall]

Great question with two perfect answers, there's nothing to add....end of thread... ;)

[whodoyoulike]

Welcome to the club, my friend.

Truthfully, I LOVE this question, especially if you twist it a little, this way and that.

Again and again I hear people say similar things, like:

1) Why is it that I handicap a race, get it down to 3 or 4 contenders and seem to consistently wind up betting the wrong horse (or 2)?

2) Why is it that the obviously best horse just doesn't come run a good race or hardly comes out of the gate?

Imagine a dozen variations on this.

The answer, IMHO, is that the playing field is not level. That is, the participants in the game we are playing are not all playing the same game. (By "participants" I mean trainers, jockeys, horses, bettors.) The agendas are often different.

In other sports - like MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL - the participants are ALWAYS trying to win. Not so in horse racing. Amazingly, we accept this!


Dave

I've been wondering about question (A) in the OP for quite a while now and would really like to know.

Regarding your post's bold portion, I've always felt unless something has occurred from the prior pp's, the horses would always be trying to win. I don't think the connections would purposely hold back a horse because in 4 weeks time or so something bad could really happen. I know there are probably rare exceptions.

[Overlay]

I've been wondering about question (A) in the OP for quite a while now and would really like to know.

Regarding your post's bold portion, I've always felt unless something has occurred from the prior pp's, the horses would always be trying to win. I don't think the connections would purposely hold back a horse because in 4 weeks time or so something bad could really happen. I know there are probably rare exceptions.
There used to be posters on the board (although I don't recall having seen any new posts by them in quite some time) who advocated analysis of toteboard betting patterns to determine whether a given horse (even if it appeared fit and ready to win today's race based on its published form) would be "trying" to win, with the horse's connections supposedly either attempting to execute a betting coup by driving up the odds on the other horses in the race (which they would be betting on), and then purposely not making an effort to win with their own horse; or else consciously trying to darken the horse's form in order to get higher odds on it in a future race. I always viewed their claims with skepticism, in part for the reason you stated.

(That's not to say that there aren't races where a horse may be entered primarily for conditioning purposes in anticipation of a future race, but the connections still wouldn't deliberately be trying to make the horse lose -- or at least not to the extent that it could be documented or proven.)

[whodoyoulike]

... (That's not to say that there aren't races where a horse may be entered primarily for conditioning purposes in anticipation of a future race, but the connections still wouldn't deliberately be trying to make the horse lose -- or at least not to the extent that it could be documented or proven.)

I understand what you're saying but, it also changes the OP. These races do occur just uncertain how frequently but these horses are not trying to win IMO unless it falls in their lap. Part of handicapping is to determine if the horse fits the distance, conditions etc. The OP was wondering as I, why a horse doesn't perform as recent pp's indicate. I understand (B) because you find contenders and make a decision. The horse performs as expected but, another beats him. It happens a lot.

[Dave Schwartz]

Regarding your post's bold portion, I've always felt unless something has occurred from the prior pp's, the horses would always be trying to win. I don't think the connections would purposely hold back a horse because in 4 weeks time or so something bad could really happen. I know there are probably rare exceptions.

Back in the 1980s I used to read condition books. Back then there were like 75% of the races with also eligibles. There was a footnote in the condition book that said:

"If there are also eligibles in the race, trainers will be asked if they are 'trying' today."

I believe that was a precise word-for-word quote.

[cbp]

Why is it when you perform the hard work analysis/research and wait for the next spot for said horse the horse ( at least for me) either (A) does not run well or (B) runs well and gets beat at the wire after a myriad of trouble during the running of the race. ha ha

This post is not a complaint it is simply stating a fact that when I wait for the right opportunity with a horse it is rarely successful AND when I have a chance wager ( a wager that pops out at me during the course of a racing day) the horse is very successful...I think I answered my own question. LOL LOL

The best horse doesn't always win the race. In fact, the best horse probably loses significantly more times than it wins. If you do hard work and your horses doesn't get a call, then you're doing something wrong. If you lose a photo or get the wrong trip, you're on the right track. This should give you the confidence to bet out on the next one and recoup your loses and then some.

[thaskalos]

The best horse doesn't always win the race. In fact, the best horse probably loses significantly more times than it wins. If you do hard work and your horses doesn't get a call, then you're doing something wrong. If you lose a photo or get the wrong trip, you're on the right track. This should give you the confidence to bet out on the next one and recoup your loses and then some.

And if the "next one" that you bet with "confidence" loses too...what do you do then? Bet on the next one with HYPER-CONFIDENCE?

[EMD4ME]

And if the "next one" that you bet with "confidence" loses too...what do you do then? Bet on the next one with HYPER-CONFIDENCE?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'll say this in all seriousness. I've hit 5/6 and lost due to a bad ride many times. Almost every time the 1 loser I had, won next out. The problem is everyone in the world saw the trouble and the horse goes off a short price.

Hard to have hyper-confidence when the horse is 4/5 and you know you might get 80% winnings on your bet, while full while knowing if the jock didn't screw up last time, you should be getting $50,000 on a $500 wager.

[EMD4ME]

Why is it when you perform the hard work analysis/research and wait for the next spot for said horse the horse ( at least for me) either (A) does not run well or (B) runs well and gets beat at the wire after a myriad of trouble during the running of the race. ha ha

This post is not a complaint it is simply stating a fact that when I wait for the right opportunity with a horse it is rarely successful AND when I have a chance wager ( a wager that pops out at me during the course of a racing day) the horse is very successful...I think I answered my own question. LOL LOL

Hunter O'Riley was everyone's playback when he rallied like an airplane in a Turf Route at the SPA this year as a FTS.

Problem was his trainer suddenly became ice cold shortly therafter.

The horse lost next out (he did win in his 3rd start 2 days ago at 6/5).

My point is, there are so many variables. Just because we come up with a horse that we can more than likely bet next out, there are so many variables in that next entry. Is the trainer still hot? Is the turf firm? Who are the competitors? Is the jock drunk? etc. etc.

Not only must we have a good playback, the situation needs to be a good playback.

Hope that makes sense.

[whodoyoulike]

Back in the 1980s I used to read condition books. Back then there were like 75% of the races with also eligibles. There was a footnote in the condition book that said:

"If there are also eligibles in the race, trainers will be asked if they are 'trying' today."

I believe that was a precise word-for-word quote.

I know there are fillers in races but not all. It always should be part of the handicapping process to figure out which horses fit, as I responded earlier to Overlay.