The Art nd Science of Profiling

[Capper Al]

Today's race 6f Dirt Dec 1

Date dist/Cond (1Cal lx lgts) (2Call x Lgts) (Str x lgts) (Fin x Lgts) Spd Field

Horse A
10Nov .8.5f/ft 2x21/2 3x2 4x4.25 4x5.. 90 8
20Oct 8.2f/ft 3x1.... 2x1. 2x.5... 3x1... 92 9
1Oct ...6f/ft ...4x3... 4x2. 3x2..... 4x2.5 86 7
20Sep. 6f/ft ...4x3 ...3x3. 4x2 .... 2x2.. 85 8
29Aug..8f/ft .. 3x1 ...2x1 . 2xnk . 1xnk. 87 9

Horse B
11Nov 6f/ft ....1x1... 3x2.. 4x3.... 5x4...84 8
19Oct 6.5f/ft ..4x3... 3x2.. 4x4 ... 6x5...82 7
29Sep 8.5f/ft. 3x3.... 3x2..4x4 .....6x5..81 6
8Sep 6f/ft.......1x2.... 2x.5.1xnk... 1xnk 89 7
10Aug 6f/ft.... 1x1.....2x2..4x2.5.. 5x4.. 83 7

Who do you like and why?

[thaskalos]

No fractional times?

Why not use a REAL upcoming sprint race as an example?

[Capper Al]

No fractional times?

Why not use a REAL upcoming sprint race as an example?

I'll keep this in mind this weekend. If I find something(or if anyone else does), I'll post it here.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Splits?
Current Class of race?
Previous Class of races ran?
Works?
Trainer?
Jockey?
Track?
Age?
Sex?
Breeding?

Just going by the information given, I'm likely more interested in Horse B since he/she seems to be more of a sprinter as to where Horse A looks to be more a miler to 9 panel horse.

B looks to be a need the lead type, so if there is other speed (or class) in the race he could be a tough bet.

[raybo]

Just off the data you posted (not enough to make an informed decision), I'll take horse B, looks like its on the improve and still has room to move up. Horse A appears to be declining and 6f is not its best distance, its 6f figs are well in reach of horse B.

[chaz63]

Horse A would pry be favored since last couple speed figs get overbet/overused in handicapping. As already said....distance angle goes to the B. I would like to see trainer angle stats on the A horse of 'route to sprint'. Also some decline in A horse after just a 10-11 day break between 2nd and 3rd races. Instead of the 20 or more between starts for the others for the A and all of the B's.

[Robert Goren]

Horse A would likely be favored by the public. There are a ton of unanswered questions which could change my mind, but as a rule, I would not like either of them because they both have had at least 5 races without a break. To get a 6th here is asking a lot of today's race horses. Horse A's last race shows a horse desperate in need of a break. Contrary to popular belief. over raced horses run better in middle distance races than in sprints. I think he would run a clinker of the first magnitude today. Horse B could still win the race if he catches a bias and race with slower front runners and some class relief , but lacking that, he'd get the heave ho too.

[Capper Al]

Just off the data you posted (not enough to make an informed decision), I'll take horse B, looks like its on the improve and still has room to move up. Horse A appears to be declining and 6f is not its best distance, its 6f figs are well in reach of horse B.

Horse B is the way I look at it also. That's all I was going on with that example. Horse A speed figs were a red heroin. I realize that there's much more info available, but it's too much to type.

[Capper Al]

Horse A would likely be favored by the public. There are a ton of unanswered questions which could change my mind, but as a rule, I would not like either of them because they both have had at least 5 races without a break. To get a 6th here is asking a lot of today's race horses. Horse A's last race shows a horse desperate in need of a break. Contrary to popular belief. over raced horses run better in middle distance races than in sprints. I think he would run a clinker of the first magnitude today. Horse B could still win the race if he catches a bias and race with slower front runners and some class relief , but lacking that, he'd get the heave ho too.

Agree.

[jasperson]

Today's race 6f Dirt Dec 1

Date dist/Cond (1Cal lx lgts) (2Call x Lgts) (Str x lgts) (Fin x Lgts) Spd Field

Horse A
10Nov .8.5f/ft 2x21/2 3x2 4x4.25 4x5.. 90 8
20Oct 8.2f/ft 3x1.... 2x1. 2x.5... 3x1... 92 9
1Oct ...6f/ft ...4x3... 4x2. 3x2..... 4x2.5 86 7
20Sep. 6f/ft ...4x3 ...3x3. 4x2 .... 2x2.. 85 8
29Aug..8f/ft .. 3x1 ...2x1 . 2xnk . 1xnk. 87 9

Horse B
11Nov 6f/ft ....1x1... 3x2.. 4x3.... 5x4...84 8
19Oct 6.5f/ft ..4x3... 3x2.. 4x4 ... 6x5...82 7
29Sep 8.5f/ft. 3x3.... 3x2..4x4 .....6x5..81 6
8Sep 6f/ft.......1x2.... 2x.5.1xnk... 1xnk 89 7
10Aug 6f/ft.... 1x1.....2x2..4x2.5.. 5x4.. 83 7

Who do you like and why?
Using an old method of rating pace it looks like horse A has as much early speed as B and should like the shorter distance.
Using final speed rating and subtracting 2 points for each beaten length at 1m and 2.8 at 6f we get the following.
A 1c 85 2c 86 3c 81 4c 80
B 1c 85 2c 79 3c 72 4c 70

Horse B is slowing down faster than A. Since horse A has as much early pace as B he should be in contention early with more late pace.

[Capper Al]

Jack,

Good counter argument. This is why we need real examples.

I'm not able to address this topic at the moment. If someone would find a race to discuss, i'd appreciate it. Else, we'll have to wait until I get there in my coding which might be awhile.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Horse B is the way I look at it also. That's all I was going on with that example. Horse A speed figs were a red heroin. I realize that there's much more info available, but it's too much to type.

If Horse A is on Red Heroin, then I want no part of him. :)

[Capper Al]

Spell check doesn't catch everything. LOL, I must have been on it at the time.

[ebcorde]

Horse B does a well or better at 6f.

However mr. capper what's the money won , total on dirt, and at the distance?

that info alone reliably removes about half the field do your numbers.

[raybo]

Using an old method of rating pace it looks like horse A has as much early speed as B and should like the shorter distance.
Using final speed rating and subtracting 2 points for each beaten length at 1m and 2.8 at 6f we get the following.
A 1c 85 2c 86 3c 81 4c 80
B 1c 85 2c 79 3c 72 4c 70

Horse B is slowing down faster than A. Since horse A has as much early pace as B he should be in contention early with more late pace.

At face value, and depending on which paceline(s) you're using for both horses, you might be correct. But, analysis of pacelines should be highly correlated with improvement or decline in form, differences in distance/surface, etc.. Horse B ran an 89 figure 4 races back, at today's distance, then declined to 81 at 8.5f, then moved up to 82 at 6.5f and up to 84 at 6f again. His high is 89, at the distance, and he has improved in his last 3 races to 84 at today's distance. Theoretically he has at least 5 points left in expected improvement to get back to his previous high at 6f. Horse A has only run 85 and 86 at 6f, in approximately the same period of time as horse B.

With the data that is available, it appears that horse B would project to 89, and horse A will only project to mid 80s, at best, and he may not even reach that, as he appears to be in form decline in his last 2 races which appear to be better distances for him than today's distance.

So, from the available data, you have a sprint horse, in horse B, that is improving and has a better 6f figure to move up to, and a route horse that is declining in form and now switching to a distance that is not his best distance. Horse A looks better on general figures and will probably offer lower odds at a non-prime distance for him, and apparently declining in form, while horse B should offer higher odds, due to his generally lower figures, but is apparently improving in form and is still running at his prime distance. The betting decision, between these two horses, with the available data, is a no-brainer, IMO. Horse B is probably well meant, while horse A may be "up against it".

[Capper Al]

Well put Raybo. You hit all the details in this projection. I didn't realize when writing the OP how necessary a real example is for discussion.

[raybo]

Well put Raybo. You hit all the details in this projection. I didn't realize when writing the OP how necessary a real example is for discussion.

This is a prime example that information overload may at times not be overload, but rather, required information for making a more informed decision. You need information that is "relevant" to the current scenario. When you are talking about things like improvement or decline in form, or distance capability, class capability, pace capability, etc., while recent performances are very important, less recent performances can often shed more light on those capabilities, especially form level and distance capability, as form cycles and distance capability often become more apparent over a longer period of time. In this particular case, both horses had limited paceline data over the same approximate period of time. That is more often not the case. So, more data is a benefit to our analysis.

[jasperson]

[QUOTE=raybo]At face value, and depending on which paceline(s) you're using for both horses, you might be correct. But, analysis of pacelines should be highly correlated with improvement or decline in form, differences in distance/surface, etc.. Horse B ran an 89 figure 4 races back, at today's distance, then declined to 81 at 8.5f, then moved up to 82 at 6.5f and up to 84 at 6f again. His high is 89, at the distance, and he has improved in his last 3 races to 84 at today's distance. Theoretically he has at least 5 points left in expected improvement to get back to his previous high at 6f. Horse A has only run 85 and 86 at 6f, in approximately the same period of time as horse B.

With the data that is available, it appears that horse B would project to 89, and horse A will only project to mid 80s, at best, and he may not even reach that, as he appears to be in form decline in his last 2 races which appear to be better distances for him than today's distance.
I don't remember where I read this,but I subscribe to it "leave out the last race at your own risk".

[jasperson]

[QUOTE=raybo]At face value, and depending on which paceline(s) you're using for both horses, you might be correct. But, analysis of pacelines should be highly correlated with improvement or decline in form, differences in distance/surface, etc.. Horse B ran an 89 figure 4 races back, at today's distance, then declined to 81 at 8.5f, then moved up to 82 at 6.5f and up to 84 at 6f again. His high is 89, at the distance, and he has improved in his last 3 races to 84 at today's distance. Theoretically he has at least 5 points left in expected improvement to get back to his previous high at 6f. Horse A has only run 85 and 86 at 6f, in approximately the same period of time as horse B.

With the data that is available, it appears that horse B would project to 89, and horse A will only project to mid 80s, at best, and he may not even reach that, as he appears to be in form decline in his last 2 races which appear to be better distances for him than today's distance.

Also B's 89 in figure 4 might be a special case he looks more like an 84 horse to me. I can't count A's last race a declining form 1/5 of second off his last to me is acceptable. Horse is able to compete in a 6F race. With 3 improving races Horse B might be ready for bounce.:lol:

[raybo]

[QUOTE=raybo]At face value, and depending on which paceline(s) you're using for both horses, you might be correct. But, analysis of pacelines should be highly correlated with improvement or decline in form, differences in distance/surface, etc.. Horse B ran an 89 figure 4 races back, at today's distance, then declined to 81 at 8.5f, then moved up to 82 at 6.5f and up to 84 at 6f again. His high is 89, at the distance, and he has improved in his last 3 races to 84 at today's distance. Theoretically he has at least 5 points left in expected improvement to get back to his previous high at 6f. Horse A has only run 85 and 86 at 6f, in approximately the same period of time as horse B.

With the data that is available, it appears that horse B would project to 89, and horse A will only project to mid 80s, at best, and he may not even reach that, as he appears to be in form decline in his last 2 races which appear to be better distances for him than today's distance.
I don't remember where I read this,but I subscribe to it "leave out the last race at your own risk".

I'm not "leaving out the last race", it's part of my form analysis and distance capability analysis. I just am not using his last race speed figure, because it was at a different distance and appears to be an indication of a decline in form, and with the time since that race taken into account, further decline is expected, and switching back to a distance that did not produce his better figures, the decline will be even more apparent in today's race.

[raybo]

[QUOTE=raybo]At face value, and depending on which paceline(s) you're using for both horses, you might be correct. But, analysis of pacelines should be highly correlated with improvement or decline in form, differences in distance/surface, etc.. Horse B ran an 89 figure 4 races back, at today's distance, then declined to 81 at 8.5f, then moved up to 82 at 6.5f and up to 84 at 6f again. His high is 89, at the distance, and he has improved in his last 3 races to 84 at today's distance. Theoretically he has at least 5 points left in expected improvement to get back to his previous high at 6f. Horse A has only run 85 and 86 at 6f, in approximately the same period of time as horse B.

With the data that is available, it appears that horse B would project to 89, and horse A will only project to mid 80s, at best, and he may not even reach that, as he appears to be in form decline in his last 2 races which appear to be better distances for him than today's distance.

Also B's 89 in figure 4 might be a special case he looks more like an 84 horse to me. I can't count A's last race a declining form 1/5 of second off his last to me is acceptable. Horse is able to compete in a 6F race. With 3 improving races Horse B might be ready for bounce.:lol:

Raw times mean very little to me, adjusted times, or good figures, are more accurate, as they theoretically account for differences in distance and track condition. If you're going to go by raw times then you're in trouble right from the start, IMO. If you're going to use figures, then his last race showed a decline in performance, and with the time since that race taken into account, further decline is more likely than the expectation of either producing a similar figure or an improving figure, especially at a distance that produced his lowest figures.

This difference in opinion, between mine and yours, is the difference between betting value and not, IMO.

[thaskalos]

I don't remember where I read this,but I subscribe to it "leave out the last race at your own risk".

Be careful. Every single author who had advocated isolating on the horse's last race, is now officially out of the game.

[jasperson]

Be careful. Every single author who had advocated isolating on the horse's last race, is now officially out of the game.
I have to have a valid reason not to use the horse's last race. It was at the wrong distance,verifiable trouble,big weight shift and other reasons If I think the last race represents the horse's ability an form at this distance then I have to use it.

[thaskalos]

I have to have a valid reason not to use the horse's last race. It was at the wrong distance,verifiable trouble,big weight shift and other reasons If I think the last race represents the horse's ability an form at this distance then I have to use it.
If you looked at the past performances of 100 winning horses...how many of them do you suppose would have the sharpest-looking last race? Even when the class and the distance are suitable...the last race is NOT the horse's most dependable indication of its ability...IMO. This would be a much less complicated game if it were...

[raybo]

IMO, a horse's last race is not even representative of its current form, unless that race was at the same track, same surface and condition, same distance (or similar),same class, same pace scenario, similar field dynamics, etc., and the horse did not take a layoff/abnormal break length after that race. And, even then, you can't be sure if the horse will improve off that race or decline or remain in the same form status, for any number of reasons beyond our control or predictive ability.

Picking a single paceline is fraught with uncertainty. IMO, a better method is to have the ability to pick multiple pacelines and calculate an average of all of them. But, current form estimation should be done first, otherwise you have no idea which pacelines more accurately represent the horse's probable potential performance capability today. Regardless of which paceline(s) you choose, you should have the ability to adjust the resulting data upward or downward, to reflect, as closely as possible, your subjective opinion of the horse's current capability. This is all based on individual race thinking and focus, rather than long term thinking and focus, of course. Focusing on the long term causes things to even out more as time goes by, so you're not quite as vulnerable to individual race variance.

As Gus stated, if a single paceline, especially the most recent paceline, could be counted on, there would be many more players, hitting many more winners, out there than there are. Every race is an individual event, never to be repeated, exactly, again. If it was as easy as comparing last race data with the rest of the field, everyone would be doing much better than they are, hit percentage wise anyway, but of course, the odds would be so low you couldn't make a profit betting on the, apparent, best horse, because too many players would be betting that same horse. Choosing a single paceline spits right in the face of racing variance, which we all know will bury you, if you don't account for it somehow, long term.

[Capper Al]

I'm playing Haw this weekend. Not seeing any fields worthy of discussion here. When I get my profile module finished(not soon), this will be a ripe discussion.

[jasperson]

IMO, a horse's last race is not even representative of its current form, unless that race was at the same track, same surface and condition, same distance (or similar),same class, same pace scenario, similar field dynamics, etc., and the horse did not take a layoff/abnormal break length after that race..
Bingo

[ultracapper]

You can't isolate on the last race, but you shouldn't just leave it out either. That argument isn't being made is it? To just ignore the last race as if it were never there. I wouldn't think you could do that anymore than ignoring everything but the last race, and be successful.

[thaskalos]

You can't isolate on the last race, but you shouldn't just leave it out either. That argument isn't being made is it? To just ignore the last race as if it were never there. I wouldn't think you could do that anymore than ignoring everything but the last race, and be successful.
There is a popular belief being shared by players and renowned handicapping authors alike, that the most reliable indicator of the horse's form and ability is the horse's last race...and that this last race should always be selected as the "paceline" unless there is a valid reason to excuse this last race and venture further back into the horse's past performances. There are "serious" handicappers out there who refuse to go beyond the horse's last race when assessing its chances of winning today...unless this last race was at the wrong distance, surface, class...or it shows some trouble that the horse got into which impeded his progress. If the last race was at the same class, surface and distance as today's race...and the horse had a clean trip during the running...then these handicappers act as if the other 9 past performance lines in the horse's record don't even exist.

It may be only me...but I notice countless horses out there who win races off of lackluster last starts...and these undistinguished last efforts are often without the slightest excuse. Expecting our horses to duplicate their last "representative" race is far from the soundest handicapping method...IMO.

[Capper Al]

You can't isolate on the last race, but you shouldn't just leave it out either. That argument isn't being made is it? To just ignore the last race as if it were never there. I wouldn't think you could do that anymore than ignoring everything but the last race, and be successful.

Back in the day when I played harness, I somehow assigned a value to race order. I don't remember how I derived this valve or even how to use it now. But in order of last race backwards (like how the PPs are listed) I got
7-5-4-3. In other words, the last race has more than double ( 7 vs 3) effective on the outcome of a race than the fourth race back. This deserves revisiting.